Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Not The Higgs After All?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Not The Higgs After All?

    Interesting...

    Many calculations indicate that the particle discovered last year in the CERN particle accelerator was indeed the famous Higgs particle. Physicists agree that the CERN experiments did find a new particle that had never been seen before, but according to an international research team, there is no conclusive evidence that the particle was indeed the Higgs particle.

    The research team has scrutinized the existing scientific data from CERN about the newfound particle and published their analysis in the journal Physical Review D. A member of this team is Mads Toudal Frandsen, associate professor at the Center for Cosmology and Particle Physics Phenomenology, Department of Physics, Chemistry and Pharmacy at the University of Southern Denmark.

    "The CERN data is generally taken as evidence that the particle is the Higgs particle. It is true that the Higgs particle can explain the data but there can be other explanations, we would also get this data from other particles", Mads Toudal Frandsen explains.

    The researchers' analysis does not debunk the possibility that CERN has discovered the Higgs particle. That is still possible - but it is equally possible that it is a different kind of particle.

    "The current data is not precise enough to determine exactly what the particle is. It could be a number of other known particles", says Mads Toudal Frandsen.
    http://sdu.dk/en/Om_SDU/Fakulteterne...29_technihiggs
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

  • #2
    This actually true, thank you seer for the reference, and it represents a work on progress as to the nature of the subatomic particles we find. Higgs is just a name we assign to a particle that fulfills the predictions physicists made concerning the particle. It is clearly possible that there may be more then one subatomic particles like what we named the Higgs, or the Higgs may ultimately have other properties we will discover in the future.

    Still looking for rabbits in Precambrian rocks, and trying to poke holes in the science which you do not believe in. Seer, it's the pokey game, every time you try to knock one down another ten pop up.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-11-2014, 05:04 PM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      Still looking for rabbits in Precambrian rocks, and trying to poke holes in the science which you do not believe in. Seer, it's the pokey game, every time you try to knock one down another ten pop up.
      Where are you getting that Seer is trying to do anything like that?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by seer View Post
        Pretty interesting stuff Seer. If it turns out not to be the Higgs particle, then it looks like they bumped into some other unknown particle that they weren't expecting, which is pretty amazing in of itself. Wasn't it Hawking himself that speculated that they wouldn't find the Higgs?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Adrift View Post
          Where are you getting that Seer is trying to do anything like that?
          A very, very long history with seer. First he has indicated he does not believe in the Methodological Naturalism that he is commenting on. To him it is all atheist philosophical naturalism. ah . . . unless this is a new reformed seer, which I doubt.

          By the way I thanked seer for the reference.
          Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-11-2014, 05:11 PM.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            Still looking for rabbits in Precambrian rocks, and trying to poke holes in the science which you do not believe in. Seer, it's the pokey game, every time you try to knock one down another ten pop up.
            Exactly, Shunya, but I call it the Lernaean Hydra game.
            ...which is why, in spite of all the pledges, I still lack belief that many pet theories will ever be falsifiable.

            I'll believe it when I see it
            To say that crony capitalism is not true/free market capitalism, is like saying a grand slam is not true baseball, or like saying scoring a touchdown is not true American football ...Stefan Mykhaylo D

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              By the way I thanked seer for the reference.
              But you could not resist being a jackass about it anyway.
              Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

              Comment


              • #8
                It seems that there's a natural law that states that whenever someone opens a thread in the NatSci forum about any science topic, atheists here will eventually make it about evolution vs creationism.

                As for the Higgs, yes, this is why we need to build the International Linear Colider to determine whether or not the particle has any spin (to be the Higgs particle its spin must be equal to zero), and do a more fine-grained investigation of its properties.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
                  Exactly, Shunya, but I call it the Lernaean Hydra game.
                  ...which is why, in spite of all the pledges, I still lack belief that many pet theories will ever be falsifiable.

                  I'll believe it when I see it
                  It's certainly true that theories supported by large amounts of evidence coming from multiple lines of enquiry ARE hard to falsify because their basis is so strong. One single anomalous observation is not going to be a 'gotcha' moment. You can understand why that should be so and not a nasty conspiracy, can't you?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                    It seems that there's a natural law that states that whenever someone opens a thread in the NatSci forum about any science topic, atheists here will eventually make it about evolution vs creationism.

                    As for the Higgs, yes, this is why we need to build the International Linear Colider to determine whether or not the particle has any spin (to be the Higgs particle its spin must be equal to zero), and do a more fine-grained investigation of its properties.
                    Wait, not atheists, let's not generalise. Two guys.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
                      It's certainly true that theories supported by large amounts of evidence coming from multiple lines of enquiry ARE hard to falsify because their basis is so strong. One single anomalous observation is not going to be a 'gotcha' moment. You can understand why that should be so and not a nasty conspiracy, can't you?
                      conspiracy?
                      To say that crony capitalism is not true/free market capitalism, is like saying a grand slam is not true baseball, or like saying scoring a touchdown is not true American football ...Stefan Mykhaylo D

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
                        conspiracy?
                        Sorry. Your use of the term 'pet theories' led me to infer this. My apologies.
                        Last edited by pancreasman; 11-11-2014, 07:43 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
                          Wait, not atheists, let's not generalise. Two guys.
                          I never said all atheists.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                            I never said all atheists.
                            No, you said 'atheists here'.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Now, my understanding (I'm not a physicist) has been that there is a standard model of subatomic particles that has been developed which has over time been ratified with enough consistency to make it highly likely that the standard model is a pretty close approximation of what's going on, or anyway what the baryonic universe looks like. To be internally consistent and for all the equations to balance properly, certain particles had to exist (lest the model be wrong), although they had not been observed. One by one, they were sufficiently well documented to be regarded as observed, except for the Higgs. The Higgs was important, because it "explained" the nature of mass. The Higgs particle created a "Higgs field" (in theory), which some particles didn't notice and others had to push through against resistance. We call that resistance "mass", and particles immune to the Higgs field therefore have no mass.

                              Anyway, (off the top of my head), the model constrained the description of the Higgs particle to some extent - it had to have a certain mass within lower and upper limits, which were unfortunately fairly wide. Gradually, those limits closed in as exhaustive research eliminated some of the range as not containing the Higgs. It also (according to the model) needed some other attributes such as zero spin. Eventually, CERN detected a particle meeting all of the requirements for the Higgs, near as could be measured. So was that the "real" Higgs (which, remember, isn't a particle so much as it's an implication of a model). The particle detected filled that hole, more or less.

                              So this becomes a question of what "is" is. It's not like the Higgs is an actual particle, so much as the Higgs is an implication of a model. It's possible (for example) that more than one actual particle might fit the "Higgs-hole" in the model, and it's possible that the Higgs exists, but isn't exactly as the model describes. I suppose we could CALL the particle found the Higgs, and if we should subsequently find one that fits even better, call it the super-Higgs or some such.

                              (Incidentally, I'm with Shuny in one respect - seer does have a reputation for casting about for ways to undermine science, and he seems to think that ambiguities at the state of the art, or minor corrections in the face of better data, somehow undermine rather than illustrate the strength of science. He is always grinding an axe, and never presents interesting scientific developments simply because of their scientific interest.)

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by lee_merrill, 11-23-2020, 10:25 PM
                              1 response
                              20 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by rogue06, 11-22-2020, 08:25 AM
                              4 responses
                              57 views
                              3 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by TheLurch, 11-19-2020, 02:11 PM
                              1 response
                              28 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by rogue06, 11-10-2020, 08:50 AM
                              0 responses
                              18 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by shunyadragon, 11-09-2020, 06:36 PM
                              2 responses
                              16 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X