'God particle' theorists receive Nobel Prize in physics

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 07:32 AM
link   

(CNN) -- The Higgs boson, the "God particle," which was discovered last year, garnered two physicists the Nobel Prize in Physics on Tuesday, but it didn't go to the scientists who discovered it.


edition.cnn.com...

Ok, the Nobel Prize goes to God`s particle theorists, not the scientists who discovered it.

Not sure if this is 100% fair. Maybe they should split the prize ?
edit on 8-10-2013 by AQ6666 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by AQ6666
 

Well, it is called the 'Higgs boson' (not God particle) which was predicted by Peter Higgs and Francois Englert.

Would the discoverer of a worm hole get the prize or would it go to Einstein and Rosen?



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by greencmp
 


Theory is important but only the discovery can proove it, so I think both are important.



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 08:26 AM
link   

AQ6666
reply to post by greencmp
 


Theory is important but only the discovery can proove it, so I think both are important.

I know what you mean, it looks like it was a political decision to avoid choosing any particular person from the 'thousands' involved in the experiments at CERN.

Maybe a general CERN credit would be appropriate?



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 08:28 AM
link   

AQ6666

(CNN) -- The Higgs boson, the "God particle," which was discovered last year, garnered two physicists the Nobel Prize in Physics on Tuesday, but it didn't go to the scientists who discovered it.


edition.cnn.com...

Ok, the Nobel Prize goes to God`s particle theorists, not the scientists who discovered it.

Not sure if this is 100% fair. Maybe they should split the prize ?
edit on 8-10-2013 by AQ6666 because: (no reason given)


Without the theory, there would be nothing to "discover" would there?



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by greencmp
 


Totally agree with you



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Krakatoa
 


That is true, but without the discovery we still would only be thinking that fire is possible.



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 09:14 AM
link   


Without the theory, there would be nothing to "discover" would there?



This makes zero sense. Most things were discovered before they were theorized to exist. Pre-existing theories just speed up the process.

Look at Walter Russell. He theorized that a certain element should exist on the periodic table, but it hadn't been discovered yet. He died, then shortly afterwards it was discovered because of his efforts. He mathematically predicted that the atomic model had to exist somewhere on Earth, and when they found it, it became the key component for nuclear bombs. Because of Walter Russells theory, millions of people died. Or was it because of the discovery? Who should we blame for the nuclear bomb? I say neither, because it was not the theorists nor the discoverer's fault, it's the people who had intentions of building bombs who is to blame.



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by AQ6666
 


The team at CERN did not discover the Higgs particle. They re-discovered it - or, rather, they discovered it in a scientific way. The subatomic particle had been first described, albeit in a non-scientific way, 54 years ago, that is, about five years before Higgs and Englert proposed its existence. In 1959 the Theosophical writer and clairvoyant Geoffrey Hodson collaborated with the New Zealand psychiatrist Dr D.D. Lyness in a series of investigations into his alleged ability to remote-view subatomic particles. The original, complete transcript, entitled "Some recent clairvoyant research in New Zealand," is deposited in the National Library of Australia collection. Called "anima" in Sanskrit, the ability to see microscopic objects is one of the siddhis, or paranormal abilities, that can be gained by the practice of yoga, being mentioned by Patanjali in Aphorism 3.26 of his Yoga Sutras, as well as being called "clear cognition" in the ancient Buddhist text called the Uttara Tantra. Following the work by the Theosophists Annie Besant and C.W. Leadbeater at the turn of the 20th century of magnifying with anima the atoms of all the elements (published in 1908 in their book "Occult Chemistry" (read here), Hodson was asked by Lyness to remote-view the basic units of matter. He noticed that space was filled with minute points of light flying about in all directions but that these particles formed a more concentrated mist around the basic units, revolving around them to form vortices. These points of light are the Higgs particles, which pervade space and, according to the string model version of quantum chromodynamics, increase in number density close to SU(3) colour monopoles/quarks and circulate around their colour flux, forming vortices in the Higgs superfluid.

This observation was recorded in January, 1959, five years before Higgs proposed the existence of Higgs particles and many decades before the string model of quark confinement was developed in which the Higgs field was shown mathematically to develop vortical motion in the region of monopoles. It is an amazing anticipation - free of ambiguity and conventional explanation - of what physicists would conceive and research into only many years after the paranormal observations were recorded for posterity. Of course, Hodson will never get any credit for what he discovered because most scientists do not accept that such remote-viewing abilities can exist in human beings. But the evidence remains, however much they try to ignore it, and the implications of this work is being currently analyzed in great depth by professional physicists and mathematicians, who prefer to remain nameless, given the attitude of their colleagues towards ESP, etc. Hopefully, on this important day of the announcement of the Nobel Prize to Higgs and Englert, some of you will take this amazing story seriously enough to study it in more detail here (scroll down to news item #9). As an introduction to the topic, see here and here.



