We have all heard the news that the so called "God particle" has been found through a "atom smasher" and this confirms our basic view of the universe. This is the Higgs Boson particle that gives mass to the universe. Actually, it's only confirmed to be "a Higgs Boson," there are about five types it's too soon to say which type. The discoveries helps to anchor the basic theory now has prominence in big bang and sub atomic particles. Atheists are quick to jump on the bang wagon declare this a victory over religion. On the CARM board an atheist postor called "Jagella" says:
"God particle found" posts 5 and 10
5Now we can say safely that no god gives mass to objects? That conjures up the ancient view of God opening doors in the volt of heaven to pour water through into rain. I've always known that the atheist straw God was basally a big man in the sky but this is absurd. This "Jagella" person must be desperate to get God out of the picture. I guess if the wind blows form the West that totally disproves God. Or if moss grows on the north side of a tree this person rests easy form the fear of hell. The truth of it is this has nothing to do with God at all. Calling "God particle" hardly makes it a test of God's existence. It's still a problem to determine where the particle came from the basic set of laws and the whole set up that could produce a particle. That assumes that the real reason to believe in God is based upon the need to explain things. When will get it the point that the only thing scinece is going to tell us about God is the potential nature of the way he did things.
Crock, the apparent discovery of the Higgs boson demonstrates that science, once again, is the way to know the world we live in. As we make such discoveries, we keep closing the gaps that some people put gods into. To maintain belief in whatever god you believe in, you often need to ignore or deny these kinds of scientific discoveries.
10
The Higg's boson also known as "the God particle" is a hypothetical subatomic particle that has been reported to have been recently discovered. Bosons are particles that carry forces such as the strong nuclear force. The Higg's boson reputedly gives mass to objects. Mass is a measure of inertia or the tendency of a body at rest to stay at rest or a body in motion to stay in motion.
So what might the discovery of the Higg's boson have to do with atheism? Well, I suppose that now we can safely say that no god gives mass to objects! Broadly speaking, the more we know about nature, as Carl Sagan has said, the less there is for God to do. Scientists are quickly closing the gaps that one god or other used to fit into to "explain" some aspect of nature. I predict that the Higgs boson will continue this trend, and a full, naturalistic explanation for existence will soon be available if it isn't already available.
Jagella
There are a couple of more important points to be made about the discovery. First we should notice the tenuous nature of the language used to describe it:
CBC News
7/4/12
Does this mean they don't really know now? why does it have to be confirmed? Why can't they conclude it now?"We can safely conclude something new is there. … All the evidence suggests it's the Higgs boson, but the results released today just aren't strong enough to conclude that it is the Higgs."
Sinervo said he expects the CERN research teams to have two to three times more data to analyse by the end of the year.
"Will we be able to conclude that it is the Higgs by the end of the year? It depends what you mean by 'conclude,' but we'll at least have some strong data," he said.
National Geographic Daily News
Although preliminary, the results show a so-called five-sigma of significance, which means that there is only a one in a million chance that the Higgs-like signal the teams observed is a statistical fluke...
CERN head Heuer called today's announcement a "historic milestone" but cautioned that much work lies ahead as physicists attempt to confirm the newfound particle's identity and further probe its properties...For example, though the teams are certain the new particle has the proper mass for the predicted Higgs boson, they still need to determine whether it behaves as the God particle is thought to behave—and therefore what its role in the creation and maintenance of the universe is...
A two-sigma finding translates to about a 95 percent chance that results are not due to a statistical fluke.
While that might seem impressive, it falls short of the stringent five-sigma level that high-energy physicists traditionally require for an official discovery. Five sigma means there's a less than one in a million probability that a finding is due to chance.
That all really sounds pretty uncertain.I'm not suggesting that we can't trust it. The point is they don't get a microscope that's really powerful and take a picture of the particle. They have not seen the particle itself. They smash atoms together and try to identify what comes out, the only way to do that is to judge by the effects it probably has upon larger particles. They can only do that by determining that what those particles are doing is indicative of it.
