|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On July 05 2012 00:34 kineSiS- wrote:
This is stupid.
In all likelihood, this will be exactly like when they stated they found a particle faster than the speed of light.
Found out they had an error in testing. Then claimed again the previous statement and were found to be wrong AGAIN.
Having two different experiments finding the same result independently gives it much more weight and makes it much less likely to be an error. The entire reason the ftl particle people talked about it was to see if anyone could reproduce their results and when no one could they started checking their results again which is when they realised the error.
|
On July 05 2012 00:34 kineSiS- wrote:
This is stupid.
In all likelihood, this will be exactly like when they stated they found a particle faster than the speed of light.
Found out they had an error in testing. Then claimed again the previous statement and were found to be wrong AGAIN.
Except we had the same bump in two different experiments (CMS and Atlas) last year, and with increased data this year the bump got bigger. TWO separate experiments have produced 5 sigma significant results. It is very hard to argue against two independent experiments giving such strong results. If if using the same beam of particles is somehow still not enough for you, these new results are consistent with the 3 sigma fluctuations noted by the Tevatron team recently in the 115-130 GeV band - also consistent. Still a lot of work to do to determine the exact properties of what is causing the signal, but the fact that there is SOME particle there at that mass is undeniable at this point.
|
On July 05 2012 00:34 kineSiS- wrote:
This is stupid.
In all likelihood, this will be exactly like when they stated they found a particle faster than the speed of light.
Found out they had an error in testing. Then claimed again the previous statement and were found to be wrong AGAIN.
You should stop posting on serious forum. These two occurence have nothing in common whatsoever.
And btw the neutrino experiment was not advertised as a big discovery, but as a probable mistake that they failed to find the source. Maybe if you had any physics knowledge we could talk
|
On a whim, I headed over the the wikipedia article on the Higgs boson to see if this had been edited in yet, and if so, what it said. I found this:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/DOKG3.jpg)
It was edited back to normal when I refreshed the page about 5 seconds later. Go go gadget wikipolice!
|
|
|
On July 04 2012 23:28 ecstatica wrote:
Source? Names?
Sounds like blissful ignorance on your part. Science rarely has to do with supernatural beliefs, esp in 'christian' world.
James Maxwell, Werner Heisenberg, John Polkinghorne, probably many more.
|
On July 05 2012 00:34 kineSiS- wrote:
This is stupid.
In all likelihood, this will be exactly like when they stated they found a particle faster than the speed of light.
Found out they had an error in testing. Then claimed again the previous statement and were found to be wrong AGAIN.
... In all likelyhood you don't know what probability and statistics are. Kind of the wrong thread to flash your lack of math.. you'll get torn asunder :p
|
dear science,
now solve gravity.
|
On July 05 2012 02:06 a176 wrote:
dear science,
now solve gravity.
actually, that's just the integration of gravity in standard model that is troublesome
|
THIS !!!
That's even more groundshaking than the Higgs boson discovery.
|
On July 05 2012 00:34 kineSiS- wrote:
This is stupid.
In all likelihood, this will be exactly like when they stated they found a particle faster than the speed of light.
Found out they had an error in testing. Then claimed again the previous statement and were found to be wrong AGAIN.
They never claimed they had found a particle going faster than light. It was the usual media and forum idiots who couldn't read.
|
On July 04 2012 23:09 Krowser wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2012 22:42 Astronomy74 wrote:
Bye Bye relgion! well soon hopefully lol Not even close. To completely cancel out religion you need to prove that God doesn't exist, and even then you'll have to deal with millions of people in denial. Discovering new particles changes nothing. Many, many physicists and other scientists are religious people, it doesn't interfere with their research. If anything, the Higgs Boson will only help to prove that God is an infinitely powerful being, seeing as how he created those particles.
Being a scientist correlates with a lesser degree of religiousness and atheism. ''Many, many'' is just wrong.
|
France9034 Posts
On July 05 2012 02:33 Recognizable wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2012 23:09 Krowser wrote:On July 04 2012 22:42 Astronomy74 wrote:
Bye Bye relgion! well soon hopefully lol Not even close. To completely cancel out religion you need to prove that God doesn't exist, and even then you'll have to deal with millions of people in denial. Discovering new particles changes nothing. Many, many physicists and other scientists are religious people, it doesn't interfere with their research. If anything, the Higgs Boson will only help to prove that God is an infinitely powerful being, seeing as how he created those particles. Being a scientist correlates with a lesser degree of religiousness and atheism. ''Many, many'' is just wrong.
And though, there still are a good number of scientists who believe in god, and the cohabitation of Science and The Holy Bible (there was TV broadcast about this topic). Care though not to interpret every single sentence in the Bible without the correct context and mindset. Sure the Universe and Earth haven't been created in 7 "Earth" days.
