God Particle 'May Not Exist' Say Hadron Collider Scientists

Can we please keep the religious babble out of threads about science please?


Thank you.
 
Godmachine said:
Time Traveling forward is 100 percent possible we know this because Astronauts technically time travel a very small amount. Technically everything you see is also in the past since light takes time to travel to your eyes and processed by your brain.

We do not know if Time Travel into the past is truly possible as the energies required are concluded to be incredibly massive or would require exotic matter like Negative Mass particles which we can only observe in fractional amounts. If we could figure out a way to harness Negative Mass particles we could make wormhole travel feasible , we could also use vast amounts of Negative Mass Particles to create a "Warp" bubble that would allow for FTL travel without breaking the speed of light limits. We could also get extremely lucky and manage to find Cosmic Strings which are theorized to allow faster than light travel around the Universe.

Saying something is "impossible" in science is completely dismissive and arrogant statement.
Click to expand...

Please don't make a statement that leads people to believe we're traveling in time because of the time it takes light to hit our eyes and be perceived in our brains as time travel. That's no different than saying data packets travel in time because it takes 150ms to reach you from a server. It's just with an electrical (or combination of electrical and optical) connection in stead.
 
Godmachine said:
We do not know if Time Travel into the past is truly possible

Saying something is "impossible" in science is completely dismissive and arrogant statement.
Click to expand...
We all know it's not possible because everyone here has made a deal with him or herself to inform their past selves (or ancestors) when time travel becomes possible.

Since no one has informed any of us that someone finally Did It we can safely assume no one has.
 
oh ffs.

dont you have wikipedia? /me facepalms

firstly the man that coined the term, Leon Lederman didn't call it "the god particle" when he wrote the book that the term was pulled from ( The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question? ). He wanted to call it "The Goddamn Particle". But his editor wouldnt let him. So his EDITOR changed the name.

Secondly. Not finding the Higgs Boson in the ranges left at the current capacity they are running at (The LHC has never run at full capacity and isnt scheduled to even try until AFTER it is to be shutdown for refit in 2012) just means their theories on using particle accelerators at the given wattages to see how particles gain mass needs to be rethought. Thats ALL it means.

I can't even believe I'm having to type this out on a site that is supposed to come here for the SCIENCE involved in computer performance, overclocking, etc...
 
I miss SMAC.
Click to expand...

That could be a thread of its own, but I'll just say me too.

Science is about the eternal search for the truth. Anytime some declares knowledge or writes a paper is scrutinized and debated, alternatives explored, and documenting the changes on how humans perceive the universe.
Click to expand...

I love you too. Humor aside, this is a very pure view that assumes no corruption and I think you'll find it to only be true in the most noble of cases.

As long as you understand god is an idea. Not a real entity. There have been many gods throughout history all with the same story and objective, to fill the empty space in most mens minds left behind from where intelligence and reasoning used to be. No different than scientific theories except with one exception. People who believe in science believe in things that can be demonstrated and proven, while religions rely on the fact they cannot be proven to exist. To prove god exists is to renounce ones faith. Yet they want the burden of proof to be upon those who only believe in provable things. Interesting isnt it?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. It's perhaps the most interesting thing of all.
"I want to know God's thoughts...the rest are details." - Albert Einstein

1. Oh the irony in this statement, maybe the scientist should have some blind "faith"
2. God, quite simply put, is how men deal with the inevitability of death and the concept of "not existing". Most people, 60% of the population in the USA last i heard, attend church and believe the bible because they cant handle the truth. Religion is a weakness.
3. Can we please keep the religious babble out of threads about science please?
4. Or faith is a strength you do not have.
5. A discussion about the LHC becomes a debate about religion due to a whimsical term that scientists use to informally refer to an extension of the standard model.
6. If one's not going to commit to being a theist, it would make the most sense to be indifferent and remain a traditional agnostic.
7. I don't see how any scientist could be critical of a theist for holding a belief in something, even if that something is uncertain.
Click to expand...

Dear Lord, I need a machine gun here.

"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God." - Albert Einstein 'The Human Side', 1954

Many of Einstein's discoveries were based on faith in unpopular ideas that he could not prove and he even commented that it was his duty to explore them as they might cost a younger man a promising career.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. ~ Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941

As a lover of science, I also have faith in God.
Click to expand...

The poetry that comes from the squaring off between, and the circling is worth it. Finding beauty in the dissonance. lqtm... @.@

so far, lots theories have been proved to be right in SM, and if they cant find Higgs Bosons, they will definitely have to come up with a different theory
Click to expand...
There are plenty of them out there, and they'll have to start proving one of them or something new.

The LHC wasn't created just to hunt for the Higgs , although the proposal was a big part of it there were many reasons for creating the LHC. The hope was that when it was able to achieve its maximum energy output it might be able to create the right kind of energetic reactions that would lead to evidence supporting the possibility of the Higgs. Instead the LHC has so far just about disproved Super Symmetry all but entirely , it has show a particle similar to the proposed Higgs but with a heavier mass than expected. Its also given hints that may end up supporting parallel universe theories and its helped create the first ever long term capture of anti-matter (well long term compared to previous attempts).