"The Higgs boson is the only one that remains undetected in experiments because it lives for only a tiny fraction of a second before decaying into other subatomic particles, such as photons, muons or leptons. The only way to measure it is to measure the products of its decay." (CBC News ibid)It's the effect upon other practicals and its consistency with theory that tells them what's going on. I have said before that scinece doesn't prove (according to Popper) it only disproves or offers explainations. Those explaintions don't give us truth they give 'verisimilitude.' That's the appearance of truth through probability. That's what this is. No one is going to have a bunch of hoopla about verisimilitude. Can you see thee guys at CERN making a big deal out "We have verisimilitude!" Ho ray!
Another important aspect that this discovery holds for us in relation to real God concepts is this is another illustration of the concept of c0-detmerinate. I have previously illustrated the co-determinate through the relation between sub atomic particles and theory, by using the neutrino. In the same way neutrinos are not found directly but it is their effect upon other particles that indicate their presence. The co-determinate is like the relationship between the footprint in the snow and the foot that made it. The two always go together and one indicates the presence of the other. The relation between Higgs boson and other particles is another example of a co-determinate.
Of course the atheists all say "O but you are just assuming a relationship between experience and god you can't really prove it's there. The theroy of Higg's assumed a relatinoship before it could prove that boson was there. It's because the test meets the assumptions that we can assume it fulfills theoretical expectations and that is the predictive power of scinece. The thing applies in the co-determine in any issue. The theoretical relationship between divine and experience is there due to the place of the experince in the creation of religion. So then finding the experience and the effects it produces is just fulfillment theoretical expectations; meaning, scientific predictive power helps to demonstrate the rational warrant for belief.
34 comments:
I really wish some of these people would read some theology and understand that no scientific discovery is going to get God out of the picture. The man in the sky nonsense has got to go, but I know it won't because atheists like that strawman too much.
Amen to that. It's worse than you thought. they even admit they reuse to think or consider idea possessed to their views. I have examples of carm Dawkies saying that I'll post soon.
Meta,
I have some mixed feelings about that discovered particle. To me, that 126GeV mass sounds a bit fishy.
I'm not saying the work should be undermined, or that such titanic work is not correct from an experimental perspective because it is.
I just see the problem of the establishment of physics at work. The problem arises with the misuse of General Relativity, by assuming that photons have no mass.
The problem with that, is that it also dismisses the medium in which an electromagnetic wave propagates, from the perspective of Particle Physics. Don't get me wrong, I'm not physicist (My uncle is), but electrons are the very basic thing from what I could do something useful as a soon-to-be engineer.
Because of the field a photon generates when propagating an electromagnetic wave (light), the photons MAY be interpreted to HAVE MASS.
Here, is a good glimpse about the mass of the photon should be:
bibhasde.com/photon.pdf
Also, the Inflation theory which was proposed by Big Bang Cosmologists, rejected Higgs's Theory when realized that it didn't have anything to do with the Big Bang, as it is shown here:
http://dreamheron.wordpress.com/2012/07/07/higgs-field-is-nothing-to-do-with-big-bang/
I also still doubt that such Boson still has that properties like spinless, and from which particles might gain mass with such strong nuclei interactions.
So, that particle, although I like to say is an astounding discovery, I dare say it seems to be rather overrated and it ultimately has not much to do with the predictions of the standard model, but rather seems to be a key for the newest real use of the SUSY(SUperSYmmetry) Theory with the predicted quotients. Time about the partiallity of success will tell.
Look here:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/07/why-125-gev-higgs-boson-isnt-quite.html
This blog is from a String Theoretician.
The thing is, whether or not that particle was discovered, String Theoricists would find a way to get rid of the whole standard model. Something that particle physicists just tell us tacitly every single time they were after such endeavor (for some reason "it has not ended").