This discussion is far from over. Some believe, others don't, in the end, science go on. I think it's up to everyone to make his own opinion. Science is sometimes itself a matter of "religion" (i.e.: Homeopathy is a good example).
|
On July 05 2012 02:33 Recognizable wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2012 23:09 Krowser wrote:On July 04 2012 22:42 Astronomy74 wrote:
Bye Bye relgion! well soon hopefully lol Not even close. To completely cancel out religion you need to prove that God doesn't exist, and even then you'll have to deal with millions of people in denial. Discovering new particles changes nothing. Many, many physicists and other scientists are religious people, it doesn't interfere with their research. If anything, the Higgs Boson will only help to prove that God is an infinitely powerful being, seeing as how he created those particles. Being a scientist correlates with a lesser degree of religiousness and atheism. ''Many, many'' is just wrong.
Already mentioned John Polkinghorne, James Maxwell, Werner Heisenberg. Could add Albert Einstein, Max Planck, Charles Townes, Seawall Wright, Georges Lemaitre.
|
This just will confirm what was standard belief since the 60s or so, nothing will change except particle accelerators will get more funding.
|
I was pointing out the statistics. Naming a couple of scientists who do believe does not change that.
Albert Einstein did not believe in a personal god.
Science is sometimes itself a matter of "religion" (i.e.: Homeopathy is a good example).
Homeopathy is not a science. In the Netherlands it has been forbidden to state that on the packages that the homeopathy products are helpfull with some illnesses/symptoms and on every package you must state that: ''The workings of this product have not been verified with the scientific method''
It's basically just a load of crap to force money out of people's wallets. It works just as well as any placebo does.
|
On July 05 2012 02:56 GaiaCaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2012 02:33 Recognizable wrote:On July 04 2012 23:09 Krowser wrote:On July 04 2012 22:42 Astronomy74 wrote:
Bye Bye relgion! well soon hopefully lol Not even close. To completely cancel out religion you need to prove that God doesn't exist, and even then you'll have to deal with millions of people in denial. Discovering new particles changes nothing. Many, many physicists and other scientists are religious people, it doesn't interfere with their research. If anything, the Higgs Boson will only help to prove that God is an infinitely powerful being, seeing as how he created those particles. Being a scientist correlates with a lesser degree of religiousness and atheism. ''Many, many'' is just wrong. Already mentioned John Polkinghorne, James Maxwell, Werner Heisenberg. Could add Albert Einstein, Max Planck, Charles Townes, Seawall Wright, Georges Lemaitre.
His point is that there is no correlation. If you do a venn-diagram, you could not make a "systematic" prediction on the intersection of either atheist and scientis or religious and scientist. . . He is being correct in that physics (or being a physicist) doesn't rule out religion; he merely pointed out that there isn't an inherent correlation, and thus saying "many, many" is an overstatement. I don't think there is more to say; other than perhaps that religion has nothing to do with this thread, and anyone talking about or reading about the "God particle" better not mention religion... They got nothing to do with eachother.
In a way, science might conclude with that "anyone" (given the right tools and resources) will be able to create a universe (see Fringe for instance, as an example); but not everyone can be God, so there will eventually be a paradox where we might have to accept that "God" could be "one of us, somewhere, somewhen", or that we're all (potential) Gods.
To avoid this, creation would have to be left out of the bible, or changed to adapt itself to "creation of that which can create", or "the first creation"; which is perfectly fine, since all we're requiering, in the first place, is a little faith.
So far, atleast; only those religious but have doubts in their faith will be threatened by new discoveries. As any correlation, so far, must be subjective. Conversely, anyone thinking science disproves God, does not know that much about either science or faith.
|
I'm not sure what to say.<engage rant> I don't like the standard model and it never leads to a better understanding of anything. And as someone who studies space-time geometry very closely to hear these people say that we !?now?! have insight into gravity because they added another useless particle to their model. What the fuck have physicists like myself been doing for a 100 years since last time I checked we already figured it out. OH wait, THEY didn't figure it out and just ignored all of the 100% proven science in favor of their twisted and borderline stupid understanding of physics.<rant off>
I understand that all elements of our societies are cultural and are often irrational. But for those who are truely clever, do yourself a favor and just move along. Nothing to see here.
|
You sound like a bitter alternative model physicist who just found out that his life's work was a waste of time.
Just kidding, you don't sound like a scientist at all. It's already all been figured out? Please enlighten us so we can stop spending millions of dollars at CERN. Plus you getting the Nobel prize would spare us the dilemma of the 3 person limit.
|
So how would this benefit society, at least in the next five years?
I mean it's great for physicists, finally we're making major discoveries again in that field... but how will this benefit the everyman, or at least any part of humanity?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
