Higgs Boson Particle May Spell Doom For the Universe

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 09:57 AM
link   
I found another article here with an attached video that explained things a little more clearly for me:

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Apparently, if they find that the mass of the Higgs-Boson is too light, it would make the vacuum of the Universe unstable. There's a random chance that a quantum fluctuation would occur somewhere that would begin a new more stable universe at that spot and expand at the speed of light and eventually replace our own. They say, it could take tens of billions of years for that to happen, since the chance of this random quantum flucuation happening is very, very low.

However, just because the chance of something happening is extremely highly improbable, doesn't mean it couldn't happen tomorrow and right here in our own solar system.


Still, It's a lot more likely that, just by random chance, all the atoms in the water in a boiling tea kettle could all of a sudden just just move in one direction causing said tea kettle to launch into space, than what were discussing would happen, so I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.
edit on 21-2-2013 by Junkheap because: The Higgs-Boson made me do it.




posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by samaka
reply to post by NorEaster
 


I can see why it being a bit of a desperation move to keep the Standard Model alive and I feel this is only going cause more questions than answers, if it were true now they would need to explain how it would got there in the first place that correlates with the Model.

In your opinion what do you believe is causing the particles to bond or what theory or model do you believe has a better explanation?
edit on 21-2-2013 by samaka because: (no reason given)


The basic notion concerning why things bond - even to the point of particles being formed as bonded clusters - is "Identity survival", but that's not going to explain much, since there's not been a hell of a lot of examination into the actual nature of Identity as a survival requirement, even by philosophers. And certainly not physicists. My own research has suggested that the need for identity survival is at the basis of literally everything that happens. Check out "holon theory". It's a pretty reasonable place to start if you want to head on down that rabbit hole. I actually think that this line of thinking is going to eventually replace most of traditional physics, and explain all of quantum physics.

Identity survival explains everything from the orbit to how DNA exchanges and modifications drive the biological imperative to why rich people name university wings after themselves, and why Donald Trump is such a flaming *sshole. Primordial stuff threads throughout all of reality.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by samaka

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Razziazoid
It's perfectly acceptable. The Standard Model has been in the works for a century, even longer. Everything adds up, all they missed was a particle that behaved like the Higgs Boson. The model predicted the existence of such a particle/field. And guess what, they found it. So why are you saying this isn't science? Did you spend all your life working as a physicist?


Obviously you're not that familiar with the actual concept of the Higgs Field.



It's pretty hilarious. You should check it out.


Care to elaborate on your notions as to why you find the concept of the Higgs Field is humorous? I'm curious to see if I can learn anything from your expressions on this subject. Thanks.
edit on 20-2-2013 by samaka because: (no reason given)


The tech press likens the Higgs Field to a sort of "molasses" that slows down particles enough for them to coalesce into molecules, since the Standard Model, on its own, doesn't allow for such coalescence. Here's the "simple wiki" explanation What the Higgs Field assumption (not even a theory) is, is that "something" must exist to make the Standard Model workable, and so far, all we can think of is this ubiquitous swarming mass of existential molasses that gums up the open road that lays out in front of all the stuff racing through the universe as a result of the Big Bang, allowing it all to clump together and become bigger and bigger stuff. Everything, except photons - for no real reason, it seems.

Now, to me, this is no different than trying to patch a inflatable life raft while your taking on water, losing air, and watching the rest of your real boat slide beneath the waves. All without a patch kit. It reeks of desperation, and that has never been how I see reality - as a patchwork of backfilling efforts designed to prop up yet another outed failure of basic understanding by yet another fount of antiquated wisdom by those whose professional careers depend on propping up such stuff.

Reality doesn't need the invention of fixes to make it work. The proponents of this Higgs molasses field admit that they have no idea how such a field could possibly exist or have been initiated - or why such a field would or should exist, and ahead of literally everything else that did not exist before that field was in place. All they know is that the Standard Model doesn't work without something violating the basic tenets of that same Standard Model in the specific manner that is required for mass to exist. After all, mass does exist, even if mass itself is a violation of the Standard Model. Or so it seems to be the case.

I don't know. Is that enough elaboration?


I think the answers will come when they figure out how a "black hole" really works and what it's actually made of!



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1nf1del

I think the answers will come when they figure out how a "black hole" really works and what it's actually made of!


I fail to see the correlation between a point that displays an incalculable density of suckage and the Higgs Field, but tossing in a black hole reference usually works when chatting up cosmology, so why not. Maybe black holes ooze Higgs Field molasses?

I wonder if there's a phd opening for that theory?