What I dislike about this, is that the Establishment of Physics has become quite political and some important revisions about electromagnetic theories, which could be done for the betterment of the detection and measurement devices (like the LHC, of course), are being rejected, which are logically sound from previous successful theories, just because they are/were not mainstream, even if true.
For example, in Superconductor Theories, Brian Josephson was proved wrong about the value of 2Q running trough a supercondutive state of matter, which could help to make superconductor at field temperature, but was rapidly rejected, and so on, and so forth.
Kind Regards.
I agree with Moi. Jesus died on the cross 2,000 years ago for our sins. No scientist or New Atheist fleeb like Dawkins or Richard Dorkier is going to change that, no matter how much lying and dishonesty they try to use.
With some people, god is the answer, no matter what is the question. I feel so sorry for you. You are in a pit of your own making.
I just can't get why some people are so oblivious to the facts. A huge body of scientific work proves religious people are much better off in life: less depressed, less likely to have mental problems, more self actualized, greater feeling meaning and satisfaction with life.
"I feel sorry for you." why? you are one who hates himself and hates his life and can't feel satisfied or complete.
these same people who say "that's just an advantage to a belief that doesn't prove it's true" will turn around and say "we science is true because it works."
well religion works. that proves its true.
I have questions about particle physics that I don't have the expertise to even ask much less do anything with, yet I think I have the nub of an idea.
try to get a physicist to explain what particles are made of. They are not little balls they are charges. What's a charge? It's made up of more charges.
then I read that not all particles aer changed. so what are non charged particles made of?
Meta,
According to physicists, any particle is just condensed energy in an "arranged" intertial state, and that's why particles are told to have mass.
Particles have charge, when they interact with certain "energy field". A Field generates a force over the particle is supposed to interact with.
I think you should look at the work done By Myron W Evans, and also, look at this site:
http://www.cathodixx.com/index.asp
This is another physicist, Johan Prins, whose completed experimental interpretations, are still rejected.
I'm sad to say this, but the establishment of physicis is becoming more dogmatic than ever nowadays. It is also obviously known that this is not the first time something like this happens.
P.S. It is incredible that some Atheist literatists like billwalker come here just to call us names.
Kind Regards.
thanks for the info. Bill is an old "friend"(?)he used to post a lot more. He never made a rational arguemnt and always had extremely emotional posts and never seemed to be affected by any sort of logic.
" Religion works - that proves it's true" Which one ? There are many thousands of them, with fantastic differences. "Fix reason firmly in her seat, & call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear. Thomas Jefferson If I recall correctly, this was in a letter he wrote to his nephew, Peter Carr. (don't hold me on the latter, but I'm PRETTY sure.) At 86, I'm not a 100 percent sure of ANYTHING.
Hey Bill thanks for thinking of me again.
Which religion? all of them. any one of them. In terms of positive effects they are all good. that's not to say they all medicate salvation with the same efficacy.
If you are interested please read my page on Salvation and Other faiths
Quoting Jefferson is fine but I was an atheist. So I did question the existence of God. then I got something most atheist aren't looking for. I got an answer. I learned God is real.
you don't want answers. like the atheists in the post I made today they refuse to read the answer so they are not looking for answers.
Meta, if you go to Ex-Christian.net you will find the testimony of 1,000 former Xians & many former clergy. We are all ELATED to throw off the cross of religion from our backs. Yeah, religion 'works' for the clergy, at an annual cost of 85 billion dollars, just her in America.This is, of course tax free.