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 09:28 AM
link   
I would say that the people who theorized it should get the prize.....But was it really their idea is the question. I would bet that they had input from someone else, that person should get some recognition from them. People often get ideas from others and work on them to form a hypothesis. This is normal today. The thing is that the person who put the bug in their ear should also be credited for their idea. Most times the person with the idea just thinks of it and the idea would go nowhere if someone without knowledge of the science's does not work on it. It is just speculation but the speculation inspires someone with the ability to pursue it. The prize does belong to the one who took the risk to make the theory and present it to the scientific community though. The one with the original idea lacked the confidence or knowledge to follow through. I still think they should be credited as a source by the receiver of the prize though.

I see this in the working world too, people show someone something and the one they show put a lot of work into something and gain recognition. They rarely give any recognition to the one who sent them on the path, mostly because of an inner guilt. At least they should buy the guy whose idea they used a cup of coffee when they see them. And thank them for the idea.

The guy who had the idea should be happy that someone paid attention to his idea. If it was just an idea that needed a lot of work he/she should get some recognition for their input, but if it was an outright theft of knowledge or design, that is what the legal system is for. In the case of this theory, a lot of people probably gave input. Synergy at work.



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 09:30 AM
link   
I'm glad I didn't have to make the decision. But I think the theorists is an easier choice.
And as was said ... without the theory there would have been nothing to discover.



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 02:43 PM
link   
It doesn't matter who gets the prize, it's nothing more than a glorified "good job guys"


I would assume nothing could top the feeling of having discovered the Higgs Boson, the discovery itself was more than likely a bigger prize than a nobel.



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 07:55 PM
link   

greencmp
reply to post by AQ6666
 

Well, it is called the 'Higgs boson' (not God particle) which was predicted by Peter Higgs and Francois Englert.

Would the discoverer of a worm hole get the prize or would it go to Einstein and Rosen?


The Nobel committee awards prizes only to the living.

Carlo Rubbia won for leading the experimental discovery of W & Z (electroweak bosons) at CERN. The theorists won a few years earlier.

edit on 8-10-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-10-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-10-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 

Well, see, if they make a wormhole they can go back in time. Yeah, that's the ticket!



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 08:01 PM
link   
So is the higgs field an ether? I thought the greeks knew about that.



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Vortiki
It doesn't matter who gets the prize, it's nothing more than a glorified "good job guys"


I would assume nothing could top the feeling of having discovered the Higgs Boson, the discovery itself was more than likely a bigger prize than a nobel.


Sure, it might feel like a million bucks, but I'd rather have the real, and not virtual, cash in my bank account thank you.



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 08:07 PM
link   

symptomoftheuniverse
So is the higgs field an ether? I thought the greeks knew about that.

No. "Ether" was thought to be something physical, like air. The Higgs field is a field, not something physical. Gravity presents as a field. Magnetism presents as a field. They have no physical presence unlike "ether" was thought to.



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


So how does the higgs particle extract mass from this non physical field?



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Good to hear God finally won a prize!!



posted on Oct, 9 2013 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Phage

symptomoftheuniverse
So is the higgs field an ether? I thought the greeks knew about that.

No. "Ether" was thought to be something physical, like air. The Higgs field is a field, not something physical. Gravity presents as a field. Magnetism presents as a field. They have no physical presence unlike "ether" was thought to.


I would call the E&M and gravitational fields as having a physical presence, but not an independent one lke the incorrect electromagnetic ether.

The 19th century 'ether' theories were in an analogy to the then known wave phenomena of acoustics and fluid flow, where there are waves on an underlying medium which has its own physics and existence.

They wondered if electromagnetic waves were oscillations of some other 'thing' (ether) which could have its own inertia, velocity and other physics independent of and in addition to the electromagnetic waves on it. This hypothesis had experimental consequences which were not found.

Today, the fundamental fields are considered physically real but the excitations are oscillations of the field and the field is nothing but the aggregation of the oscillations. With quantum field theory we know that even the ground state has physics & dynamics of its own with experimental consequences which some people want to call an 'ether' but this usage is unnecessary and confusing.





new topics
top topics
 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join