DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: BSB on December 13, 2011, 03:26:47 PM
-
Physicists are closer than ever to hunting down the elusive Higgs boson particle, the missing piece of the governing theory of the universe's tiniest building blocks.
Scientists at the world's largest particle accelerator, the Large Hadron Collider at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Geneva, Switzerland, announced today (Dec. 13) that they'd narrowed down the list of possible hiding spots for the Higgs, (also called the God particle) and even see some indications that they're hot on its trail.
"I think we are getting very close," said Vivek Sharma, a physicist at the University of California, San Diego, and the leader of the Higgs search at LHC's CMS experiment. "We may be getting the first tantalizing hints, but it's a whiff, it's a smell, it's not quite the whole thing."
Today's announcement was highly anticipated by both the physics community and the public, with speculation running rampant in the days leading up to it that the elusive particle may have finally been found. Though the news is not the final answer some were hoping for, the progress is a significant, exciting step, physicists say. [ Top 5 Implications of Finding the Higgs Boson ]
"It's something really extraordinary and I think we can be all proud of this," said CERN physicist Fabiola Gianotti, spokesperson for the LHC's ATLAS experiment, during a public seminar announcing the results today.
Experts outside the LHC collaborations agreed.
more at:
http://news.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?afid=1&aid=45653534 (http://news.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?afid=1&aid=45653534)
-
Tell them to look closely....perhaps they'll also find that ellusive homosexual gene nearby
-
I don't believe genes and particles are the same thing.
BSB
-
Never claimed they were. Sorry if you were confused. The issue was more apt in how neither have apparently been identified yet. That would be the similarity at hand, not particle vs gene
-
Odds are that both will eventually be identified.
There is a reason for everything, but the universe was clearly not designed for us to find it out easily. Perhaps we were not designed to discover everything, either.
-
Good luck with that
-
Sirs, I don't think you're quit grasping how the use of the term "God particle" is being used here. It's a building block, at the core of the universe, that someone just called the "God particle". No one is saying that they've actually found, or ruled out, God. It's just a way to express the importance of this particle.
Relax Sirs.
BSB
-
The idea is that this particle and others are the building blocks for other particles, such as protons and neutrons, and I think, electrons. Of course, it is very unlikely that we will ever see such a particle, since they are subatomic and to tiny. We may be able to see where they have been, or to see the results of such particles forming larger ones.
-
Relax B, if you can't get the comparison being made, despite my repeated effort in highlighting it (hint, it's not trying to compare a particle to a gene), just move along ::)
-
I don't get the comparison being made, and i haven't seen repeated highlighting of it, at least not in this thread.
Are you implying some media bias? Please clarify.
-
"Physicists are closer than ever to hunting down the elusive Higgs boson particle"
sirs adds "Tell them to look closely....perhaps they'll also find that elusive homosexual gene nearby". We've been told many a time, from the pro homosexual side that they have no choice in acting out the way they do, that its built in, like a gene. I'm simply parroting the above reference in the elusivity of what's being looked for, that it must exist
If you don't get it, not sure how else to help you. And as you note, nothing to do with MSM bias, but nice Xo like dig. Very appreciative coming from the fella that sets the tone and example here in the saloon ::)
-
somebody named tyson pointed out about science. it doesn`t answer to us. we need to understand sometimes our belief will get us try to prove stuff that simply is not true. this particle was brought up on npr today and this subject was brought up that it maybe false.
I`m totally not saying do not persue it. but know when tp stop. but then I`m a believer of a more complex thoery of our universe. which most people will reject out of hand since the concept truely can`t be accepted. what if time did not start at the big bang but still continues into the past endlessly . it goes infinately both direction, people prefer a starting pint. I say no.
-
Not sure how we got from sub atomic particle physics to a lament about homosexuality, nor am I sure where you showed "repeated effort in highlighting it". Seems to me this is simply a report on man's quest for knowledge. Some theories are proven, others get disproved.
Are you OK? You seem excessively defensive lately.
-
And yet another with the attempt at deflection from what was simple comparision on the concept of elusivity. Wow, folks sure can't seem to hold their inner demons back very well this evening. I'm fine, thank you very much. No, no lament, and yes, it was repeated for you now as well. May I recommend a hot chocolate for yourself, and anyone else that wants to make a mountain of a conceptual molehill??
-
Re your elusivity defense.
I didn't see repeated efforts in highlighting it, prior to your claim to having done so.
Perhaps you can show me where the repeated efforts were made.
Not sure about inner demons either. What exactly are you implying with that remark?
-
Reply #3 was my repeat. But by all means, continue with this oh so important tangent :o
-
"Seems to me this simply a report on man's quest for knowledge."
And that's all it is, nothing about a God gene or a homosexual gene.
You can stand down, Sirs. No beliefs are, or right wing agenda is, under attack. No tax is going to be levied.
