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.

 

Will proof of the Higgs boson disappoint you?

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by mandroids
 


No, I am excited!

Just because we are now smart enough to understand a tiny part of the mystery of a cosmos doesn't mean we should give up on our own individual faith.




posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Taken from the CERN web page today 13th of Dec :

Their results are based on the analysis of considerably more data than those presented at the summer conferences, sufficient to make significant progress in the search for the Higgs boson, but not enough to make any conclusive statement on the existence or non-existence of the elusive Higgs.

So no proof, no need to be disappointed. But since your question was hypothetical, I would say that any question answered in this domain generally gives rise to two or more new questions. So no.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Who knows what we can't even see yet. I believe things get infinitely small as well as infinitely large. The universe could be apart of a bigger being or within a bigger universe.

We don't know nothing. We just skimmed the top of creme in a big infinite vat of milk and we haven't even got past the creme to find the milk. If you get what I'm saying.

Just a bunch of infints trying to play with matches. Sooner of later we are gonna get burned.

It may be a disapointment but its still a step foward. Even if its a step backward.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Soon we'll have the replicators of star trek where all you have to do is tell the computer what you want to eat and it will reconfigure matter and make it for you. The Higgs Boson will help unzip matter so that if one is not careful he can dissolve something or make it more solid or even different.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Discovering the Higgs Boson will merely prove the existence of the Higgs Field.

I say merely...bit of an understatement...if true then we have the Higgs Field to explore and understand.

The next question will be what supports the Higgs Field ??

It's all good.

Cosmic..



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   
even if they haven't 'prooved' it yet, if or when they find the higgs particle it wont disappoint me.
How could it? the universe is a amazing place that we know so little about, finding out anything that may explain a little more on how it works will be amazing. never disappointing.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by mandroids
Today Cern will announce news concerning finding signs of the Higgs boson, or the so called “God Particle”.

I wonder if you will be disappointed that some of the mystery of the universe has been explained away. Does finding the God Particle decrease the chances of a deeper mystery and leave you filled with less wonder?


I will be hoping that CERN, or someone - anyone, will actually explain how it is that this one particle actually causes mass to emerge. Especially if it's such a difficult particle to even detect. It would seem that if this one particle actually causes all matter to have mass, then it would be as ubiquitous as its role in physical reality would seem to insist that it be.

Or am I missing something that everyone else has already determined to be factual about the way the Higgs boson particle does what it does? To be honest, it'd have to be as obvious and as pervasive as water is on this planet to have the structural impact that it is supposed to have. I understand that my view of this may seem a bit simplistic, but how evasive and esoteric can anything like a God Particle be if it's to actually do what the press releases say it does? In my view of the way that physical reality works, this God Particle would have to be like bacteria in its physical influence and its clear and definitive physical presence. If not, then what the hell could it possibly do to make everything that we know to be material possess mass?

The clean logic of it all has never seemed to exist, and no laundry list of math formulas can stabilize a concept that is (from what I've been able to detect) this overwhelmingly flawed at such a primordial level.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 
It's easier to grasp the idea if you think of it as a field. The importance ascribed to the Higgs particle (or equivalently, the Higgs field) is because the mass properties of all particles, such as electrons, are created based on their interactions with the Higgs field. Predicted over 30 years ago by physicist Peter Higgs (University of Edinburgh, Scotland) the Higgs field engulfs all other particles in an unseen "ocean-like ether" permeating all space, which causes a type of "drag" that shows itself as mass.

The Standard Model proposes that there is another field not yet observed, a field that is almost indistinguishable from empty space. We call this the Higgs field. We think that all of space is filled with this field, and that by interacting with this field, particles acquire their masses. Particles that interact strongly with the Higgs field are heavy, while those that interact weakly are light.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Atzil321
reply to post by NorEaster
 
It's easier to grasp the idea if you think of it as a field. The importance ascribed to the Higgs particle (or equivalently, the Higgs field) is because the mass properties of all particles, such as electrons, are created based on their interactions with the Higgs field. Predicted over 30 years ago by physicist Peter Higgs (University of Edinburgh, Scotland) the Higgs field engulfs all other particles in an unseen "ocean-like ether" permeating all space, which causes a type of "drag" that shows itself as mass.

