It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

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

 

Scientists Abuzz Over Controversial Rumor that God Particle Has Been Detected

page: 3
16
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Even if the Higgs was found and it was the particle that forced matter to exist I doubt very much we could do anything with it for many years or decades. It has been so hard to detect so far, that manipulating it is likely to be a whole lot harder.




posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


I'm just going to go ahead and not debate this with you because this standard model science and debate looks a lot like the man made global warming debate. In fact there are even sites that use ad hominem attacks just like the man-made global warming sites. Of course I'm referencing the electric universe theory here, but just like man-made global warming proponents they are pushing what is just a theory as fact.


I don’t mean to be a party pooper, but lay folk like us are not really entitled to dissenting opinions in science. We can hold them, of course, but it’s a bit like a lifetime vegetarian holding an opinion about the tastiest way to cook steak.


We are entitled to all the dissenting opinions of the science as we can muster. After all if what they say is a "fact" they should be able to explain all questions we have with examples, as that is the premise of purpose of science. Not saying this about you, but quotes like the ones above are usually made by people that don't even understand what they have been taught.

You need to also remember there was a time in our history that people were burned at the stake, thrown in prison, and/or killed for going against the "fact" that the earth was flat. There was a lack of technology then to sufficient prove it to people, just like there is a lack of technology to sufficiently prove that Einstein is correct.

You know what the real problem is..... Nobody remembers the guy who said the earth was flat, but everyone remembers the guy that said the earth was round, and that is why we are even having this debate and why it devolves to name calling because nobody wants to be the flat earth guy. And even as you have stated that "we could be in danger of losing our way" the standard model people are in danger of becoming the flat earth guy.

I should also clarify that I'm not saying that the electric universe model is correct, but when people start resorting to unprovable theories to "debunk" a theory that goes against what they have been taught and start stating things as being fact, when they are nowhere close to being fact is where my BS detector goes off and starts tuning those people out.

As far as my example of how planets and their moons resemble atoms and the way electrons orbit the nucleus, the fact is that we know electrons orbit the nucleus of an atom, we might not be able to plot the orbit of the electron around the nucleus, but the fact is that electrons orbit the nucleus of an atom and moons orbit planets. My example is very much valid. Just because the orbits might not be the same doesn't meant the observation isn't correct. It would be like saying Newton is wrong because a feather falls to the earth slower than an apple.

The problem with this is that I'm bringing forth observations that don't fit into the pre-defined box that people are trying to pass off as fact. A pre-defined box that was created before much of the technology being used to prove these theories are even possible. The question should be would Einstein himself still hold to his theories if he had access to the technology that we have today? My belief is that he wouldn't, he would have thrown a bunch of his theories out of the window and come up with something completely different because lots of things have happened that violates his theory.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Timing
 

Actually, scientists are able to explain their theories, illustrate them with examples, demonstrate them experimentally, repeat the experiment ad nauseum, and all the rest of it. It isn’t science if none of that is possible, you know.

However, it is not guaranteed that a lay person will be able to understand the scientific explanation. And therein lies the problem. Because a lot of people, especially those who believe the principle of freedom of speech somehow confers authority on their opinions, don’t like the idea that some things are simply beyond their ken.

Besides, if your information about any scientific theory or issue comes from the popular media (mainstream or underground, makes no difference) it is almost certain to be wrong: misunderstood, misreported or slanted.

Scientists aren’t lying to anybody, or pulling the wool over anybody’s eyes. They have every incentive not to, if they wish to stay in the game – scientists caught faking results are tossed out on their ear, even if their previous track records have been brilliant.

Scientists are often wrong, and when a scientist is wrong it is invariably another scientist who is the first to point it out. The world of science – I mean real science – is full of dissent and controversy. It was always thus, and always will be. And the scientific consensus, too, is frequently wrong, as it was on the subject of continental drift when it was first proposed, and as it now seems to be regarding the origins of human settlement in the New World – to pick two well-known and widely separated examples.

The thing is, only another scientist can really tell if a scientist is wrong. You can’t. And I can’t either.

By contrast, it doesn't take an expert to see that electric-universe theory and other pseudoscientific ideas of that nature are wrong. A good general scientific education is enough for that, because as soon as you start applying it by asking simple questions (such as how do you account for momentum and inertia if mass is merely the gravitational attraction of particles for one another), the pseudoscientific theory collapses.

This doesn’t happen with a real scientific theory. It’s complicated, and sometimes looks bizarre on the face of it, but the deeper into it you go and the more you apply it to the real world, the better it checks out. Real science is complicated because it holds a mirror up to reality, and reality, as you know, is not simple.

