Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
I have to believe it. Although I do not have the training in math and physics to completely understand this, all the data is available for anyone to study and replicate.
The"God Particle" is a term even Higgs disagrees with. It is a boson that gives mass to a particle. This is an elementary question that finally got an answer. The problem is that it took a multi-billion dollar machine (LHC) and thousands of physicists to "discover" that particle. In fact, all we have are traces of an expected voltage.
The observations matched the predicted data.
I still doubt seriously a god can be proved.
I posted it for no other reason then discussion.
@ Fievel Mousekewitz
"I still doubt seriously a god can be proved."
This discovery has nothing to do with god, that is just a mis-applied label. It just describes the discovery of a very elusive particle that gives mass.
There are many improper labels in circulation, the most offensive (to me) is "Big Bang". Second "God Particle". Neither offers a valid explanation. In fact, they are misleading.
Hey there, Fievel. Look, I'm no expert in any of this by any stretch of the imagination. Matter of fact, I'd be lying my ass off if I said I understand even a small portion of it all. To me it is all just an entertaining fascination... *chuckle*... But, for what it's worth, I would not get too hung up on the name "God Particle", if that is what you are doing. It is nothing more than a convenient "nickname" which in reality has nothing to do with any type of god. Much like the "Big Bang" is used to refer to the initialization of the expansion of our universe. Make sense? Oh, and if you notice, that discovery video was back in 2012.
Notice I did say I doubted it anyways.
Nothing on CNN?
Nothing on Sky?
Nothing on BBC world news?
Nothing on Al Jazeera
Catholic world news seems unaware?
Hmm, I'm going to say it's bullshit, yeah bullshit is my answer.
Bullshit. Yeah I'll go with that, as I did say it was doubtful didn't I?
My understanding is that this is what led scientists to assert "space is not empty." We have no example of "empty" anywhere in our universe.
Isn't it "Old News?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson
"In 2012, scientists confirmed the detection of the long-sought Higgs boson, also known by its nickname the "God particle," at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the most powerful particle accelerator on the planet. This particle helps give mass to all elementary particles that have mass, such as electrons and protons.Jan 7, 2015. " "This also makes the particle the first elementary scalar particle to be discovered in nature."
The news report sounds pretty good. I would make one caveat. "The Higgs Boson was created after the Big Bang." I think that is wrong. 1. We have no clue as to whether it was "created or not" and use of the word "created," is loaded. 2. The statement assumes a "before the big bang." I don't know how anyone would justify that statement. 3. I believe all we know is that the Higgs Boson is currently the most elemental particle we have discovered.
You are Confused by the name. The particle is not God and has nothing to do with God. It is simply the smallest particle ever discovered. "Currently" IT HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH GOD OR GODS.
I love your replies, and that sounds right somehow. I won't believe even if they do discover some sort of evidence of a god, I still wont believe it unless it is something physically solid I can see or touch.
Glad actually "You are Confused by the name. The particle is not God and has nothing to do with God. It is simply the smallest particle ever discovered. "Currently" IT HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH GOD OR GODS."
There's too many stories of how the universe got started to believe in any besides that the Big Bang happened. Why or how I am not sure we know the answer to that, but I doubt with everything in me that it needed a god to start it. Am, Morgan Freeman says something similar as to that. The universe didn't need a god to start it.
And I also believe that when one dies, they cease to exist, going back to what it was like before one is born.
Consciousness doesn't survive death, the brain needs to be active for consciousness to exist.
So I enjoy life as much as I can as to experience everything in life, just wish I could get that part of my childhood back. All those years wasted in a church preying to something which doesn't exist, and questioning sometimes why some questions never get answered. There's many I didn't even ask as I kept it inside.
Anyways I am rambling on cause I am high again, (Walks Our Of A Cloud Of Smoke.) cough cough.
On july 4, 2012, it was discovered at the LHC in Cern...awhile ago. Nothing new. The physicists working on it at cern and around the world, that collaborated during the long search, called it, "the god damn particle", which was shortened to "the god particle". The name has nothing to do with a god. The particle, the higgs boson, was the final piece of the puzzle to validate "the standard model of particle physics", a conglomeration of evidenced information culminating in the validation of an old hypothesis, on how things in our universe, work. The higgs particle, is a boson, or force carrier, thought to, and correctly hypothesized to be, the carriers of all physical forces...acting like a glue, that binds all matter together. Although, if a god were real, and there is zero evidence for that, he would be bound by bosons as everything else.
@mousey?? Giant smile, I like that.
I'm still open to some sort of proof, but I ain't changing as then I would have so many questions I wouldn't even know where to start.
Like said in another post I forgot who, (Why does god need to rest?) Six days and needed to rest?
Anywho, atheist and always will be. High. he he.
Time for a little history lesson.
Wind the clock back to the late 1960s and early 1970s.
At this time, physicists were trying to make sense of some of the "zoo" of particles they were discovering in particle accelerators. One of the methods for making sense of that "zoo" of particles, was to postulate that the electromagnetic force and weak nuclear force were, at suitable energies, unified into a single electroweak force.
