Freaky Higgs Physics Suggests The Universe Shouldn't Exist

a reply to: rockn82

It was a post like this that made a friends of ours realize that his atheism was at best just misguided and rank hypocrisy at worse.



There was just too much that was unknown for him to say there was no God. He just couldn't know. So, he's now agnostic, and I don't foresee him ever changing from that view unless he has some kind of "come to Jesus" experience.

"Hey let's build a bigger particle accelerator to find tinier particles".. Science in this manner is one-dimensional.
You will never find the smallest particle nor will you ever find the largest.

Their time would be much better spent designing ways to benefit from the discovery of it and not whether or not it's discovery disproves some silly creationist theory..

originally posted by: BASEDSATAN
"Hey let's build a bigger particle accelerator to find tinier particles".. Science in this manner is one-dimensional.
You will never find the smallest particle nor will you ever find the largest.

Their time would be much better spent designing ways to benefit from the discovery of it and not whether or not it's discovery disproves some silly creationist theory..

For fundamental research, we may have to build the right tools to test theories and find new particles.

But, the existing Large Hadron Collider is undergoing an upgrade, which will almost double its capability:

in early 2015, the LHC will have almost twice as much collision power, which will hopefully allow it to further investigate the Higgs boson, and probe the theory of supersymmetry.

Link

a reply to: ionwind

So some scientist have come to the conclusion that the Universe shouldn't exist, so shouldn't at least a few of them come to the conclusion that it actually doesn't exist, at least in the material sense.

Under the present laws of Relativity , where time is a dimension of space, and speed restricted to the speed of light. At the speed of light then time stops, this is an excellent reasonable law, its strange how excellent and reasonable this is .Also excellent and reasonable that time is relative to the observer. Or put another way, time is relative to the observers consciousness. So consciousness is the essential ingredient for the Universe to make sense.

If the Universe came into existence after the big bang, then it would mean that all the matter in the Universe, was ejected from an infinitely small point, at the speed of light? which would mean that for this model, then time has stopped, if time has in fact stopped, then as a dimension, ceasing to exist it renders the other dimensions Time Distance and Speed equation debunked as well , IE.what we call the Universe is an illusion. It would have to be, because its to dangerous.

We're in a sophisticated computer simulation/program. Anything is possible.

originally posted by: DaRAGE
We're in a sophisticated computer simulation/program. Anything is possible.

Yes and when the rules of the program are understood ,and you start to use the cheat codes, the game changes lol.

originally posted by: Nyiah
My space nut kiddo thinks the universe is like a recipe for a food. We know it's here, we're looking at it, touching things in it. We just can't tell what all the ingredients are yet, and full cooking instructions. That's pretty simplistic, and likely not far off, and from a 5 year old.

Looking at it from my kid's POV, it makes sense. We are like a person with next to no cooking skills wandering through a kitchen with very limited understanding of how the dishes are made. But they're right there, we can observe them. That's the universe for us, a delectably complex feast on a plate. Wouldn't it be nice to know what's in it, eh? Got to make the tools for that, test different things, we might be able to come up with a written approximate or even exact formula for that meal eventually.

But to come in & say "Emeril made it, Emeril is the answer!" is buffoonery. Emeril could be long dead & gone and will be of no use at that point. Explore, learn, and understand for ourselves, not someone not even present. (take that crap to the religion forum anyway, that's what it's there for)

good one, we have the stuff to find out what's in the cake and we can assume emeril made the cake. who else could make such a beautiful cajun cake? the Big BAM theory. lol!

but we don't know why, do we. unless emeril tells us why, we don't know.

now substitute cake and emeril for universe and God.
we don't know.
it's all very scientific.

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
Ever stop to consider that it's complicated physical principals like this that account for simple minded people's belief in god? If I could take a lighter back in time 200 years people would think I was godlike.
Anything less people know the physical principals of gas and sparks to make fire.
Go back 200 years and tell people you can talk to someone even just one mile away and they will think you're insane. Tell them you can go completely around the planet in about 16 hours and they will lock you up.
The more we advance in our understanding the less significant the concept of a supreme being becomes. e reply to: Chrisfishenstein

oy!! where to begin!

first of all, you would have been burned at the stake with your own lighter.

you probably would be expected to show them you can go around the world in 16 hrs before they burn you at the stake.

why didn't you just bring someone back to your own time and tell them God doesn't exist.

when you can be everywhere at once, i'd be impressed. not in awe but impressed.
and i am one of the "simple minded"

a reply to: ionwind


So many scientist are flat out stupid and are not willing to look outside the box. They take what they read in a book as fact without questioning it. Just like the big bang they take that as fact when in reality is is not a fact. Personally I think the big bang is false.

originally posted by: Ubei2
There are plenty of theories out there regarding the make up of the universe, but what baffles me is the presumption that there is a fundamental, all-explaining particle upon which existence and matter would make sense.