The Standard Model proposes that there is another field not yet observed, a field that is almost indistinguishable from empty space. We call this the Higgs field. We think that all of space is filled with this field, and that by interacting with this field, particles acquire their masses. Particles that interact strongly with the Higgs field are heavy, while those that interact weakly are light.



i'd just like to say thankyou, thats a nice laymans term of putting it that i can understand.

star for you



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Who really wants to see the wizard behind the curtain?



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Atzil321
reply to post by NorEaster
 
It's easier to grasp the idea if you think of it as a field. The importance ascribed to the Higgs particle (or equivalently, the Higgs field) is because the mass properties of all particles, such as electrons, are created based on their interactions with the Higgs field. Predicted over 30 years ago by physicist Peter Higgs (University of Edinburgh, Scotland) the Higgs field engulfs all other particles in an unseen "ocean-like ether" permeating all space, which causes a type of "drag" that shows itself as mass.

The Standard Model proposes that there is another field not yet observed, a field that is almost indistinguishable from empty space. We call this the Higgs field. We think that all of space is filled with this field, and that by interacting with this field, particles acquire their masses. Particles that interact strongly with the Higgs field are heavy, while those that interact weakly are light.



I understand the whole "field" concept, but why the specific particle in question, and what makes them think that a "heavier particle" - which is a completely subjective determination and could easily be due to a completely unrelated influence - proves anything whatsoever? As far as this Higgs field, again, it's conjecture, and based on an ignorance of what "particles" may or may not actually be. It's just another "well, there's gotta be a way that this direction we're heading in is the right direction, we just need to find a way to prove it" line of thinking.

Reminds me of the Edison - Tesla rivalry. Hell, Edison's team actually invented the electric chair in an attempt to "prove the fact" that Tesla's A/C current concept was inherently a dangerous form of electric power, despite all independent evidence to the contrary. If he'd succeeded, Edison would've strangled the modern society with power cables over an inch thick going to each home, and a power station required every 1/4 mile across the entire grid. Edison was (and still is) considered a genius, but his need to win ran him right into a wall in the end. I'm suspicious of the possibility that after spending so many billions on establishing this Higgs field theory, most of these geniuses won't ever be capable of recognizing the end of that effort either. Wisdom isn't the same as genius or intelligence or even knowledge. You don't find much wisdom in theoretical science. The perspective is always much too narrow in those labs.
edit on 12/13/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Atzil321
reply to post by NorEaster
 
It's easier to grasp the idea if you think of it as a field. The importance ascribed to the Higgs particle (or equivalently, the Higgs field) is because the mass properties of all particles, such as electrons, are created based on their interactions with the Higgs field. Predicted over 30 years ago by physicist Peter Higgs (University of Edinburgh, Scotland) the Higgs field engulfs all other particles in an unseen "ocean-like ether" permeating all space, which causes a type of "drag" that shows itself as mass.

The Standard Model proposes that there is another field not yet observed, a field that is almost indistinguishable from empty space. We call this the Higgs field. We think that all of space is filled with this field, and that by interacting with this field, particles acquire their masses. Particles that interact strongly with the Higgs field are heavy, while those that interact weakly are light.



Very interesting, but way off topic. Im on about how such proof would make you feel.

I understand the whole "field" concept, but why the specific particle in question, and what makes them think that a "heavier particle" - which is a completely subjective determination and could easily be due to a completely unrelated influence - proves anything whatsoever? As far as this Higgs field, again, it's conjecture, and based on an ignorance of what "particles" may or may not actually be. It's just another "well, there's gotta be a way that this direction we're heading in is the right direction, we just need to find a way to prove it" line of thinking.