Hi Meta, EVERYONE was born an atheist. Then, depending on parents & geography, you get one dumped on you by your parents, who got it from theirs, etc. Religions - ALL of them, are dragged through the centuries, sort of like a cosmic security blanket. I realize that I'm one of a small minority. But take a look at Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Canada, Australia, & most of Western Europe. Our hotbed of Xianity, has a much greater incidence of crime than everyone else. I have wondered if Xianity is too forgiving. We non-believers have to live with all of our deeds & misdeeds. Perhaps this is why only one fifth of one percent of everyone in prison is a professed atheist in the U.S.A. . We have over 3 million in our prison system. That's a huge disparity. Oddly enough, the 'bible belt' has a much greater percentage of prisoners in out penal system than the more secular states.
ok that's cool Bill. I'm going to answer you in the main blog spot in the main page tomorrow.
Meta, if you go to Ex-Christian.net you will find the testimony of 1,000 former Xians & many former clergy. We are all ELATED to throw off the cross of religion from our backs. Yeah, religion 'works' for the clergy, at an annual cost of 85 billion dollars, just her in America.This is, of course tax free.
Been there Bill, not impressed.
Well, the reason that people have problem with crime is that they are IGNORING God's Word. God says in Deuteronomy to send murderers and child rapists TO HIM and execute him.
The liberals are the ones who are letting these people get off, not Christians.
sptrfn said...
Well, the reason that people have problem with crime is that they are IGNORING God's Word. God says in Deuteronomy to send murderers and child rapists TO HIM and execute him.
The liberals are the ones who are letting these people get off, not Christians.
sorry. bit simplistic.
Hey sorry to disillusion you but You are pretty far to the right. I'm a liberal. That doesn't mean we can't work together in the Lord. I don't really think we probably disagree totally on politics.
For example it's not judge are too lient it's that prisons are bursting at the seams. There can't be effective rehab. there's a link between poverty and crime. There's a thing growing up in poverty they become socialized into the drug world they expect to go to prison. They look at it like the draft. There's this place they have to go to for some years and waste some time and maybe get skills fur future crime.
There is no opion to say not. that "just say no" stuff was so stupid becuase they get killed if they say no. IN certain environments you don't refuse to joint refuse to join gangs and take drugs.
Then if we try to disperse the population with social programs sot they can be socialized into society then "good" citizens rise up and say "don't put that half way house in my neighborhood."
these are all very complex problems.
that's why it's so stupid of those atheists who say look at the number of Christians in prison and conclude Christianity must cause crime. no awareness of social science at all.
that's cool. I understand. There's so much right wing stuff in churches now days. It's hard to get away form.
As to the Higgs particle, I agree that calling it the "God particle" is dumb. One physicist reportedly wanted to call it the "goddamn particle", for being so elusive.
Elementary-particle theories are constructed within a paradigm called quantum field theory. Imagine elementary particles as waves with a total quantity that increases in steps. I had a physics professor who called photons "blobs of light". In fact, *everything* is that, but macroscopic entities are either mostly particle or mostly wave, so that's why we don't directly experience wave-particle duality.
I must note that nobody in past ages had thought of anything close to quantum field theory. Atomists of centuries past had imagined a billiard-ball view of fundamental particles, and that's approximately correct for what's now called atoms, for atomic nuclei, and even for hadrons. But Standard-Model particles like electrons and quarks and photons and so forth don't have such structure. That's evident from smashing them together at very close to the speed of light in a vacuum and watching what comes out.
As to the Higgs particle, I agree that calling it the "God particle" is dumb. One physicist reportedly wanted to call it the "goddamn particle", for being so elusive.
that's so cute. that really perks the interest of the God hater club right? that kicks off your childish rebellion hu?
Elementary-particle theories are constructed within a paradigm called quantum field theory. Imagine elementary particles as waves with a total quantity that increases in steps. I had a physics professor who called photons "blobs of light". In fact, *everything* is that, but macroscopic entities are either mostly particle or mostly wave, so that's why we don't directly experience wave-particle duality.
that has no meaning because when they actually get down to cases what is it made of? Of charges and charges are made of more charges and it never actually is made of anything. It's BS, they don't know what they talk about.