BSB
-
Kimba, "I'm a believer of a more complex theory of our universe........................what if time did not start at the big bang but still continues into the past endlessly............people prefer a starting point. I say no."
Without getting into what time is about, and just excepting for the purpose of debate how we normally see it, I'm not sure the big bang theory rules out a "past" prior to the big bang.
I think the Buddha's theory that nothing comes from nothing, and something must come from something, still can apply when you're talking about the big bang.
BSB
-
"Seems to me this simply a report on man's quest for knowledge."
And that's all it is, nothing about a God gene or a homosexual gene.
You can stand down, Sirs. No beliefs are, or right wing agenda is, under attack. No tax is going to be levied.
Nor was there any reference or even a hint on my part that there was. Focus B
-
So to be clear, Sirs, are you saying there is no biological component to homosexuality? That it is strictly a matter of choice? or are you simply saying that a biological component to sexuality has not been found, just as the "God Particle" has not been found? Though the search with promising milestones achieved, continues for both.
You simply introduced another tangent to the thread as an example of the elusiveness of it all.
If that was your intent, i guess you made your point.
-
something must come from something
I believe not really. it`s a concept we naturally need a starting point. when talking about our universe and how reality works. that line of thinking does not need to be a given anymore . I`m just pointing out possible flaws in our ways of thinking.
ex. unified field thoery. it doesn`t have to be true and it still hasn`t be proven, but people still believe in it
-
"something must come from something
I believe not really. it's a concept we naturally need a starting point."
There is no starting point in "something must come from something." Where's the starting point?
-
I may of gotten that wrong. this get tough to say. trying to saying we need to challange our concepts. something might not have to come from something.
I say startting point because it`s tends to be an inclination alot of people have . ex. most religions has an origin story.
-
I'm saying the same thing you are. There isn't a starting point. Origin storys are myths because there never was a begining.
BSB
-
I like this concept because it reminds me how stubborn we are in our thinking..
-
Without getting into what time is about, and just excepting for the purpose of debate how we normally see it, I'm not sure the big bang theory rules out a "past" prior to the big bang.
The Big Bang theory does preclude a "past" prior to the Big Bang. There may be something *outside* of our universe, but everything within the universe - including time - was created in the Big Bang. Time as we know it did not exist prior to the Big Bang. Nor did space. Time is one of the 11+ dimensions of our universe.
-
I think the Buddha's theory that nothing comes from nothing, and something must come from something, still can apply when you're talking about the big bang.
The Buddha needs to study virtual particles.
-
You simply introduced another tangent to the thread as an example of the elusiveness of it all.
Yes
If that was your intent, i guess you made your point.
It was made by reply #3. What are we on now?? Sheeeeesh
-
Sometimes discerning your meaning and intent is elusive.
-
Only to specific posters, it would seem. Imagine that
-
yeah
that's why BSB told you to relax.
-
Been relaxed since the get go. It would seem those who have a beef in trying to make something out of nothing are the ones with the issue requiring relaxation intervention. One can only wonder why
-
What is your best guess as to why?
-
Good question. I suggest trying to relax. You've been all over this tangential molehill, that needed nothing more than response #3. Try focusing on something a tad more substantive, noteworthy. Xo's idea that tax dollars are a good thing for .....apparently anything and everything that fits the left's big government philosophy would be a good place to start. Just another suggestion
-
Yeah, first you totally distort anything I have said, then you attack the distortion. That should calm you down from the stress of pondering theoretical physics.
-
Ahhh, the trifecta of attempted mountain out of molehill sirs bashing is complete. Sorry, but an actual example is required. Your all too frequently wrong say so, simply isn't going to cut it
-
Good question. I suggest trying to relax. You've been all over this tangential molehill, that needed nothing more than response #3. Try focusing on something a tad more substantive, noteworthy. Xo's idea that tax dollars are a good thing for .....apparently anything and everything that fits the left's big government philosophy would be a good place to start. Just another suggestion
So you think discussing that in a thread about the god particle would be the place to do it?
-
Not at all, though tangents are always amusing. I'd assume it would be an appropriate reply in the "pet peeve" thread, since that's where the apparent inference originated from
-
OK just curious why you would say topics like tax and spend are more acceptable than asking for clarification as to why the homosexual gene was introduced into a thread about the god particle only to find out that requesting clarification is making a mountain out of a molehill.
Who Knew!
-
Asked and answered by reply #3, then reinforced in subsequent requests for "clarification". Start a new thread if it's THAT imperative to keep digging, Bt. I'm not going to be your shovel
-
"The Big Bang theory does preclude a "past" prior to the Big Bang."
No it doesn't. And you went right ahead and showed how there could have been. "There may be something *outside* of our universe." I didn't specify inside or outside of this universe. I just said a "past" prior to the Big Bang.
T-1 ( time minus one ) refers to a "time" prior to the big bang, and what was, may have been, coud have been, there, prior to the Big Bang. I doubt anyone thinks of it as being within this universe, obviously, when discussing the Big Bang theory.
