The ‘God Particle’: ‘Tantalising Hints’ of Higgs Boson Seen by CERN Physicists

When was the Big Bang proven??? Thought this was just a theory.

John Stone, yes the Big Bang like virtually everything else is just a theory. Some theories are better supported than others making people talk more like they are hard facts but scientists know that any day some new discovery could turn some theories upside down. But until such days one often runs with the best theory currently available and tries to see what other evidence there is or what other theories you can derive from an existing theory. Other scientists are often hard at work specifically trying to disprove some theories because that effort also brings us closer to the truth.

It isn’t a god particle, it is the particle responsible, or thought responsible for gravity, it supplies the attractive force between mass.

“When was the Big Bang proven???” — In 1965, when the cosmic microwave background radiation was discivered, and in 1992, when it was mapped and found to precisely fit the predicitons of the Big Bang theory. Of course, this doesn’t absolutely “prove” anything, but it makes it extremely likely.

It’s common knowledge now amongst physicists that the last Big Bang was certainly not the first and only Big Bang. Rather, it was just one of, perhaps, an infinite number of Big Bangs that preceded the creation of this particular known universe. Any scientific mind will grasp the theory of causation. Whether the last Big Bang was the result of a previous universe’s black hole reaching critical mass or one of a handful of other theories, the fact remains that you do NOT get something from nothing….ever. It’s neither plausible nor possible.

Who does it serve to devalue our image of God into a physical element of time, space and matter? God is not physical. God is. Look for content, not form.

Without it, as CERN explained in a background paper, “the universe would be a very different place…. no ordinary matter as we know it, no chemistry, no biology, and no people.”

Oh, you mean Heaven?

Come on people, so they named it a “god” particle, BFD. Get a life. Would it have been better to name it the “Satan” particle? geez …

@Rose: Really? Do we have to go there? The concept of gods are strictly a figment of the imagination of humans that were created when we had a limited ability to understand the world around us.

“Man as certainly stark mad; he cannot make a flea, and yet he will be making gods by dozens.”
- Michel Eyquem de Montaigne

JOHN STONE: “When was the Big Bang proven??? Thought this was just a theory.” – - – Ah, you do understand that gravity “is just a theory” don’t you? And that the atomic structure of atoms and molecules “is jsut a theory”? And that electromagnetic radiation (you know, light, TV, radio, radar, X-rays, etc,) and how it functions “is just a theory”? And that the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force (you know, the theory that explains how nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors should work) are “just a theory”? And that electromagnatism (you know, in part it is generators producing electricity and motors converting electricity into work) “is just a theory”? Saying an idea in the natural sciences “is just a theory” to imply the scientists must be wrong about something is one of the most ignorant and stupidest things a person can say about something in science. The fact is that the Big Bang theory is the BEST explanation for what we observe and there are numerous experiments that have verified the theory. About the only way to refute the Big Bang theory is to invent a time machine to go back in time far enough to observe that the unverse began in some way other than the Big Bang.

“When was the Big Bang proven???” — In 1965, when the cosmic microwave background radiation was discivered, and in 1992, when it was mapped and found to precisely fit the predicitons of the Big Bang theory. Of course, this doesn’t absolutely “prove” anything, but it makes it extremely likely.

Posted by: jock59801
_____________
Jock! You’re going to mutiny on yourself! Isn’t a “theory” on the same level as a FACT?
A theory is not a hypothesis. It is not an education guess but an explanation of FACTS which means it should literally be considered a FACT. Facts are undeniable, and irrefutable. You can NOT use the word “likely”. It has to be regarded as a FACT.

In the cases of global warming or evolution, by the way you always sound, a theory
is even GREATER than a fact.

ROSE: “Helloooo. Are scientists finally realizing that it is, in fact, GOD who created the universe? It is not a theory, a guess, a result of research. It is GOD and someday He will tell us the why, how and when. Until then…….scientists will keep trying to find a reason for His creations” – - – Hellooooo, is anything in there, as in in that head? “God did it” is not even a testable hypothesis. “God did it” is only supposition and speculation. “God did it” is a belief people choose to believe, and it is totally unsupportable with any demonstrable facts or objective empirical evidence. “God did it” is a function of faith and it is NOT knowable. Besides, have you ever considered the possibility that the Big Bang is precisely HOW God did it? Ever consider the possibility that the Big Bang was God’s natural process for creating and developing the universe? Surely an omniscient being that is truly omniscieent is smart enough to figure out how to use natural processes to naturally accomplish things in the universe, including its creation. Which God would you prefer to worship; an omniscient God who is smart enough to figure out to use natural processes to accomplish EVERYTHING we observe in the universe? Or or a god who is too stupid to figure out how to use natural processes and therefore has to be a micromanaging puppet master who causes and sustains everything?