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by 1nf1del

I think the answers will come when they figure out how a "black hole" really works and what it's actually made of!


I fail to see the correlation between a point that displays an incalculable density of suckage and the Higgs Field, but tossing in a black hole reference usually works when chatting up cosmology, so why not. Maybe black holes ooze Higgs Field molasses?

I wonder if there's a phd opening for that theory?


I'm talking about electric universe theory, in the same way your sock sticks to a towel when you take it out of the dryer is the same driving force holding the universe together!



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 01:08 PM
link   
So does this mean the current universe will die and be replaced by a more stable one? Another words, it's kind of like asexual reproduction. Will this cycle of stable and unstable go on forever?

Everything dies, so I'm not surprised our universe dies too.

The glimmer of hope is that a new one takes its place. It's not as bad as it seems. And even if it were bad and there was no stable replacement, this universe would still have billions of years to exist. Years in which it could cherish its history. These would have to be rich years too.

One of the bad things I foresee happening is willful ignorance. If for example we find out that there's no stable replacement, people may choose to forget that they ever knew about this.

But I get no indication that the replacement will be unstable. All indications are that the current universe is the one that's unstable. The replacement is the one that's stable.

Thus my reference to asexual reproduction. Maybe not the same thing, but...
edit on 21-2-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   
To me the higgs field sounds like what the old school physicists were referring to when they inferred the existence of an aether, or when einstein inferred the existence of space-time fabric.

I think the reason they have to infer the existence of the higgs field, is because their model for the beginning of the universe doesn't begin with the universe being infinite mass, ( im not sure about any of this, just speculating, wish a real physicist who has studied this stuff comes along and discusses), but any way in the first picoseconds of the beginning of the universe everything that existed was pure energy. If not, I dont know why they need to suggest higgs field. Why cant it just be that there is a quantity of energy/matter which has the property of mass in relation to other properties of energy matter? I guess it also has to do with the speed of light and light itself and how it is perceived to be massless. Making the definition of mass in a way; a quantity of energy or matter which does not travel at the speed of light. if you have a rock for example, it is traveling at its constant speed on the earth which is traveling etc.etc., on earth because earth is a gravity well, the rock is at its lowest energy state just sitting on the ground, it requires energy to accelerate that rock, a certain amount to accelerate it to 10 mph, 20 mph, 30 mph, 670,616,629 mph (light speed)... I think the thing is it is near impossible to obtain that much of energy/thrust to propel a mass like a rock (or any) to that velocity of light.
Well Im not sure how thats related but I think it has something to do with it, and the nature of mass at all. I think law of conservation of energy and matter and mass is related to this subject and an interesting topic. why can energy not be extinguished, what does that say about the universe as a whole, is it a closed isolated system, or every time matter and energy is broken down it makes the universes size bigger, could this be why the universe is expanding? but anyway, the simplest atom (hydrogen) is composed of a few different kinds of subatomic particles which have a defined mass, the electron has its mass, the proton has its mass ( and its said that there are particles in the proton which hold the proton together which have their own mass), Im pretty sure like in hydrogen bombs, ( i could be very wrong about this) parts of the mass of atoms are converted into pure energy ( sound waves and Em radiation i think, along with other types of particles). I guess im still confused because I guess all of that energy/mass of the atoms that are exploded, are still contained in the system and contribute energy to other systems.

so yea, mass is a very confusing thing...en.wikipedia.org...

"an electron has a mass that is approximately 1/1836 that of the proton"

Im not sure if "mass" in elementary particles is just referring to its detectable kinetic energy at its lowest energy state,.. I dont know very confusing. Maybe 'Buddhasystems' will hear my prayers and bless us with his knowledge.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1nf1del

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by 1nf1del

I think the answers will come when they figure out how a "black hole" really works and what it's actually made of!


I fail to see the correlation between a point that displays an incalculable density of suckage and the Higgs Field, but tossing in a black hole reference usually works when chatting up cosmology, so why not. Maybe black holes ooze Higgs Field molasses?

I wonder if there's a phd opening for that theory?



I'm talking about electric universe theory, in the same way your sock sticks to a towel when you take it out of the dryer is the same driving force holding the universe together!


Static electricity?

There's a theory that static electricity is holding the universe together?



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by jonnywhite
So does this mean the current universe will die and be replaced by a more stable one? Another words, it's kind of like asexual reproduction. Will this cycle of stable and unstable go on forever?


I think that what it means is that some science journalist was given a deadline to come up with something publishable about the Higgs Boson thingy, and he walked in on some lunchroom where some physics guys were eating and they started shooting some sh*t about "what's new?", and this is the only thing that made it past the editors.