Pseudoscientific ideas, unlike scientific ones, are usually easy to understand, preciselfy because they are not based in reality. Being unreal, they do not have to be logical, or to fit with what happens in the real world, except in the superficial way that impresses people who believe that like breeds like and there is no such thing as coincidence. Such folk, though otherwise doubtless excellent human beings and exemplary citizens, lack the scientific background to examine ideas (either scientific or pseudo-) in depth, and test them against other things they know about the world. Therefore, they are often unable to distinguish between the two, see how pseudoscientific ideas disintegrate as soon as one begins looking at them too closely, while scientific ones take a qualified scientist to pick holes in them.

I know it can be galling to realize that there are some things one is not qualified to give an opinion about, but if you look at it logically, there must be, mustn’t there? There is a world of things out there, from hog farming to haute couture, concerning which I am an ignoramus. Surely this must be the same for everyone?



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax

Besides, if your information about any scientific theory or issue comes from the popular media (mainstream or underground, makes no difference) it is almost certain to be wrong: misunderstood, misreported or slanted.

And therein lies the problem. People get their knowledge of the science they attack from laymen-orientated sources. It's akin to pointing out perceived errors in a field after only reading the brochure.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


I'll make it real simple and in order to get this thread back on topic.

The Higgs-Boson must be discovered in order to validate the standard model of physics. Period, point, paragraph. People trying to pass the Theory of Reality off as fact should not be listened too because the Higgs is nothing more than a speculation to explain why elements have its mass. It doesn't take a scientist to understand this because the scientist currently looking for the Higgs have come out and said this themselves. That is fact. The Theory of Relativity is not.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Timing
 


I don't think confusing the scientific definition of the word 'theory' with the layman definition is helping your case.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by Timing
 


I don't think confusing the scientific definition of the word 'theory' with the layman definition is helping your case.


He is clearly pointing out that GR is wrong and he is correct.
GR has not been conclusively proven either by experiment or observation.
At best it is only a hypothesis, though einstein stands and remains vnidicated
since he came up with GR nearly a 100 years ago. No doubt he was a quirky genius.
According to GR anti gravity is not possible, though I myself have acheived this.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Timing
 


I'll make it real simple and in order to get this thread back on topic.

We have not left the topic. Not yet, anyway.


The Higgs-Boson must be discovered in order to validate the standard model of physics. Period, point, paragraph.

Sorry, this is the wrong way round. The Standard Model is a theory about the structure of matter at the subatomic level. Relativity is part of it through the principle of mass-energy dependence, but the Model is really far more concerned with the other fundamental forces – the strong force and the electroweak force – which, at subatomic distances, are far more powerful than gravity.

Relativity does not depend for validation on the Standard Model. Not in the slightest way. It’s the other way round. Luckily for the Standard Model, no scientifically literate person questions relativity. It has been verified too many times. In fact, it is verified every time you use a GPS or make an international phone call via satellite.


People trying to pass the Theory of Reality off as fact should not be listened too because the Higgs is nothing more than a speculation to explain why elements have its mass.

I suppose that’s the kind of thing they tell people at that crazy website you linked to in an earlier post. Why don’t you have a look at what real physicists say about the Standard Model?

The Standard Model explained at the CERN web site

The Standard Model explained at a Standford University web site

The Standard Model at Wikipedia

It may surprise you to learn that the Higgs boson is only the last of many particles predicted by the Standard Model. The others have all been found. What does that suggest to you?


It doesn't take a scientist to understand this because the scientist currently looking for the Higgs have come out and said this themselves.

Said what? Citation needed.

Before you dismiss real science, my friend, try understanding it properly.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
I've been thinking about this "god particle" and it's uses.
Say, aliens millions of years ahead of us, way back, discovered the Higgs, and this is how they have mastered time travel etc, ridiculous manoeuvring of UFOs and so on..?

I guess if we have or when we eventually find it, it will take years to be able to understand it & put it to use.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


All you have to do is type in a google search 'What if the Higgs-Boson Doesn't Exist". I will put the following in external source quotes and label who said what for easier understanding. The forum members asking the questions screen name is x(x-y), and the forum member's name who gave the answers is 'farsight'(I'll gladly send you the link to the forum in a PM if you would like, as I'm not sure what the rules are on linking to other forums here on this board is.)


x(x-y): What will this mean to modern physics? Will the standard model be nearly completely wrong...

Farsight: No. Read A Zeptospace Odyssey: A Journey into the Physics of the LHC by Gian Francesco Giudice. There's a search-inside on Amazon, and if you search on Higgs sector you can read pages 173 through 175. He starts by saying

Quote:
The most inappropriate name ever given to the Higgs boson is "The God particle". The name gives the impression that the Higgs boson is the central particle of the Standard Model, governing its structure. But this is very far from the truth.