Performing this unification of the two forces, required physicists to postulate the existence of three new particles - the two W bosons, one positively charged, the other negatively charged, and the electrically neutral Z boson.
At this point, it's apposite to digress for a moment, and inform you about what a "boson" is.
Subatomic particles possess a quantity known as "spin", which is a measure of intrinsic angular momentum, as opposed to angular momentum acquired as a result of orbiting something else. The connection with classical angular momentum of large rotating bodies is, however, incomplete (you expect anything to be straightforward in quantum mechanics?). As might be expected, the value of spin for a particle is quantised - it's only allowed to take certain discrete values, instead of lying within a continuum. Thanks to a fortuitous historical accident, particles like electrons and protons came to have spins that took values of the form (n+½), where n is an integer, while other particles (e.g., photons of light) came to have spins that took whole integer values (n).
Electrons and other matter particles are fermions - they have half-integer spins of the form (n+½), and obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle.
Particles that are involved with the transmission of forces, on the other hand, are bosons, and they have integer spins.
It turns out that the spin value of a boson, courtesy of that happy accident where fermions were assigned half-integer spins, fortuitously tells us a lot about the type of force a boson is associated with. A boson with spin 0 is a scalar boson, and is associated with scalar quantities like mass. A boson with spin 1 is a vector boson, and is associated with vector quantities, such as velocity, force, momentum etc. It so happens that the Standard Model of particle physics allows for the existence of spin 2 bosons, and these are associated with exotic quantities best represented by mathematical entities known as "rank 2 tensors". Indeed, a scalar quantity is a rank 0 tensor, and a vector quantity is a rank 1 tensor, so rank 2 tensors are, in effect, like vectors but "even more so". The exact details are the cornerstone of some fairly intimidating pure mathematics classes at undergraduate level, which I'll spare you, despite having endured them myself! But, for future reference, note that gravity is postulated in the quantum world to need a spin 2 boson. Which is one of the reasons why gravity is a bitch to integrate with the other forces. But, I digress.
So, having covered what a boson is, back to that 1970s exercise in unifying the electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces.
To do so, physicists required that the W and Z bosons were vector bosons, like photons - i.e., had a spin value of 1. So, the hunt was on for unusual spin 1 particles that had not been seen before, one with a positive electrical charge, one with a negative electrical charge, and one electrically neutral. Upon finding those, the physicists at the time would know that their work had been pretty much correct.
Well, the W and Z bosons were duly found. And, duly found to be spin 1 bosons with the requisite charges.
Just one teeny fly in the ointment at this point.
The theory of electroweak unification predicted that these particles would be massless. This was already a somewhat controversial development, because massless bosons would mean that the weak nuclear force extended over an infinite range, and thus far, its interactions were observed to be confined to small subatomic distances. For the forces to be restricted, the particles needed to possess mass, and fairly substantial mass at that.
When the particle accelerator data was in, what did the physicists find?
They found that the W and Z bosons possessed hefty masses. Masses easily sufficient to restrict the range of action of the weak nuclear force to small distances.
At this point, there was a problem. How to account for those observed masses in the theory.
Say hello to Peter Higgs, who, along with others, devised a mechanism. Namely, the introduction of a new quantum field (subsequently named the Higgs field), and an associated boson, the Higgs Boson. Which was required, since it was a determinant of mass, to be a scalar boson with spin 0.
Thus began a forty year hunt for it.
The Higgs Boson turned out to be an elusive little beast, and persuading a free Higgs Boson to appear in a particle accelerator experiment, so that it could be detected, turned out to be, well, seriously bloody hard. While that search was on, alternative resolutions of the W and Z mass problem were devised, just in case the Higgs Boson turned out to be elusive enough not to exist, as it were.
Then, CERN stepped up to the plate, with a brand new and very powerful accelerator. To give you an idea how powerful, the Large Hadron Collider, when in operation, uses as much electrical power in one day as my house does in forty three years. The construction bill for this behemoth was around $10 billion, and the electricity bill for its operation is around $8 million per year. That's one seriously expensive piece of kit. It's also unusual in another respect. Most physics labs house the equipment within their walls, whereas in the case of CERN, the lab is a building sitting on top of the apparatus, which occupies a circular tunnel 27 miles in diameter.
Well, this massive machine was duly fired up, and ...
... after a LOT of experimental runs, data turned up consistent with the appearance, although very briefly, of a free Higgs Boson. Furthermore, its measured properties, for the time being, slot pretty neatly into the theory that was produced 40 years previously.
Now at this point, if you're wondering why this mass-donating particle doesn't donate mass to photons, well, that takes us into the territory of hardcore quantum operator theory, and again, this isn't for the faint hearted. But apparently, it's responsible for donating mass to just about everything apart from photons and neutrinos. Any particle with a decent mass owes that mass, in no small part, to the Higgs Boson, though in the case of quarks, things are more complicated still, courtesy of confinement and the action of gluons. You should now be in a position to understand why it takes 15 years of hard study to become a properly accredited particle physicist.