BSB
-
Time was created at the Big Bang. Prior to the Big Bang, time did not exist, so there is not a "T-1".
-
No Evidence of Time before Big Bang
Latest research deflates the idea that the Universe cycles for eternity.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=no-evidence-of-time-before-big (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=no-evidence-of-time-before-big)
-
T-1 is time minus one. It is before time. When I referred to time before the big bang I put time in "" quotes, "time".
But lets take the article you posted. That proves one thing, they don't know. They are still debating it. One group says A, another says B. I highly doubt they'll know before I take that long uninterrupted nap known as death. However, I come down on the side that this universe came from something. We, this universe, aren't/isn't the begining. I suspect there is no begining, or end. That's a human concept that I believe won't hold water.
BSB
BSB
-
Asked and answered by reply #3, then reinforced in subsequent requests for "clarification". Start a new thread if it's THAT imperative to keep digging, Bt. I'm not going to be your shovel
So true. Most shovels have points.
-
If smaller particles and smaller quanta of energy are discovered , ... would this reset Heisenbergs uncertainty principal?
There would still be a definate limit on the certainty of small measurements , but the uncertain limits would be pushed back an order of magnitude.
-
Asked and answered by reply #3, then reinforced in subsequent requests for "clarification". Start a new thread if it's THAT imperative to keep digging, Bt. I'm not going to be your shovel
So true. Most shovels have points.
And mine was provided by reply #3
-
not really
i was just being kind in letting you think your rationale made sense.
-
keep digging
-
Plane, if you know what you just said you're way above my pay grade. I'm just faking it.
BSB
-
Plane, if you know what you just said you're way above my pay grade. I'm just faking it.
BSB
I do not understand all of it!
But every thing big is understood in peices , some of which I get.
If you want to know where a Photon is and where it is going and what frequency it represents etc etc you reallly cannot, you can find out one fact from this photon the finding of which will destroy the rest of the information you might want. The measurement of one fact from the photon , must necessacerily change the photon too much for any further measurement .
It is as if your measurement device was a bowling ball, if you were measureing a battleship by observing the impact and reflection of your bowling balls you can measure it quite a bit, but if you tryed to measure another bowling ball by impact of your measureing bowling ball only the first impact would bring you any truth, the next measurement would be heavily contaminated by the first measurement.
Heisenburg developed this concept into a sophisticated proof that there is a definate limit to any certainty, and in the measurement of any small thing there is a quantifiable uncertainty that is absolutely unavoidable.
But , I wonder , if smaller particles are discovered, whether these small particles can express smaller quanta of energy also?
If so can these smaller particles and smaller quanta of energy be manipulated as measurement tools?
It would be as if your measurment tools were shrunk from bowling balls to ping pong balls, now it might be possible to measure smaller stuff and the Heisenburg uncertainty would need to be reset.
Or do I have some of this wrong?
I certainly might.
-
The only reason I would like to be reborn would be to get another crack at science, and history. So important, and I gave them such little attention when I was young.
I whish I could debate it with you Plane, but it ain't my thing. Ami can probably help you out.
BSB
-
http://titaniumphysicists.brachiolopemedia.com/ (http://titaniumphysicists.brachiolopemedia.com/)
Well I might not be quite up to Ami myself.
What did Will Rodgers say?
Everyone is ignorant ,..
Only on diffrent subjects.
-
If smaller particles and smaller quanta of energy are discovered , ... would this reset Heisenbergs uncertainty principal?
I would think that it would depend on the nature of the particles in question. How we discover what that nature is, I do not know.
If you cannot prove something exists, it would be more difficult to ascertain its characteristics, i would think.
-
If smaller particles and smaller quanta of energy are discovered , ... would this reset Heisenbergs uncertainty principal?
I would think that it would depend on the nature of the particles in question. How we discover what that nature is, I do not know.
If you cannot prove something exists, it would be more difficult to ascertain its characteristics, i would think.
Well , yes and no.
If you understand bowling balls well, you can project the understanding onto marbles and part of your supposition will be right.
Supposing that you find that there really are marbles, your partial understanding will either help you find them , or if you understand them poorly , your partial understanding might help them hide.
A lot of these discoverys have been projected , present theroy thereby being confirmed, every now and then projections have been wrong and this was reason to revamp theroy.
-
http://motionsystemdesign.com/ (http://motionsystemdesign.com/)
http://motionsystemdesign.com/Magnetism.pdf (http://motionsystemdesign.com/Magnetism.pdf)
Online Learning Library
Download a new Brushing Up TeCHapter each month for your enjoyment and enrichment — and to help young engineers-to-be with their studies! Topics cover physics and engineering foundations — including Gears, Magnetism, Forces of Nature, the Physics in Motion, Standards, Chemistry and Engineering Materials, Statics and Dynamics, Circuits, Lost Motion, Machines, and much more.