Farsight: On page 174 he says:

Quote:
Unlike the rest of the theory, the Higgs sector is rather arbitrary, and its form is not dictated by any deep fundamental principle. For this reason its structure looks frighteningly ad-hoc.

farsight: He also says:

Quote:
It is sometimes said that the discovery of the Higgs boson will explain the mystery of the origin of mass. This statement requires a good deal of qualification.

farsight: He gives a good explanation, and finishes by saying something important:

Quote:
In summary, the Higgs mechanism accounts for about 1 per cent of the mass of ordinary matter, and for only 0.2 per cent of the mass of the universe. This is not nearly enough to justify the claim of explaining the origin of mass.

farsight: Giudice is a physicist at CERN with a hundred-plus papers to his name. But there's been an awful lot of hype about the Higgs. IMHO it's been bad for physics.

x(x-y): Quote:
...or will a few tweaks and discoveries mean that it can be correct?


farsight: It isn't so black and white. Basically you ditch the Higgs sector and keep the rest, using the symmetry aspect to replace the Higgs sector.

x(x-y): Quote:
I've heard that the recent possible (3-sigma rated) particle discovery at the Tevatron Accelerator could possibly mean the Higgs is made irrelevant- and that it could possibly support a theory called "Quantum Technicolour" (or something similar to that name).


farsight:There's a lot of hype around.


Now we get to the crux of the issue. The Higgs is just another particle that has been theorized and it's discovery will determine which path physicist will proceed down. What we are witnessing in the media is one side of the story in a science battle of epic proportions. It seems as though we have the Higg's Side, which obviously has the most physicist in it's corner or an agenda, and then we have a bunch of other physicist that are just waiting to put forth their theories on how this place we call the universe works.

The problem is there are scientist that are feeding the media bad information. Along with bad information being taught at the university level. Everything is still just a theory nothing is fact, just as I was stating earlier in the thread.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Timing
 


All you have to do is type in a google search 'What if the Higgs-Boson Doesn't Exist".

I suppose it looks as easy as that to someone who doesn’t really understand what is going on.


I will put the following in external source quotes and label who said what for easier understanding...

Thank you. Allow me to edit your quote slightly, for even easier understanding.



x(x-y): What will this mean to modern physics? Will the standard model be nearly completely wrong...

Farsight:No.

Get it?

This is exactly what I have been saying to you. The edifice of modern physical theory, including the Standard Model (which is only a part of it) does not depend for its validation on whether or not a Higgs boson is found.


What we are witnessing in the media is one side of the story in a science battle of epic proportions. It seems as though we have the Higg's Side, which obviously has the most physicist in it's corner or an agenda, and then we have a bunch of other physicist that are just waiting to put forth their theories on how this place we call the universe works.

Sorry. You are way off in fantasy land with that idea. Yes, there are differing opinions in physics with regard to the Standard Model. There is, however, no epic battle, just a few dozen specialists who hold differing views, and a larger physics community that is, like these few, waiting eagerly to see whether the LHC will provide experimental confirmation of the Standard Model or not. It is unlikely, however, that the LHC can provide evidence to confirm that the Higgs boson doesn’t exist, so if it is not found, it doesn’t mean the Standard Model is wrong; it just means we aren’t as sure it’s correct as we would be if the Higgs boson had been found. In neither case would the edifice of physical theory sustain anything more than a mild adjustment. Rumours of the impending death of science are exaggerated.


The problem is there are scientist that are feeding the media bad information.

Evidence, please.


Along with bad information being taught at the university level.

Evidence, please.


Everything is still just a theory nothing is fact, just as I was stating earlier in the thread.

Evidence, please. You have provided none so far, leading a reader to suspect that you are merely articulating your personal prejudices. The only source you have quoted actually proves you wrong.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Apparently it was all a false alarm. Update areticle 04 May 2011:

"Elusive Higgs slips from sight again"
www.newscientist.com...



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Larryman
Apparently it was all a false alarm. Update areticle 04 May 2011:

"Elusive Higgs slips from sight again"
www.newscientist.com...


The preliminary excitement is understandable.
So it was only a faulty analysis



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   
And... another false alarm.

I'm still holding to my opinion that they aren't going to find it. At least the LHC has a lot of multiple uses besides attempting to find this one particle. I'm looking forward to the other discoveries that these people will make. Most importantly the CLOUD experiment that is currently on going.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Timing
And... another false alarm.

I'm still holding to my opinion that they aren't going to find it. At least the LHC has a lot of multiple uses besides attempting to find this one particle. I'm looking forward to the other discoveries that these people will make. Most importantly the CLOUD experiment that is currently on going.


But they know the particle should be there, it not a matter of finding it its a matter of detecting it.
And they will - eventually



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   
I hope they never find the Higgs Boson particle. I think it would be incompatible with the "Extended Heim Theory"... as I don't see it mentioned in the associated EHT chart (theory of everything) shown below.



I may be wrong in that interpretation, but that's my guess.

But, I do hope they find proof of the extra dimensions associated with our space-time, that Dr. Michio Kaku speaks of - and that Extended Heim Theory requires.


Otherwise... we have to rely on that energy-hogging Miguel Alcubierre's warp drive for FTL voyages. And with that, we would still have no zero-gravity ship- launching/landing capability.



edit on 5/5/2011 by Larryman because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
16
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join