9 replies to this topic

[ohreally?]

By Rick Wingrove, Published: July 11

The author is a contributor to The Washington Post's local faith leader network.
A lot of people don’t know that many of the great discoveries in particle physics are largely exercises in statistical analysis. Flipping a coin a dozen times will provide a very limited understanding of probability. A run of a million tosses will sharply define the limits of probability. Getting seven heads in ten tosses is not especially noteworthy. Getting seven hundred thousand heads out of a million tosses would reveal something real at work on the coin.
So it goes in particle physics. Small things need lots of samples to paint a complete picture. Instead of flipping coins in the air, the physicists working on the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, use two beams of protons traveling in a vacuum at 99.9999% of the speed of light around a 17-mile-long magnetic ring. The two beams are traveling in opposite directions and are magnetically maneuvered to collide within a detector the size of a house. Each experimental run produces hundreds of quadrillions of collisions. Those collisions are individual data points that, cumulatively show the presence of... something, right where the Higgs boson, and nothing else, ought to be. To paraphrase Joe Biden, it’s really kind of a big deal....
http://www.washingto...8NdW_story.html

[MoonChild]

With all due respect to the scientists, who have worked tirelessly behind this, let me ask one question, if I may?

Tell me please, where did the God Particle come from?

And no, God is not just a "human-like" entity sitting "up there" and acting up. So let's talk about "impersonal" energy - which IS God.

[ohreally?]

MoonChild, on 15 July 2012 - 02:07 PM, said:

With all due respect to the scientists, who have worked tirelessly behind this, let me ask one question, if I may?

Tell me please, where did the God Particle come from?

And no, God is not just a "human-like" entity sitting "up there" and acting up. So let's talk about "impersonal" energy - which IS God.

No one knows. You've missed or simply ignored the point of the commentary.

Pointing out the obvious; using an impersonal energy to explain from where the Higgs particle comes from does not explain anything at all. All you've done is replaced one mystery with another. The glaring question is, from what did this impersonal energy come ?



There's no need to reply because I see that we have divergent views that will never find a common middle ground.

[MoonChild]

ohreally?, on 16 July 2012 - 05:37 AM, said:

MoonChild, on 15 July 2012 - 02:07 PM, said:

With all due respect to the scientists, who have worked tirelessly behind this, let me ask one question, if I may?

Tell me please, where did the God Particle come from?

And no, God is not just a "human-like" entity sitting "up there" and acting up. So let's talk about "impersonal" energy - which IS God.

No one knows. You've missed or simply ignored the point of the commentary.
The glaring question is, from what did this impersonal energy come ?

The answer to this question solves all questions, eternally. Why not try it, if you do know. I don't hence asked. My bad!

[CaveRat2]

I feel one of the problems with this is terminology. I never did like it referred to as the God Particle. That implies a somewhat spiritual or supernatural aspect toi it. Rather I prefer the Higgs Bosun. As such it is simply another part of physics. It may well turn out to have new properties that so far we don't comprehend. It may even turn out to be one of the basic building blocks of matter. All worthy of study.

I don't have a problem with science and religion coexisting. If this particle turns out to be a key element going back to the Big Bang, that also does not nullfy God or the creation concept. Rather it may support it in that it may reveal the method used by God to create everything. One does not mutually exclude the other.

[canuck]

ohreally?, on 16 July 2012 - 05:37 AM, said:

MoonChild, on 15 July 2012 - 02:07 PM, said:

With all due respect to the scientists, who have worked tirelessly behind this, let me ask one question, if I may?

Tell me please, where did the God Particle come from?

And no, God is not just a "human-like" entity sitting "up there" and acting up. So let's talk about "impersonal" energy - which IS God.

No one knows. You've missed or simply ignored the point of the commentary.

Pointing out the obvious; using an impersonal energy to explain from where the Higgs particle comes from does not explain anything at all. All you've done is replaced one mystery with another. The glaring question is, from what did this impersonal energy come ?



There's no need to reply because I see that we have divergent views that will never find a common middle ground.

Wow! Your dogmatism and ideology is exceeded only by your ignorance.

Moonchild’s post relates to the big question of the origins of the universe; the Higgs Boson refers to the characterisation of the physical properties of matter.