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena

JOHN STONE: “When was the Big Bang proven??? Thought this was just a theory.” – - – Using any form of the word “prove” is nothing more than an intellectually dishonest ploy to insist upon an unreasonable standard of beyond a shadow of a doubt with 100% certainty level of confidence. For people who play semantic games with the word prove no amount of evidence will ever be sufficient to convince them of an idea they don’t like. The more likely than not standard will never be good enough. The preponderance of the evidence standard will never be good enough. The beyond a reasonable doubt standard will never be good enough. Science functions on probabilities, not certainty. Science does not achieve 100% certainty very often. That is what scientific laws are for. With sufficient testing theories can get pretty friggin darn close to 100% certainty. But ALL theories in the natural sciences must have sufficient support from repeatable and verifiable observations and tests that generate enough objective empirical evidence just to become a theory. That is how a hypothesis becomes a theory – by testing that consistently supports the hypothesis. Theories in the natural sciences are hypothesis that have been well tested. They have been tested so well that there is no better explanation for what we observe. Ironically, sometimes observations can support more than one competing theory. That is why they keep testing them. There is no alternative to the Big Bang that explains what we observe that is better than the Big Bang at explaining what we observe. For my money the Big Bang reaches the beyond a reasonable doubt level of confidence. And since “God did it” is not testable, “God did it’ cannot even qualify as a hypothesis in science.

“You cannot disprove the existence of electricity “———————–Electromagnetism is one of more poorly understood parts of “The Standard Model” ,( although the “effect ” has been investigated and cataloged pretty extensively ) , and “electricity ” per se is still weakly defined , at least in a universal context . I personally expect a paradigm shift in the whole “field theory” area pretty soon one way or the other.

oh stop it already. What is in the middle of every galaxy.???.a black hole. What is in the middle of the sun??? A black hole. There is a tiny black hole vibrating in and out of each universe at a wave frequency hat holds in all together. Stop worshiping Newtonian-Einstein physics it’s like worshiping clay gods with wax feet. God is that sucking sound before you forget who you were and are flushed into the next life to do it all over again.

IVAN: “There IS no way to prove or disprove the Big Bang theory.” – - – That is patently false because objective empirical evidence has in fact supported predictions made from the Big Bang theory. For the Big Bang theory to be correct those predictions HAD TO BE CORRECT. If the predictions were wrong, as in if we had observed something other than what we did in fact observe, then the observations of those predictions would have refuted the Big Bang. Ergo it is in FACT possible to disprove the Big Bang just like it is in fact possible to disprove any and all theories. The whole point of testing a hypothesis or theory is to attempt to disprove it. The ONLY way a scientific test or experiment can be a valid test of a hypothesis or theory is if it is possible for the results to refute the hypothesis or theory. That is the whole friggin point doing the tests and experiments. Besides and again, using any form of the word prove is nothing more than an intellectually dishonest semantic game that insists upon 100% certainty. The only thing “proving” the existence of electricity or radiation or magnetism etc. etc. accomplishes is to support the theory that explains their existence and how they function. But they are in fact “still just theories.” Ditto for the Big Bang. We observe the universe expanding as time moves forward. Ergo if we could observe time in reverse what would we necessarily see? The universe contracting. If we could observe the universe contract far enough what would we observe? The universe collapse into a point – i.e. the reverse of thee Big Bang. That is how a priest (Father Lemaitre, he was also a physicist) came up with the theory after considering the implications of Einstein’s theory of Relativity and what was observable. Predictions were then made to test the theory. And so far at least two tests I know of confirm the predictions and thus experimentally support the theory. Now, is it possiblee God did it by spontaneously creating a 14.5B year old universe 6K years ago and then faking all evidence of ancient age? Yes. But then faking all evidence of ancient age would necessarily make God a liar now wouldn’t it. Besides, if THAT is possible it is also possible God created an anient universe last Thursday at 7:00 AM EST and faked all of our memories and evidence of everything that happened before that time along with all the rest of the evidence for ancient age. (That is Last Thursdayism in case anyone is wondering). Between those three possibilities I go with the Big Bang and natural processes because that is the one the objective evidence supports.