It's not even credible enough to be foolishness.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


All I know is that if you have to invent an impossible "always" of any kind, just to make your theory work, then you're better off spending that creativity and effort on a new theory. No theory should need the invention of impossible "always" things in order to not contradict themselves.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by 1nf1del

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by 1nf1del

I think the answers will come when they figure out how a "black hole" really works and what it's actually made of!


I fail to see the correlation between a point that displays an incalculable density of suckage and the Higgs Field, but tossing in a black hole reference usually works when chatting up cosmology, so why not. Maybe black holes ooze Higgs Field molasses?

I wonder if there's a phd opening for that theory?



I'm talking about electric universe theory, in the same way your sock sticks to a towel when you take it out of the dryer is the same driving force holding the universe together!


Static electricity?

There's a theory that static electricity is holding the universe together?



Umm no, comprehension problems? What is your theory on what holds it together?



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1nf1del

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by 1nf1del

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by 1nf1del

I think the answers will come when they figure out how a "black hole" really works and what it's actually made of!


I fail to see the correlation between a point that displays an incalculable density of suckage and the Higgs Field, but tossing in a black hole reference usually works when chatting up cosmology, so why not. Maybe black holes ooze Higgs Field molasses?

I wonder if there's a phd opening for that theory?



I'm talking about electric universe theory, in the same way your sock sticks to a towel when you take it out of the dryer is the same driving force holding the universe together!


Static electricity?

There's a theory that static electricity is holding the universe together?



Umm no, comprehension problems?


I guess so.




What is your theory on what holds it together?


Didn't I just answer this question? Maybe it was in that Identity thread?

Anyway, contextual precedence and the primordial existential imperative - survival. Together, they make it all what it is and do what it does.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


All I know is that if you have to invent an impossible "always" of any kind, just to make your theory work, then you're better off spending that creativity and effort on a new theory. No theory should need the invention of impossible "always" things in order to not contradict themselves.


Yea well. Do you think mass exists? What is it? How does it exist? What caused it to exist?



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Particle creation? Could have something to do with plasma confinement, such as a z-pinch and the like. The electromagnetism and plasma phenomena have been neglected as a contributing factor in main stream science but in my understanding their presence permeates all scales of measurement from macro to micro to nano to sub atomic. What I mean is, their effect on a macro scale such as the universe is also identical on all other scales. I am not an expert, but the electric universe theory seems more plausable than what is being currently accepted.
edit on 22-2-2013 by eManym because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by NorEaster
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


All I know is that if you have to invent an impossible "always" of any kind, just to make your theory work, then you're better off spending that creativity and effort on a new theory. No theory should need the invention of impossible "always" things in order to not contradict themselves.


Yea well. Do you think mass exists? What is it? How does it exist? What caused it to exist?


Look at H2O molecules as they move around - under a microscope, I suppose. Maybe you can fit two or three within the entire field of view, and there's plenty of room between them. Doesn't look solid. Then you back it up - way up - like 200 feet up and there's a pond where those water molecules were, and it looks pretty much like a "mass" as it lays there and reflects the sky behind you.

Mass is defined by the perception interpretation of the human being defining it. All of material existence is a matter of perspective and relative context. Does mass exist? Yeah, it does. What causes it to exist? The confluence of the quantum of action, holon structure, and the existential imperative that is Identity survival.

No Higgs Field required.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by eManym
Particle creation? Could have something to do with plasma confinement, such as a z-pinch and the like. The electromagnetism and plasma phenomena have been neglected as a contributing factor in main stream science but in my understanding their presence permeates all scales of measurement from macro to micro to nano to sub atomic. What I mean is, their effect on a macro scale such as the universe is also identical on all other scales. I am not an expert, but the electric universe theory seems more plausable than what is being currently accepted.
edit on 22-2-2013 by eManym because: (no reason given)


In my own research, "how" something is accomplished is ancillary to "why" that accomplishment is required. Depending on the contextual composition of the reality confine, the "how" could easily vary, making it unique per confine, and not elemental to a foundational TOE. Especially since "everything" involves all existent reality confines.

Plasma confinement? Sure...why not? If not, then...okay. Whatever. Plasma confinement isn't "why" mass exists. After all, plasma and electromagnetism have to be explained. As they say in the theater - "You can't just drop an alligator through the transom and expect the audience to praise it for its originality -- they'll just feel cheated."