The reference to a “God” in the context of the origins of the universe is no less valid than many of the “scientific” theories currently floating around; neither religion or science answers the fundamental question of where and how the universe came about.

However, I do recall that “The Book of Genesis” relates a tale remarkably similar to “The Big Bang Theory”.

Clearly, the religious types beat the scientists to the punch by about two thousand years.

[MoonChild]

CaveRat2, on 19 July 2012 - 11:10 AM, said:

I feel one of the problems with this is terminology. I never did like it referred to as the God Particle. That implies a somewhat spiritual or supernatural aspect toi it. Rather I prefer the Higgs Bosun. As such it is simply another part of physics. It may well turn out to have new properties that so far we don't comprehend. It may even turn out to be one of the basic building blocks of matter. All worthy of study.

I don't have a problem with science and religion coexisting. If this particle turns out to be a key element going back to the Big Bang, that also does not nullfy God or the creation concept. Rather it may support it in that it may reveal the method used by God to create everything. One does not mutually exclude the other.

That is about it. I am frankly quite surprised to see my question being misunderstood in another post in this thread. But Caver, thanks for the correct interpretation.

canuck, on 19 July 2012 - 10:33 PM, said:

ohreally?, on 16 July 2012 - 05:37 AM, said:

MoonChild, on 15 July 2012 - 02:07 PM, said:

With all due respect to the scientists, who have worked tirelessly behind this, let me ask one question, if I may?

Tell me please, where did the God Particle come from?

And no, God is not just a "human-like" entity sitting "up there" and acting up. So let's talk about "impersonal" energy - which IS God.

No one knows. You've missed or simply ignored the point of the commentary.

Pointing out the obvious; using an impersonal energy to explain from where the Higgs particle comes from does not explain anything at all. All you've done is replaced one mystery with another. The glaring question is, from what did this impersonal energy come ?



There's no need to reply because I see that we have divergent views that will never find a common middle ground.

Wow! Your dogmatism and ideology is exceeded only by your ignorance.

Moonchild’s post relates to the big question of the origins of the universe; the Higgs Boson refers to the characterisation of the physical properties of matter.

The reference to a “God” in the context of the origins of the universe is no less valid than many of the “scientific” theories currently floating around; neither religion or science answers the fundamental question of where and how the universe came about.

However, I do recall that “The Book of Genesis” relates a tale remarkably similar to “The Big Bang Theory”.

Clearly, the religious types beat the scientists to the punch by about two thousand years.

Thanks for point out my ignorance, but it would have been better if you could have answered to help me clear it out. But thank you nevertheless.

Ironically you were the one who mentioned about "Book of Genesis" in this thread and related it's content with Bing Bang, interestingly I have never even seen this book in my life. So who is the "religious" type you mentioned here? And interestingly "religion" doesnt stop me with the 2000 year past, but much further a few eons if I had gone by my religius beliefs.

But what I asked still remain to the comment made by Ohreally.

Quote

No one knows. You've missed or simply ignored the point of the commentary.
The glaring question is, from what did this impersonal energy come ?

All I said what IF THIS QUESTION CAN BE ANSWERED.....................

[canuck]

Moonchild, you have misunderstood my post. It was not critical of you; it was explicitly in support of you.

My comment regarding ignorance and dogmatism was directed at “OhReally” who has an unblemished track record of responding to most issues with the well worn mantras favoured by cheerleaders. In his responses he demonstrates a capacity for parroting cheers, but very little understanding of either the particular science involved, or the broader issues.

With respect to “God” my comment was in support of your own, in which I stated that your view of the existence of “God” is as valid as any theory for the creation of the universe put forth by “science”.

While I am not particularly interested in religion, and have very little interest in it, I have read “The Book of Genesis” which is part of “The Bible”.

In the context of this discussion, it is both significant and ironic that this piece of literature presents a view of the creation of the universe which is essentially the same as the one currently favoured by “science”.

[MoonChild]

Let's keep away our misunderstandings here ad let's discuss about the God Particle or the God BAD_WORD Particle as it was intended to have been named.

[Katelush]

I think it were the media that named it the " God particle".. It makes it more fascinating to non scientific people to read the story with that sort of name than just naming it the Higgs Bosom.