IVAN: with regard to “electicity or readiation” – “We see the evidence.” – - – Ditto for the Big Bang. We see the evidence. – - – IVAN: “The only way to prove or disprove the big bang theory is to, again, is to invent a time machine and go back in time.” – - – WRONG. That is the only way to “prove” the theory with enough certainty to convince people like you who disingenuously insist upon 100% certainty. How convient for you and other doubters/denialists to insist upon a standard that will ALWAYS and FOREVER allow you/them to insist that the available evidence is not good enough no matter how much evidence there is and no matter how convincing or compelling the evidence is. The same goes for evolution (there are mountains of evidence) and Global Warming/Climate Change (there are mountains of evidence) and any other idea you don’t like. And “faith” has NOTHING to do with believing in scientific principles and scientific theories. Confidence, yes. Trust, yes – especially when we might not be smart enough to fully understand all of the science. But faith? Absolutely not. Science is ALL about the evidence and an ability to engage in independent rational thought allong with the ability and willingness to go where the evidence takes us. To paraphrase St. Augustine, when what we observe conflicts with our interpretation of scripture, we need to change our interpretation of scripture so it alligns with what we observe. In other words, believe what we see instead of trying to see what we already believe.

IAMNOTSMART: ““electricity ” per se is still weakly defined ,” – - – Actually that is not accurate. Electricity is flowing/moving electrons. Unless of course one prefers the hole flow “theory.” I think what you meant about something being “weakly defined” is why/how relative motion between a magnetic field and a conductor capable of carrying a current is able to generate a voltage potential when there is no complete path for current, or then generate electricity (i.e. current flow of electrons) when there is a complete path for current flow. If I ever learned the why/how part of the explanation way way back when I learned electrical theory I don’t remember.

? Thought this was just a theory.—it’s been validated over and over and over and not physicist has been able to DISPROVE it. Do you get that? You make a theory about particle movement, planet movement, etc. It’s a pretty extensive theory, and all you need to prove that planets are moving differently from the model, or that particles ,etc, are NOT behaving as your model predicts and then, you hence, would have DISPROVEN the theory BUt the more we know about the universe, the more Big Bang seems to be supported. Being ignorant to a theory and it’s particulars doesn’t mean you’ve disporven it, it just means you’re ignorant to it. Same can be said for climate change deny-ers I have never seen any actual theory that DISPROVES the data that supports climate chang.

Einstein said you CAN RELEASE ENERGY FROM MASS so conversly you CAN CREATE MATTER FROM ENERGY . But the problem is the COLLIER at Cern does NOT have ENOUGH ENERGY.
“…the one who is streaching out the heavens just as a fin gauze….He is the one who is bring forth the army of them DUE TO THE ABUNDANCE OF HIS DYMANMIC POWER” Raise you eyes high up and see who has created these things” (ISA 40:22,26)
Only God has enough ENERGY (“Due to the Abundance of his Dynamic Energy”) to create Mass.
Another interesting thought … 1000′s of years ago when people in general thoguht the earth was flat the bible said ‘there is one who is dwelling above the circle of the earth’ Isa 40:22. the bible is scientifically accurate. Well I guess the writer of the bible is the Greatest Scientist of all.

the bible is scientifically accurate—-<> the pope believed that the sun revolved around hte earth. Perhaps the ‘circle’ he was referring to was the orbit the ancient people thought the planets were doing. It’s not that difficult to look up in the sky and see that the stars, certain stars, made circular rotations around the sky, or that the sun went down in one direction and then rose on the other horizon…and so did hte moon, and so did the stars like Venus and Jupiter and all the other very bright ‘stars’. If you think about it, you’d have to be soft in the head NOT to know the earth was round, or be able to suppose it. Ancient people didn’t know what a virus was, for God’s sake, and God never intended for us to remain as ignorant as they were. Do you eat shellfish? I mean, let us open up the bible and look at all the stupidity that fills it. God gave us, if nothing else, great brains. He never meant for us to look at the writings of ancient people and say “I dont want to know anything more”. If he wanted us to remain that stupid, he’d never have given us intelligence.