Who's to say that there are not infinitesimaly smaller and smaller "god particles," a neverending array of such that goes smaller and bigger than our physical brain may perceive and that our science may ever even begin to postulate.

good one!

you want the scientific answer?

we don't know.

originally posted by: SubTruth
a reply to: ionwind


So many scientist are flat out stupid and are not willing to look outside the box. They take what they read in a book as fact without questioning it.

This is just plain nonsense. If this were the case we still would believe the earth is flat and everything is made from the elements air, fire, water, earth. String theory, quantum theory, black holes etc. obviously all prove that science is not stagnating. If no one ever thought out of the box we would hardly have discovered that, say, black holes exist. Science is ALL ABOUT thinking out of the box, most inventions etc. come because someone started to think out the box.

I also don't "believe" in the BB, but as long as there is no better model..well...we have to assume at least THIS universe at some point started like that.

IRONICALLY....it is actually "logical" to assume the universe started at some point and it may not last indefinitely. It would be far more bizarre if we'd find the universe in its size, expansion etc. would not change and just be like it is..."forever". So..yes..universes start at some point and at some point they vanish again, this thought is NOT that far out there as it seems.

a reply to: ionwind

After reading David Bohm's book wholeness and the implicate order, it would seem that these hidden states are either only observed when we create better instruments and experiments , but we would only see them in higher dimensions
and these super particles are not observed in the 3rd dimension
so time will only tell

really mind blowing stuff , that the universe exists despite the evidence showing that it shouldn't

the universe is Eternal.

All physical mass and energy present in the physical world relies on set charges. These charges can be read in multipul ways.
We can read the frequency of mass and energy, Sometimes energy takes different froms opposed from just light.

Light is the brightest and most flashy, we calculate light based on Hrz frequency. How *bright* the lumins are.

Sound is energy, and can effect physical mass in different ways opposed to the other forms of energy.

But in our solar system/galaxy is exerting energy We recieve this energy highest from the center of our galaxy and faintest staring into deep space.

There are set limits.



These limits are defined by vortex theology. The faster you ride on the ocean, in in the air, or in space. The more drag you carry around you as a vortex, The faster you go the stronger it gets, as you hit particles they glide behind you creating drag. The faster you go, the more particles collide as more surface area is being drawn in. Eventually the force of the push will be held back by the vortex gaining to much resistance to velocity.

On planets where Gas is present, It is frequently difficult to achieve higher speeds where as in space. Physical gas molecules are bumping into you.

Likewise, one cannot acheive infinite density because Huge outputs of energy are needed.


Flaws and contradictions: 1. There must be more energy currently in existance than all the physical mass in the universe combined, In order for an infinit density singularity to exist. ( to form the big bang )

(Precognative question) : what do you mean more energy than what the physical universe has currently? How?
(Answer): It's simple E=Mc2 means there will be entropy. Deminishing of energy within physical mass by being squared to fit ratio Energy=Mass Cubits squared, When you tranfer energy a mediator creates resistance and dispersment of energy(Sound is the most noticable of entropy).
(Precognative question) : But if all physical mass and energy degrades, How could that much energy be contained to form the universe? Would not the universe burn out of steam without any way of refueling its spent physical matter?
(Answer) : Good question the answer is, The Universe never formed in such a way because its simply not possible given Entropy.

(Precognative question): But how is physical mass still around? If its slowly losing steam? Where does matter come from?
(Answer): This is probably the least discussed if not misunderstood question. As discussed, Entropy exists and so matter needs replenishment.
The best way replenish charge is to seal the program so to speak, By breaking down atoms and sub-atomic particles into shards ( all charges electrons protons,quarks, ect) Since vortex mechanics are also viable to planets as well as stars. The initial pulling drag through space pulls the units surface area into a sphere (planet) (star) by increasing the volume, you increase the surface area, When flying through space the drag forces more resistance. Since space is technically not empty. The Pressures become to much from outside sources and it collapses the unit, If the initial imposion is stronger than the bonding charge of molecules, Then molecules will be torn apart, If the pressure is stronger atoms may be smashed, If its even greater, The pull of the drag combines and melds the particles as entropy releases fragments of the conversion usually through varying degree of waves.

(Precognative question): That was a mouth full, So what you are saying is no matter what, Mass and energy will be destroyed even when things get to big or to small? But how does it still exist?
(Answer): Well not entirely to small, Just when exterior forces pulling them together is stronger ( Able to hold an atomic explosion and then some) Matter and energy exists because the outcome of these implosions of a black sluge or mixture, like taking every color of the pallet and mixing them together. The anwer is simple. Matter and energy has been destroy and recreating itself indefinently.

(Precognative queston): But how is that possible?
(Answer): Because all stuff that is compressed eventually re-expands with more energy than ALL OF THE CHARGES ATOMS PARTICLES initially had before compression. This is because the *unresponsive state* of the colletive of material Contains no charge, It is like supergluing the ends of a north and south pole magnet together but the slivers of all these particles are merged into one. But is not an atom, electron, proton or any of these particles but a mash of them all on a micro-molecular scale. There for it cannot have protons or electrons orbiting it, the fundamental building blocks of physical matter. But still being there, Still creates resistances such as the vortex phenomenon with inital pull and drag, As well as the gradual waredown of mass and energy and its replenishment through high collision.

