It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# The Higgs Boson aka "The God Particle", and the problem of unnatural fine tuning.

page: 4
35
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 07:20 PM

Relative proportion to the pyramid and thus to the phi ratio.

I thought you said you weren't going to talk about pyramids.

And no, that doesn't mean that I'm going to start talking about pyramids, no.

That didn't take long.

Phi. Oh geez. It's sort of hard to avoid phi when you're talking about triangles.
1) Start with phi (which does appear in the Great Pyramid, whether by accident or design is another topic). A fun number to play with. Like Pi, it is also an irrational number, not really a good example of perfection or design.

2) Take the square root of phi.

3) Take the fractional portion of that.

The ratio of that result to one is similar to the ratio of the radius of the Moon to the Earth.

It would have been a lot more interesting of a coincidence if the ratio between the Moon and Earth were equal to phi, or even an (approximate) multiple of phi. But it isn't. It's just a bunch of convoluted nonsense with a generous dose of fudge. There is no relationship to phi. There is only a bunch of noise about "squaring the circle" in order to make it appear there is something there. It's typical numerological babble.

Oh, that same fractional portion? That 0.272? That is also the size of the rim a .22 caliber shell. It is also the diameter of the chamber for a 6mm cartridge. Neat, huh?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 9/5/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 07:24 PM

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork

originally posted by: neoholographic

bumping this to ensure wider consumption and contemplation, and comprehension.

Thanks again neoholographic for this valuable contribution to the discussion at hand.

At this point, all the evidence points to an intelligent Mind behind all things. The only way you can escape this is by saying there's a bunch of universes that all have different laws or constants of nature. There's no evidence for this. There's no evidence that the constants of nature can naturally occur even with a bunch of universes. This is why things like string theory keep trying to find more false vacua but our universe still doesn't naturally occur.

This is an insurmountable obstacle in my opinion.

I think there's evidence of a multiverse but it's evidence of pocket or bubble universes within one space. So most of these universes will be similar or the same. You will not have all of these separate universes with different initial conditions. Again, there's no evidence to support this.

There's evidence that one space keeps branching into different universes that are close to the same. On the other side of every black hole would be a universe. When a black hole occurs, entanglement collapses almost to zero and a wormhole or bridge forms.

So the same space has pockets where universes form. There's 100 million black holes in the Milky Way. There's 100 billion galaxies and some Scientist think that number can reach 200 million. Just think how many black holes are out there and if all of those black holes branch into other universes and those universes are filled with black holes then you have universes branching ad infinitum.

Again, all this occurs in the same space with the same or similar laws and constants.

In order for a multiverse to naturally produce a universe like ours with our constants, there would have to be infinite separate spaces with different laws and initial conditions.

There's nothing to support this. You would have to show how a string theory landscape naturally gave rise to a universe like ours and what gave rise to this landscape and why only 10^500 false vacua? What about 10^1000 or more.

The evidence shows the universe was created by an Intelligence. You have to appeal to a multiverse of separate spaces with different initial conditions and you still can't show that different variations of the Cosmological Constant occur that give rise to a universe like ours.

One space with bubble or pocket universes has some support. There's nothing to support the pipe dream of separate spaces that have all of these different initial conditions.

posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 07:31 PM

So we could end up being such a bubble on an endless foam that got lucky, given enough bubbles, and how could all those bubbles sustain themselves and thus either directly or indirectly support and give rise to this one?

That would also be a very strange way of looking at the problem, but whether endless bubbles or a multiverse, what's the difference?

posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 07:40 PM

I was referring to this one

posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 07:40 PM
Ok. The drawing is not accurate. It is fudged, as I said.
What do pyramids have to do with it? I thought you weren't going to bring them up.

edit on 9/5/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 07:43 PM

While I disagree and see the Bible as history--because without it world history is incomplete.
I guess I'm a bit of an evangelist in that sense.

But I agree that I like reading a bunch of different sources, too.

Also, you must read God Is Not One by Stephen Prothero. It's great. And it totally reminds me of what you just said.

posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 08:47 PM

originally posted by: Phage
Ok. The drawing is not accurate. It is fudged, as I said.
What do pyramids have to do with it? I thought you weren't going to bring them up.

What does this have to do with Higgs Boson ie fine tuning discovery?

posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 08:49 PM

I don't know. Ask the OP. Seems he thinks it important.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 09:04 PM

originally posted by: Phage

I don't know. Ask the OP. Seems he thinks it important.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The OP's fringe theories do not effect the Higgs Boson fine tuning in any way. Seems like a convenient derail to talk about anything but fine tuning implications.
Fine tuning is awesome. The God particle lives up to it's namesake.

posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 09:12 PM

Yes, we are finely tuned to our world.
We would have a difficult time in another universe.

edit on 9/5/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 09:16 PM

Getting back on topic.. and setting aside my attempt to show a design element in the earth-moon-sun geometrical relationship, could you elaborate your view on the implications of fine tuning and why you feel that the God particle lives up to its namesake? Thanks.

posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 09:22 PM

originally posted by: Phage

Yes, we are finely tuned to our world.
We would have a difficult time in another universe.

I don't think that's what he was referring to nor the basis of this topic ie: adaptation. You either haven't been paying attention or that's just your effort to skirt the crux of what we're talking about in this thread, and my apologies for going off topic earlier with that illustration.

posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 09:46 PM

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork

originally posted by: Phage

Yes, we are finely tuned to our world.
We would have a difficult time in another universe.

I don't think that's what he was referring to nor the basis of this topic ie: adaptation. You either haven't been paying attention or that's just your effort to skirt the crux of what we're talking about in this thread, and my apologies for going off topic earlier with that illustration.