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Where did subatomic received it's interactive mechanics?, How did constants become constants? Where did the mechanics of atoms sharing electrons come from? Why do molecules bond and form enzymes? How did the brain evolved processing algorithms between 100 billion cells to process light data it receives from the eyes to "display" visual data?

As humanity is reverse engineering reality, to me it's becoming more apparent that "something" wants "us" or "it" to experience "this". With advance knowledge of programming, looking at reality from a programmers perspective, I can see "logical" reasoning of why things work, you see methodologies that a programmer would use in a scenario such as Modular, Inheritance, Polymorphism , Composition, in order for these methods to exist would require "logical" reasoning to use them in scenarios and these are just some of the methods.

"Something" saw the quantum potential of this reality and guided the potential to form this reality. This is coming from a spiritual sense of course.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

The basic notion concerning why things bond - even to the point of particles being formed as bonded clusters - is "Identity survival",


If you agree that energy/matter/particles exist, and in a massively large quantity in/of this universe. And if you agree that the basic constituents of our universe, those particles of energy (electron,quarks, other standard model particles) are not alive,, then it is not a matter of survival imperative why they form together to create structure, Its a matter of the conditions which caused these particles to exist, and the physical characteristics of the particles that force them to behave to one another in the ways we observe (laws of physics). When you say the fundamental particles of the universe clump together because they want to survive and last longer, are you implying that they have a choice?



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by NorEaster
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


All I know is that if you have to invent an impossible "always" of any kind, just to make your theory work, then you're better off spending that creativity and effort on a new theory. No theory should need the invention of impossible "always" things in order to not contradict themselves.


Yea well. Do you think mass exists? What is it? How does it exist? What caused it to exist?


Look at H2O molecules as they move around - under a microscope, I suppose. Maybe you can fit two or three within the entire field of view, and there's plenty of room between them. Doesn't look solid. Then you back it up - way up - like 200 feet up and there's a pond where those water molecules were, and it looks pretty much like a "mass" as it lays there and reflects the sky behind you.

Mass is defined by the perception interpretation of the human being defining it. All of material existence is a matter of perspective and relative context. Does mass exist? Yeah, it does. What causes it to exist? The confluence of the quantum of action, holon structure, and the existential imperative that is Identity survival.

No Higgs Field required.



Can you post a real photo of an h20 molecule if you can find one.

Well the mystery of mass is really the mystery of "stuff". Where the heck did all this real stuff come from and why is there so much of it. 5 gram iron ball has less mass then a 10 gram iron ball because the 10 gram iron ball has twice as many atoms? Its the mystery of where the tiniest stuff, as stable as it is, gets/got its energy level from/mass. The mystery of mass is the mystery of the quantity of the universe, where it all comes from and how it was made to exist.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by samaka
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Where did subatomic received it's interactive mechanics?, How did constants become constants? Where did the mechanics of atoms sharing electrons come from? Why do molecules bond and form enzymes? How did the brain evolved processing algorithms between 100 billion cells to process light data it receives from the eyes to "display" visual data?


The survival successes are repeated, and the failures aren't within each given reality confine. What works works, and what doesn't doesn't. The goal is existential survival at all levels of material reality, and from orbits to intellect-generating material brains, successful survival strategies are repeated until they become constants, and unsuccessful survival strategies aren't.

Reality is a lot more uncomplicated than most people are willing to accept. No drama. No intent. Just succeed and repeat, or fail and don't repeat. The technicals involved are pretty simple too, but they do involve learning the fundamentals before they'd make any sense to you. Much of what is taught in physics class, and in Sunday school, is pretty much off the mark. Especially concerning what sits at the absolute base of it all.


As humanity is reverse engineering reality, to me it's becoming more apparent that "something" wants "us" or "it" to experience "this". With advance knowledge of programming, looking at reality from a programmers perspective, I can see "logical" reasoning of why things work, you see methodologies that a programmer would use in a scenario such as Modular, Inheritance, Polymorphism , Composition, in order for these methods to exist would require "logical" reasoning to use them in scenarios and these are just some of the methods.

"Something" saw the quantum potential of this reality and guided the potential to form this reality. This is coming from a spiritual sense of course.


If you don't program using machine language, then you can't really "see" the sub-structure of reality from a programmer's point of view. After all, you're probably programming on top of a programmed software platform, and reality doesn't sit on of an existent reality platform. That "something" that you're suggesting needs an existential "platform" if it's to exist in a way that allows it to be a dynamic agent within any reality confine at all. You can't simply invent something without establishing how it came into existence. That's just religion dressed up in a white lab coat.
edit on 2/23/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join