I must note that nobody in past ages had thought of anything close to quantum field theory. Atomists of centuries past had imagined a billiard-ball view of fundamental particles, and that's approximately correct for what's now called atoms, for atomic nuclei, and even for hadrons. But Standard-Model particles like electrons and quarks and photons and so forth don't have such structure. That's evident from smashing them together at very close to the speed of light in a vacuum and watching what comes out.
as I say there is no stopping point. we don't really know what it's made or how far down it goes. it's really like we are actually dealing with nothing.
no one calls it the God particle because they think it proves or disproves God.
Meta,
And once more it's proved. Although I agree that Higgs Boson named as a "God Particle" it's rather misleading and dislike it, I still don't get why are there so many atheists making such mistakes.
Loren has no basic understanding about QM whatsoever, I think that happens because there is much science channel brainwashing running on TV.
The second problem I notice with Loren's tantrum is that forgets about the indoctrination of physicists with the "action at a distance" thing in general relativity, where photonic mass is ignored.
Photons are energy which is an excess of charge emitted by an electron in some certain energy quanta where an spectrum of light is emitted, but the momentun of any energy magnitude regarding light may be found to have mass too!! This needs to be revised first, an although there have been efforts, none pay attention to something that could be more useful!!
Now with the findings of that particle there has been a lot of propositions ranging from energy field doublets (the oriniginal Higgs Mechamisn) and the triplets (which is the Standard Model Boson).
I sense a problem with many misinterpretations of such discovery, just as what happens with superconductivity theories and general relativity theories. High Energy Physics should wake up!!
Kind Regards.
thanks Yonose. Actually I lack the expertise to comment. Little as i know about it I disagree with Loren. She seems unaware of the Albert article.
Meta,
I believe the problem of physics nowadays is that, in many research projects, there are people who get carried away too much with the experimental data, without "looking back", what I mean with such a sloppy choice of words is that some few concepts in physics are like lagoons or lapses (for example, the obvious problems within QM and General Relativity), and there's not much coherence and unification of many important theories, in an axiomatical sense. You'll have a bunch of competing theories with many experimentally successful outcomes, but some don't follow from preceding work while trying to stand on it.
Electromagnetism, Mictomagnetism and Paramagnetism for Quantum Mechanics need to be revised, General Relativity needs to be revised, so the axiomatic "chain" would be joint once more.
An axiomatically correct unification from any source of knowledge always solves problems. Doing an analogy in an spiritual orientation, one of the powerful reasons for any spiritually-oriented religion comes from recognising the presence of body, mind and soul, and the possible unification of all three. I'd like to analogously see more scientists doing the same.
Kind Regards.
I think that fragmentation is because the reductionist axis wont allow philosophy to be it's own thing and to have it's place in the world of thought. They want to do philosophy but they want take philosophy over and rule it out and control it and be the philosophers without having to consult the real philosophers.
They want to control all knowledge.
by reductionist axis I mean the scientific bunch, as with Dawkins, but there are more core people in scinece than him who typify what I'm talking about. E.O. Wilson is a good exampel but not in physics. Lawrence Krauss is a good exampel in phsyics but there are older ones.
ahyhhh that should have said "scienTISTC" not "scientific.
"by reductionist axis I mean the scientISTIC bunch"
I happen to be very familiar with quantum field theory and elementary particle physics, complete with at least some of its mathematics. yonose's recent posts have a lot of hand-waving and misconceptions. Photons are not an "excess of charge"; they are electromagnetic-field excitations. Etc.
As to the "God hater club", I am not a member of that, any more than I am a member of the "Zeus hater club" or "Odin hater club" or "Marduk hater club" or the "Amon-Ra hater club" or the "Brahma hater club" or the "Tao hater club".
Loren:I happen to be very familiar with quantum field theory and elementary particle physics, complete with at least some of its mathematics. yonose's recent posts have a lot of hand-waving and misconceptions. Photons are not an "excess of charge"; they are electromagnetic-field excitations. Etc."