It is a way to dismiss fine tuning. Claiming reverse engineering where you will always find fine tuning. Too bad it is always unexpected and scientific theory never accounts for it before it's discovery, otherwise that view would have merit.
The mathematical study of the big bang shows the unpredicted setting of fine tuned forces in the beginning super micro moments of time itself. This Higgs Boson study admits theory did not predict such a fine tuned particle to the degree it is. All of it is awesome, their explanations trying to diminish it, not so awesome.

posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 09:48 PM

I don't think that's what he was referring to nor the basis of this topic ie: adaptation.

I don't either. However that aspect should not be ignored.

If the universe were a bit different than it is, we would not be what we are.

edit on 9/5/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 10:05 PM

If the constants or the mass of the Higgs were even the slightest degree different, we would not be here at all.

So what are your views on this issue of unnaturalness and fine tuning?

You appear to be making an appeal of some kind to the multiverse strong anthropic principal..

posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 10:07 PM

If the constants or the mass of the Higgs were even the slightest degree different, we would not be here at all.
Nor would we if the Solar System did not form.

So what are your views on this issue of unnaturalness and fine tuning?
Define unnatural.

You appear to be making an appeal of some kind to the multiverse strong anthropic principal..
You clever boy.

posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 11:07 PM

Unnatural: Ultra-fine tuned by quadrillions of adjustments and cancellations that there would be no reason to expect according to the standard model (see the referenced article and vid in the op, and for that matter Google it).

I was really just asking what your honest and open assessment is of the fine-tuning problem as it relates to the Higgs and to the constants like the cosmological constant.

You're so obtuse and snarky! sheesh!

posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 11:12 PM

and for that matter Google it
Ok.

1.
contrary to the laws or course of nature.
2.
at variance with the character or nature of a person, animal, or plant.
3.
at variance with what is normal or to be expected:
the unnatural atmosphere of the place.
4.
lacking human qualities or sympathies; monstrous; inhuman:
an obsessive and unnatural hatred.
5.
not genuine or spontaneous; artificial or contrived:
a stiff, unnatural manner.
6.
Obsolete. lacking a valid or natural claim; illegitimate.

www.dictionary.com...

So, the laws of nature are contrary to the laws of nature?

I was really just asking what your honest and open assessment is of the fine-tuning problem as it relates to the Higgs and to the constants like the cosmological constant.
What problem? And what does it have to do with the Moon and pyramids?

You're so obtuse
False.

posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 11:53 PM

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork

So we could end up being such a bubble on an endless foam that got lucky, given enough bubbles, and how could all those bubbles sustain themselves and thus either directly or indirectly support and give rise to this one?

That would also be a very strange way of looking at the problem, but whether endless bubbles or a multiverse, what's the difference?

The difference is, there's a multiverse of bubble universes within the same space. So every universe shares the same vacuum conditions. So there's an infinite set of universes like ours where different variations occur. So in one universe I could be President and in another universe I died during birth.

The point is, infinite variations in the same space point to an intelligent Mind behind all things. Yes, randomness can occur but only within th vacuum conditions that produce are universe.

It's like a game of poker. You can have an infinite set of poker hands being played but the outcomes can only occur within the 2,598,960 possible poker hands that can occur based on the underlying mechanism of rules put in place by the designer of the game of poker.

The problem that people have who want to use the multiverse to explain fine tuning is, they have to have an almost infinite set of different spaces with different vacuum conditions and even then the conditions that govern the universe we are in can't occur naturally.

Here's more from an article titled "Why String Theory Is Not A Scientific Theory."

These are, no doubt, predictions about the physical Universe. But can we test any of these predictions?

The answer, so far, is no. The first one is a huge problem: we need to get rid of six dimensions to get back the Universe we see, and there are more ways to do it than there are atoms in the Universe. What’s worse, is that each way you do it gives a different “vacuum” for string theory, with no clear way to get the fundamental constants that describe the Universe we inhabit, which is the second prediction. The third prediction has come up empty, but we would need to achieve energies that are ~1015 times higher than what the LHC can produce to rule out string theory entirely and falsify it. Moreover, supersymmetric particles is not a unique prediction of string theory; finding them would only mean that string theory isn’t ruled out, not that it’s right. And the last prediction is only a mathematical one, not a physical one. It doesn’t give us anything specific to look for or test about our Universe.

www.forbes.com...

That's the ball game.

A single space with an infinite set of bubble universes with the same vacuum conditions is very likely based on current Scientific discoveries. So a universe where Andromeda Galaxy is called the Milky Way and the Milky Way is called Andromeda, Hitler was killed before WW2 and there was a President Mitt Romney is highly likely.

This is very different than an infinite set of spaces with different vacuum conditions where you get different universes with different laws of physics. There's no way for the fined tuned conditions of our universe to naturally occur even in 10^500 or 10^1000 false vacua.
edit on 5-9-2016 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 12:34 AM

Sorry to keep asking questions, but could you explain the nature of the fine-tuning issue and unnaturalness to Phage here so that he can grasp the crux of the issue? Thanks. I just don't have the time or the wherewithal to deal with his type.

For our purposes i think we could use either the unexpected Higgs mass or the Cosmological Constant, but of which are fine-tuned to the nth degree.

I would also ask you to touch on why the appeal to the multiverse theory according to the strong anthropic principal isn't reasonable and in fact operates as a strongly biased and largely atheist position as an attempt to evade the implications of an intelligent fine-tuner.

How would you describe the problem of fine tuning and unnaturalness to someone who's making an honest inquiry born of authentic interest and curiosity, as opposed to a contemptuous bias, prior to any sort of intellectually honest investigation?

Thanks again.

edit on 6-9-2016 by AnkhMorpork because: typo

35