In the end the LHC will be responsible for changing physics in way's none of us can imagine right now. There mountains of data to go through that will take decades to truly understand , right now there could be all the answers we've been looking for .. buried in the data waiting for the discovery to be made. Its truly an exciting time for Physics.
Click to expand...

+1. You rock.

Saying something is "impossible" in science is a completely dismissive and arrogant statement.
Click to expand...

Heheheh.

... time travel ...
Click to expand...

Time travel in the classic sense has no place in rational theory, but temporal distortion does exist on the quantum level, and more importantly it can be controlled.

and...

We have reached an informational threshold which can only be crossed by harnessing the speed of light directly. The quickest computations require the fasted possible particles moving along the shortest paths. Since the capability now exists to take our information directly from photons traveling molecular paths, the final act of the information revolution will soon be upon us.
 
aireyc said:
Wow you've spent all of five minutes thinking about this, haven't you?

Catholicism believes in the Trinity. Three persons in one. Father, Son, and Spirit. Jesus was incarnated. As a living person he was God. It's not an idea. It's a physical being (or an entity).

Think about this... Say two people are arguing over a question that has an answer of either true or false. Person A argues "I have studied this question for 50 years. I have a PhD. I've won a Nobel Prize. I am 100% certain the answer is true." Person B basically says the same thing: "I, too, have studied this question for decades. I, too, have a PhD. I, too, am 100% certain of the answer. It's false."

Obviously only one of them is correct. So the question is... Does the certainty of the one individual negate the correctness of the other? No. Just because there are thousands of denominations of religions that all believe different things in no way disproves the potential correctness of one. It doesn't matter if the entire world believes something. That doesn't change the reality. So it really doesn't matter if all religions tell the same story and fill some gap. That doesn't change the reality.

Religions also do not rely on the fact they can't be proven because they potentially can be proven. If God comes down and pulls crazy shit and reveals a proof, would your argument still hold? How can you say the existence of a god can't be proven? Are you an atheist? You do realize that can't be proven, right? I assume you're an agnostic then.

Finally, many religious people don't put a burden of proof on anyone. They (myself included) counter the half-assed thinking of morons like yourself. So no, it's not interesting.
Click to expand...

Im an agnostic athiest yes. You counter my statement of fact with a series of hypothetical questions. I am not a half assed moron. Im actually more familiar with religion than i ever wanted to be, through the unsolicited indoctrination as a child. Because religious people tend to want to take advantage of people who are weakminded like children and just weakminded people in general. Its much easier for someone dying of cancer to believe in some path to an eternal heaven or to manipulate the impressionable mind of a 5 yr old who is trusting their parental units to take care of them and believe their every word. Yet those parents make a very deliberate decision and choose to teach the child something they themselves cannot even substantiate. Its a very sadistic thing this religion. If they would only believe it for themselves and there was no preying on the weakminded, there would be far less "believers" in the world. Isnt that interesting? That if you allow people to develop their minds into maturity and health they are far less likely to believe in fairy tales? Religion is about personal choice, so why does it depend on these atrocious activities to remain viable? If it were so fucking obvious that god is real there would be no need to prey on the weak.
 
ex nihilo nihil fit

A ultimate prime move is much more satisfying to the intellect then a blind faith in dead end theories.

In other words..............GOD.
 
...here in a few years, those "educated men' will be able to say "derp, there is a God, and he ain't no particle".
Psalm 14:1-7... to those that want to have a God/No God flame fest, I will chip in.
 
An incredible amount of money and resources are spent each year in our attempt to understand and explain everything from solar phenomenon, our sister planets, finding planets in other galaxy, black holes, the list is almost endless. The other night I watched where they'd built a laser to replicate super Nova. The power needed to fire one shot could power 30+ cities.
 
Its amazing how many people get angry and defend God or no God on the Internet.

What does it matter nerds? I have my beliefs. I don't need you to agree, or see them my way. As Franky said "I did it my way".

To those that think they are going to change any views pro / con. Give up.
 
I'm glad it doesn't exist because quite honestly, from the moment I started following it, the whole premise seemed particularly stupid. Had Physics at a tough college in case anyone wants to know.
 
jdavidlove said:
I'm glad it doesn't exist because quite honestly, from the moment I started following it, the whole premise seemed particularly stupid. Had Physics at a tough college in case anyone wants to know.
Click to expand...

What exactly do you find particularly stupid about the Higgs mechanism?
 
The Standard Model predicts the existence of the Higgs boson, much like it predicts the existence of all other subatomic particles that have been found to date. This is one of the most successful, thoroughly tested theories in all of science. If the Higgs isn't detected at the energy levels predicted, it will be an even bigger revelation to some than actually finding the particle. This will mean the Standard Model needs to undergo some revisions. New science will have to be introduced, opening up some wiggle room for theorists.