It's not garbonzo beans it's chick peas. I can see a difference in "excess" and "excitation." I'm sure it really matters for our purposes.
"As to the "God hater club", I am not a member of that, any more than I am a member of the "Zeus hater club" or "Odin hater club" or "Marduk hater club" or the "Amon-Ra hater club" or the "Brahma hater club" or the "Tao hater club"."
Sweetheart, you are a brainwashed minion of a hate group and you all right propagandist slgoans to makes your masters happy.
Loren,
Whatever you say, it's the same thing. Charge magnitude can be mathematically expressed in terms of a force, hence in terms of a mass, and hence in terms of energy. What I criticize a lot about contemporary physics is that misconception about "action at a distance" which is seen (sadly, even nowadays) in General Relativity.
An excessive magnitude of charge for a quanta state (interpretated as a mathematically discrete magnitude of force, which is not "in pair" with a quanta state of the electron as a particle, NOT as a wave, as the energy in its inital state HAS NOT yet been "collapsed" into another) is what interacts with the magnetic field when such particle gets excited. According to Schrödinger's theory, the stimulated energy travels in a wave state, but "collapses" again in the final state as a paticle (mass). This very same principle is what Particle Physicists use to understand the mass of any particle in terms of the energy.
With that said, being us or mostly waves or mostly particles is not adequate. Our material bodies are mostly composed of particles, the magnitude of ionizing and non-ionizing energy we irradiate is very little from a physical perspective, to consider ourselves as "mostly waves".
To first understand the Dualistic nature of Wave and Particle, you must first remember that Charges and fields are Dualistic in that aspect of their known functional nature, so with the indicate interaction of both a force is generated. It is save to conclude that it is an interaction between different forms of energy.
Excess of charge is also an adequate interpretation, because when a charge comes into a magnetic field (which is generated when other charges are at the same instants in movement) is when force among these type of particles is generated.
An excess of charge which does not reach another quanta state relative ot it, also generates a force, which is a partially-stimulated release of energy from the electron, when interacts with a magnetic field. That's right, the magnitude of charge, indicates the electric field generated by such particle, whether charges are moving or not.
This is why an electromagnetic field is generated when charged particles are en movement.
Of course, one of the posible result of such stimulation is known as the photon. But, who told you that there's not possiblity that photons may have mass?
Mass may be mathematically interpreted as an "arranged" momentum among different particles, so a magnetic field may, hipothetically, be an "invisible substance" which is of course, energy generated from the movement of other charged, "stimulated" particles. Every physicist nowadays knows that energy may be expressed en terms of mass.
Photons have a net magnitude of charge when generated, so why a photon may not be interpretated to have mass?? may be because it is depreciated by unitary quantity of such photon, but that's it.
(contining in the next post)
(from above)
Neutrons have no net charge but they do have mass (because they theoretically do not react with an electromagnetic field unless it has a very very high magnitude), just by doing the analogy. Of course such analogy is not so far-fetched, but I recognize it has its limitations, I just put it so you may analyze it a little bit.
If photons did not have any net charge when generated, then the force generated by interacting with other electromagnetic fields would not produce any changes as such.
So, the problem with the misuse of such concept in general relativity is that it assumes that the mass of the photon per energy unit is always the same, at every frequency spectra it may operate.
There is some experimental evidence of such phenomena, you could just look work being done by Myron Evans.
I hope you understand my objections.
Regarding your atheism, I don't care, what I care, is that you, with all your honesty assume the consequences of your position as an atheist. I tell you this, as a former one too (I was a nihilist too).
Scientismism doesn't help either.
Kind Regards.
yea, what he said! let that be a lesson to both of you! ;-)
I have no idea what he said, I'm very impressed.
Where can I go from your presence Lord?
The Apostle Paul said, By Him all things consist. I.e. he holds all things together.
Post a Comment