Reminds me of the Edison - Tesla rivalry. Hell, Edison's team actually invented the electric chair in an attempt to "prove the fact" that Tesla's A/C current concept was inherently a dangerous form of electric power, despite all independent evidence to the contrary. If he'd succeeded, Edison would've strangled the modern society with power cables over an inch thick going to each home, and a power station required every 1/4 mile across the entire grid. Edison was (and still is) considered a genius, but his need to win ran him right into a wall in the end. I'm suspicious of the possibility that after spending so many billions on establishing this Higgs field theory, most of these geniuses won't ever be capable of recognizing the end of that effort either. Wisdom isn't the same as genius or intelligence or even knowledge. You don't find much wisdom in theoretical science. The perspective is always much too narrow in those labs.
edit on 12/13/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by mandroids

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Atzil321
reply to post by NorEaster
 
It's easier to grasp the idea if you think of it as a field. The importance ascribed to the Higgs particle (or equivalently, the Higgs field) is because the mass properties of all particles, such as electrons, are created based on their interactions with the Higgs field. Predicted over 30 years ago by physicist Peter Higgs (University of Edinburgh, Scotland) the Higgs field engulfs all other particles in an unseen "ocean-like ether" permeating all space, which causes a type of "drag" that shows itself as mass.

The Standard Model proposes that there is another field not yet observed, a field that is almost indistinguishable from empty space. We call this the Higgs field. We think that all of space is filled with this field, and that by interacting with this field, particles acquire their masses. Particles that interact strongly with the Higgs field are heavy, while those that interact weakly are light.



I understand the whole "field" concept, but why the specific particle in question, and what makes them think that a "heavier particle" - which is a completely subjective determination and could easily be due to a completely unrelated influence - proves anything whatsoever? As far as this Higgs field, again, it's conjecture, and based on an ignorance of what "particles" may or may not actually be. It's just another "well, there's gotta be a way that this direction we're heading in is the right direction, we just need to find a way to prove it" line of thinking.

Reminds me of the Edison - Tesla rivalry. Hell, Edison's team actually invented the electric chair in an attempt to "prove the fact" that Tesla's A/C current concept was inherently a dangerous form of electric power, despite all independent evidence to the contrary. If he'd succeeded, Edison would've strangled the modern society with power cables over an inch thick going to each home, and a power station required every 1/4 mile across the entire grid. Edison was (and still is) considered a genius, but his need to win ran him right into a wall in the end. I'm suspicious of the possibility that after spending so many billions on establishing this Higgs field theory, most of these geniuses won't ever be capable of recognizing the end of that effort either. Wisdom isn't the same as genius or intelligence or even knowledge. You don't find much wisdom in theoretical science. The perspective is always much too narrow in those labs.
edit on 12/13/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)


Very interesting, but way off topic. I'm on about how such proof would make you feel.


I guess I wouldn't be affected by what I believe they can't possibly prove. I'd just smile and wait for the debunking press release by a rival physics team. The entire idea of the Higgs field leaves me bemused.
edit on 12/13/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   
If the Higgs Boson is real, pantheism can still be true!



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nustle
reply to post by PGRacer
 


Regarding the particles you refer to (neutrinos) which may travel faster than the speed of light, the real draw here is that if this is indeed the case, and it would seem so following more recent studies:

www.bbc.co.uk...

Is the possibility it presents of been able to go back in time, If that is true and essentially we would be able to witness effect essentially before the cause: This article provides a more concise overview:

See below:
www.bbc.co.uk...



Effect before cause? very possible with backward time travelling neutrinos.

Everyone thinks the system is closed somewhere.. it may not be ......

Cosmos = Life = Cosmos /gasp



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 



we just need to find a way to prove it" line of thinking.
The opposite is true. Science works by disproving things. There is rarely absolute proof or certainty. Most 'facts' are merely highly probably, not absolutely certain.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by mandroids
 


Sooner or later they will find out that our science is so primitive that is pales on comparison with other species



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   
No scientific comment from me, I've learned my lesson.

God is delighted when we find truth, the more the better. I'm excited by it. One more blow to the Father of Lies.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   
My guess is that if the Higgs boson ever does manage to show its face, it will just open up a fresh new can of worms that scientists will refocus on. It never ends. The more energy you use, the more odd stuff happens. That's the trend, and I don't see it stopping anytime soon.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   
It would better explain the curvature of spacetime in the vicinity of my crotch, so no, I'd not be disappointed.
edit on 12/13/2011 by The1Prettiest1One because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join