(Precognative question): So if you could sum it all up for even an idiot to understand?
(Answer): The universe has the majority of its energy conserved and contained by these unreacting, unstealing (it cant have chemical, physical influence on matter becuase atoms require orbiting electrons/protons to bond Which these don't have them and cannot obtain them) mash of particles that used to be planets and stars, Asteroids. Anything in space.. to form from dying ages mass. Suns cannot expand to large, and galaxy cannot consume the universe. Because there needs to be more energy than what is currently present within all physical mass and matter combined. But there is this energy already in existance, And it is all around us as compressed unresponsive mass, that eventually exausts and becomes regular matter again.

(Precognative question): And the universe has been expanding and contracting mass through what? Black holes?
For eternity? is that what you are saying?
(Answer) The energy conversion point(Blackhole) is the contraction, Space is the expansion (Where mass accumilates)

(Precognative question): How can we find these particles? What could you tell scientists today to look for or do?
(Answer) It won't be easy, But you would need enough energy to power the funnel. Black holes work on the principal of constant decomission, Since the energy collapsing creates the funnel that produces such particles you would be required to feed it energy and pressurize it at degrees higher than the particles being tested on in order for combining.
As for methods of such pressurization, it will be up to you guys to figure that out. Building a bigger collider maybe only have results of a bigger initial collision, but not enough to sustain the continual implosion. Which is what these scientists are after right? The root of all physical mass and energy?

Is it possible more information can be gathered if there were Separator machines? Basically LHC like devices that instead of colliding particles for data separates them thru extreme magnetic processes.
These separations would mimic the separation of the particles from said big bang process within the vacuumed medium before hypothesized Big bang process. So it would be like LHC reversed. Setting particle compounds inside something and pulling them apart at massive speeds and seeing what happens. Following the BB theory all this observable universe data came from a smaller point (somehow) so maybe separating small things or particles with extreme speed generates similar outcomes. Why colliding them causes loss of requested data.
Just a thought for the quantum field experts to ponder...

NAMASTE*******

a reply to: tsingtao

In the words of Kid Rock: " you may look for answers, but that ain't fun, so get in the pit and try to love someone!"

I have the deepest respect for scientists and their work. As a species we have to search and grow with new understandings - it is one of the quintessential qualities that makes us human. And we will progress because of it, no matter what. Whether we will have the ultimate answers or not, the journey never ends.

The Royal Astronomical Society website is back up. As I mentioned in a previous post, they have a news release about this research.

They are hedging their bets. The observations made by the BICEP2 telescope in Antarctica are still being considered:

their results are a major advance in our understanding of cosmology and a confirmation of the inflation theory, but they have proven controversial and are not yet fully accepted by cosmologists.

More recently, other scientists have questioned the "dusty data" by BICEP2:

Dusty Data

One of the researchers, who presented their work at the RAS, was also quoted in the news release:

Perhaps the BICEP2 results contain an error. If not, there must be some other – as yet unknown – process which prevented the universe from collapsing. "If BICEP2 is shown to be correct, it tells us that there has to be interesting new particle physics beyond the standard model" Hogan said.

RAS News Release

So, obviously more work needs to be done, and we will have to wait to see how this unfolds.

The Planck Telescope is looking for the same gravitational waves BICEP2 is said to have observed. These results will be released in October, 2014.

Also, physicists will likely try to get more data regarding the Higgs boson and supersymmetry by using the LHC.

a reply to: ionwind

We know they don’t know, and likely they never will know because understanding the mechanics of something never tells you the WHY, the intention…that is reserved for the mystic to ultimately tell you no one can understand the intention of God but God.

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: ionwind

We know they don’t know, and likely they never will know because understanding the mechanics of something never tells you the WHY, the intention…that is reserved for the mystic to ultimately tell you no one can understand the intention of God but God.

Assuming that god exist in the first place.

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: ionwind

We know they don’t know, and likely they never will know because understanding the mechanics of something never tells you the WHY, the intention…that is reserved for the mystic to ultimately tell you no one can understand the intention of God but God.

I disagree that we will never know. Our knowledge is doubling at an incredible rate. One estimate is that it is doubling every 12 months. And this time frame is shrinking.

It is very useful for our civilization to know how things work, because it allows us to make real world applications and predictions. Mystics are free to try to answer some of the why questions.

But I have to say that when you claim "We know they don’t know", it sounds a little arrogant don't you think? Did someone tell you everything there is to know, and do you claim to know everything?

originally posted by: Darkblade71
Perhaps the Universe did collapse and we are just residual energy caught like ghosts in time.

You know, anything is possible.

But then I believe in a holographic universe...
*sip*

Just figments of the creators imagination