So yea, now you morons can go back to arguing about if jesus road dinosaurs or time travel or whatever the fuck nonsense this thread turned into.
 
Night_Hawk-19 said:
Someone is sniffing too much glue. Isn't there something better to be doing than pointless experiment like this.
Click to expand...

Learning the rules of the universe we live in is pretty important, imo.

BBA said:
My theory...there is no such thing as mass.

Mass is only an effect of field interactions. Starting with a super short reach super strong attractive field that subatomic partticles are created from and even starting before that level.

Follow me here, it really does make sense: All known fields are 'harmonic' orders of the preceding fields: Each odd numbered 'harmonic' field is repulsive and farther reaching and weaker than the preceeding, and each even 'harmonic' field attractive...and so on. Each level is weaker but farther reaching than the preceeding field the in higher order it goes.

This explains why the universe is expanding...a super weak but super far reaching repulsive field that is one level up from gravity, being intensified by the collective fields of all objects, pushing against the shorter reaching but stronger gravity field. (Use this model to describe everything subatomic to the strong nuclear force to electric repulsion then to gravity and so on...even up to the dreaded 'dark energy' field and beyond... the levels of harmonic fields reach to infinity...which is where the first layer of strong field for the next level of objects stats, but on a hugely macroscopic scale (meaning different sized levels of universes as well).
Click to expand...

Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration – that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There's no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather. - Bill Hicks
 
the fuck 6 pages of replies in a day? You'd think this was some thread on making Amazon collect taxes... or macs
 
No, God plays "choose your life" and live with it. And the golden rule.
hE .. plays croquet ..

maybe Trials riding..
 
nobody_here said:
As long as you understand god is an idea. Not a real entity. There have been many gods throughout history all with the same story and objective, to fill the empty space in most mens minds left behind from where intelligence and reasoning used to be. No different than scientific theories except with one exception. People who believe in science believe in things that can be demonstrated and proven, while religions rely on the fact they cannot be proven to exist. To prove god exists is to renounce ones faith. Yet they want the burden of proof to be upon those who only believe in provable things. Interesting isnt it?
Click to expand...

While many scientist point to the universe being created by the big bang, I have yet to hear any serious scientific explanation on what actually caused the big bang.

Don't you find it a little strange that virtually every civilization thoughout history has had a believe in a higher power of some sort (i.e. a god). It's almost as if the belief in god is pre-programmed into the human phyche.
 
exdriver said:
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. ~ Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941
Click to expand...

Best line in the entire thread.

I'd also add that science without religion can also be dangerous.
Without the restraints of the morality provided by religion, some scientist will cross the line into immoral experimentation, like what happened during WWII.
We already see the results of relative morals in today’s society (morals being whatever you thing they should be)
 
nutzo said:
Best line in the entire thread.

I'd also add that science without religion can also be dangerous.
Without the restraints of the morality provided by religion, some scientist will cross the line into immoral experimentation, like what happened during WWII.
We already see the results of relative morals in today’s society (morals being whatever you thing they should be)
Click to expand...
Religion is not a prerequisite for morals. It's simply a convenient excuse. Some have also made the argument that a code of morality is far more meaningful when self-imposed as opposed to following a religion's morals because they need to do so in order to reach heaven/nirvana/what have you.
 
Finding what gives particles mass is a religious subject because "Mass" has more than one meaning? Catholics don't have to go to Sunday Mass if they discover the Higgs Boson?
 
Can they please just blow the rift open to the other dimension already?

I'm itchin' to take the chainsaw to one of those giant floating eyeball things.
 
jojo69 said:
Can they please just blow the rift open to the other dimension already?

I'm itchin' to take the chainsaw to one of those giant floating eyeball things.
Click to expand...

Make sure to use an electric one though so you don't contribute to global warming.
 
I still think it'll create another big bang and we'll get a universe inside a universe. Inceptionverse.
 
Zero82z said:
Religion is not a prerequisite for morals. It's simply a convenient excuse. Some have also made the argument that a code of morality is far more meaningful when self-imposed as opposed to following a religion's morals because they need to do so in order to reach heaven/nirvana/what have you.
Click to expand...

Only problem is.. is that getting to Heaven has nothing to do with "following the morals" of a religion.
 
nobody_here said:
You should have read it. Thats not at all what it says. It shows that all of the basic characterizations used in the "bible" to tell the story of "jesus" is the same story being told over and over in all countries and all corners of the earth all throughout history even before the days of "jesus". It shows that the bible is no more accurate or true than any other religious writing. It shows that it is all created by man. God, quite simply put, is how men deal with the inevitability of death and the concept of "not existing". Most people, 60% of the population in the USA last i heard, attend church and believe the bible because they cant handle the truth. Religion is a weakness.
Click to expand...


This said it better than I ever could have. I've got no beef against religious people, except when they try and pass it off as anything other than a personal belief. It's when they pronounce it as fact, and try to force everyone else too believe a fairy tail, that the problems start.
 
That IS the problem with religion. You'd be hard press to find one that states their claims to be a simple hope of reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top