GRANNYNOSBEST: “NO, there is NOT a black hole in the middle of the sun. Look up what a black hole is. When the sun DIES, it will implode into a black hole but it is NOT a black hole now.” – - – Unfortunately that is only half correct. NO, there is no black hole in the center of our sun so that part is correct But, when it dies it will not form a black hole. First, it will expand into a red giant. Then its core will collapse into a white dwarf as the outer layers that don’t collapse expand into a nebula. If our sun was a little more massive it would collapse into a neutron star instead of a white dwarf. Our sun is not massive enough to form a black hole. That requires a star with three to four times the mass of our sun.

The “God Partical” ? Do they call it this so that if it’s proven beyond a doubt christians can give God credit? Gimme a break.

Scientists do not call it the God particle. Only the media does. Kind of t like the word Hippie back in the 60′s. The media creates the BS just to sell whatever it is it sells. toothpaste..whatever.

JEAN: “Scientists do not call it the God particle. Only the media does. Kind of t like the word Hippie back in the 60′s. The media creates the BS just to sell whatever it is it sells. toothpaste..whatever.” – - – Actually, that is false. Physicist Leon Lederman came up with the term in 1993.

The so called BigBang theory is STILL a theory. And it will be nothing but a theory even after a million more years and there is nothing to prove!

God said in Genisis Let there be light, thus the Big Bang.

This is a simple matter of grasping for particles. Nothing has been solved nor discovered that will shed any more light on the evolutionist’s fairytale. The Higgs Boson theroy still does not even attempt to answer several very important questions (not in any particular order and there are many more): 1) Where did this particle come from? There had to be a first cause. 2) Where did the energy come from to put this particle in motion? Energy cannot be created or destroyed. 3) How did at least two of these particles come to be at the same time, at the same point in history, and on the same identical opposite paths racing towards each other at precisely the same trajectory? 4) This particle is comprised of non-life elements. How did life begin from non-life? 5) Where did the laws that govern the behavior patterns of these particles come from? There had to be a law giver. The answers to these questions lie in the fact that evolutionist rely heavily on assumptions. It is assumed that such and such has taken place at least once “because here we are”. There is no real “science” that backs these assumptions, only wide eyed speculators who deny the very existence of the One who knows the beginning from the end.
“Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.” A Quote from Sir Arthur Keith (he wrote the forward to the 100th anniversary edition of Darwin’s book, Origin of Species in 1959).
So, I say continue in your pursuit of finding no new answers for the answer that has existed for thousands of years, “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.” (Hebrews 11:3)

Bob Roscoe: “This is a simple matter of grasping for particles. Nothing has been solved nor discovered that will shed any more light on the evolutionist’s fairytale.” – - – ROFLMAO. What on earth does subatomic particle physics have to do with evolution? One has nothing to do with the other. Talk about tossing out an irrelevant red herring. You do understand that biology and physics are two different natural sciences, right? – - – Bob Roscoe: “There had to be a first cause. “ – - – Why? Just because you say so? – - – Bob Roscoe: “This particle is comprised of non-life elements. How did life begin from non-life?” – - – We don’t know yet and we have not had millions of years to figure that out. Science is fine with admitting we don’t know something. That is the whole point of science – to figure out the answers to the things in nature we don’t know and don’t fully understand. Oh, that is also another pointless red herring because subatomic particle physics has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Again, physics and biology are two different scientific fields. – - – Bob Roscoe: “5) Where did the laws that govern the behavior patterns of these particles come from? There had to be a law giver.” – - – Why? Even if true, maybe the Big Bang was the law giver’s natural process for creating and developing the universe as we see it according to those natural laws, and maybe evolution is the law giver’s natural process for developing life according to those natural laws.

Bob Roscoe: “So, I say continue in your pursuit of finding no new answers for the answer that has existed for thousands of years…” – - – Wow. So your god is a liar. If God created the universe only about six thousand years ago then that means God faked all of the evidence that indicates the universe is ancient, on the order of about 14.5B years ancient. If your god deceived us by faking all evidence of ancient age then means your god is a liar. Furthermore, if God could deceive us by faking all evidence of ancient age before six thousand years ago, then how do you know that God didn’t just create the universe last Thursday at 0700 GMT and then fake all evidence of everything/history prior to that time, including our memories and records of events prior to that time?

…and if it doesn’t exist, how will they prove that?