> The management at Cern want the two teams of scientists to reach the 'five sigma' level of certainty with their results - so they are 99.99995 per cent sure - such is the significance of the results.
>> The management at Cern want the two teams of scientists to reach the
>> 'five sigma' level of certainty with their results - so they are
>> 99.99995 per cent sure - such is the significance of the results.
> In the popular media, the particle is sometimes referred to as the
> God particle, a title generally disliked by the scientific community
> as media hyperbole that misleads readers.
-- jo
"Every time you understand something, religion becomes less likely."
--James Watson & Francis Crick
On a sunny day (Mon, 2 Jul 2012 10:20:23 +0200) it happened Poutnik
<pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote in
<MPG.2a5b781ce83a49c6...@news.eternal-september.org>:
'God particle' is just a sales pitch to get more funding for the next useless accelerator
looking for the 'super god particle" etc etc.
They need funding from religious groups too UC.
Politics.
>> Jan Panteltje posted Mon, 02 Jul 2012 07:17:21 GMT to sci.physics,
>>> Sam Wormley:
>>>> God particle is found.
>>> This is not a religious group.
>> The both things above do not mutually exclude.
>This is why it is sometimes useful to go to Wikipedia
>in order to be well informed about the world:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson >> In the popular media, the particle is sometimes referred to as the
>> God particle, a title generally disliked by the scientific community
>> as media hyperbole that misleads readers.
Exactly, and Sam is into that as he is with global w*rming.
And he still does not even grasp how to insert carriage returns and linefeeds
in his mouse cut and paste from HTML.
Alzheimer.
> >> The management at Cern want the two teams of scientists to reach the
> >> 'five sigma' level of certainty with their results - so they are
> >> 99.99995 per cent sure - such is the significance of the results.
> On a sunny day (Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:53:33 +0200) it happened Jo Stein
> <jst...@broadpark.no> wrote in <jsrnib$f2...@speranza.aioe.org>:
...
>> This is why it is sometimes useful to go to Wikipedia
>> in order to be well informed about the world:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson >>> In the popular media, the particle is sometimes referred to as the
>>> God particle, a title generally disliked by the scientific community
>>> as media hyperbole that misleads readers.
> Exactly, and Sam is into that as he is with global w*rming.
> And he still does not even grasp how to insert carriage returns and linefeeds
> in his mouse cut and paste from HTML.
> Alzheimer.
I have the habit that I judge people according to their merits in life.
What have you done that is worth showing to me?
Carriage returns do not count.
-- jo
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way
through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false
notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as
your knowledge.'" -- Isaac Asimov
>Den 02.07.2012 13:48, skrev Jan Panteltje:
>> On a sunny day (Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:53:33 +0200) it happened Jo Stein
>> <jst...@broadpark.no> wrote in <jsrnib$f2...@speranza.aioe.org>:
>...
>>> This is why it is sometimes useful to go to Wikipedia
>>> in order to be well informed about the world:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson >>>> In the popular media, the particle is sometimes referred to as the
>>>> God particle, a title generally disliked by the scientific community
>>>> as media hyperbole that misleads readers.
>> Exactly, and Sam is into that as he is with global w*rming.
>> And he still does not even grasp how to insert carriage returns and linefeeds
>> in his mouse cut and paste from HTML.
>> Alzheimer.
>I have the habit that I judge people according to their merits in life.
>What have you done that is worth showing to me?
>Carriage returns do not count.
Bad job is a sign of incompetence.
You do not seem to care about that, so plonk.
>>>> The management at Cern want the two teams of scientists to reach the
>>>> 'five sigma' level of certainty with their results - so they are
>>>> 99.99995 per cent sure - such is the significance of the results.
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 11:46:04 +0000, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> 'God particle' is just a sales pitch to get more funding for the next useless accelerator
> looking for the 'super god particle" etc etc.
It must be an effective pitch. Those two words, carefully designed
to incite the ignorant, have certainly been able to arouse your useless
ire.
Actually, the term "God particle" is totally an invention of the
popular press. No true scientist would ever use it. No true
scientist would ever even notice it. Need I say more?
Chris Richardson <r...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 11:46:04 +0000, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> 'God particle' is just a sales pitch to get more funding for the
>> next useless accelerator looking for the 'super god particle" etc
>> etc.
> It must be an effective pitch. Those two words, carefully designed
> to incite the ignorant, have certainly been able to arouse your
> useless ire.
> Actually, the term "God particle" is totally an invention of the
> popular press. No true scientist would ever use it. No true
> scientist would ever even notice it. Need I say more?
True scientists did however coin and still use "black hole"
and "big bang" :-)
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 16:38:23 +0200, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> True scientists did however coin and still use "black hole"
> and "big bang" :-)
The terms "big bang" and "black hole" are accurate metaphors for
what they are intended to describe. Thus they are a very useful
kind of abbreviated expression.
In contrast, "God particle" is only a fanciful term that conveys
little, if anything, about the supposed mass field to which the
Higgs applies.
> Actually, the term "God particle" is totally an invention of the
> popular press. No true scientist would ever use it. No true
> scientist would ever even notice it. Need I say more?
They guy who coined it is Leon Lederman. You can look him up. I think he qualifies as a scientist.
On the other hand, he offered it with tongue pretty far in cheek. Lots of his colleagues thought the joke fell flat.
On Monday, July 2, 2012 2:41:13 PM UTC-5, Big Dog wrote:
> On 7/2/2012 9:32 AM, Chris Richardson wrote:
> > Actually, the term "God particle" is totally an invention of the
> > popular press. No true scientist would ever use it. No true
> > scientist would ever even notice it. Need I say more?
> They guy who coined it is Leon Lederman. You can look him up. I think he > qualifies as a scientist.
if you read what he meant, there is no misunderstanding in the sense that
without this particle or mekanism, matenergy would not have evolved
into stable matter and the universe would be just a stream of loose particles
without the chance for elements, molecules or life to form.
the misunderstandings come from those who don't read and just judge.
> >> The management at Cern want the two teams of scientists to reach the
> >> 'five sigma' level of certainty with their results - so they are
> >> 99.99995 per cent sure - such is the significance of the results.
Re Higgs boson - that's a measurement artifact at the limits of
measurement. Quantum chromodynamics / technicolor is more correct.
Heh, attempt at God particle: $20 billion+, hermit who arrives at why
it does/doesn't exist: free. While that takes a very special variety
of hermit, if they'd spent much more on searching for the Higgs boson
it could've opened a black hole that'd've et the Earth. They're
pretty sure they would've found it, the Higgs boson, after what they
didn't take into account of forming a gravitic singularity that would
destroy the Earth.
When you see spin like "God particle found" that's along the lines of
"classical physics proved finished". Here the general hype is just as
good of evidence that "media spins the news".
Luckily, someone at the helm noticed, "oh, the logical result of
further doubling the experiment's power could destroy the Earth."
Then, what they've found is that, and there are effects outside the
standard model, other experiments will have to suffice to validate the
forward (as it were, for standard theorists to the edge of their box)
progress of physics.
Now, for $20 billion+ dollars, you can find lots of gurus, but, most
of them aren't very suitable for advancing the knowledge of the rest
of us.
So when you hear someone tell you the "God particle" was found,
congrats, they read the news (unless they go past the headline to that
higher energy experiments in a linear collider refine statistical
expectations of the existence of the Higgs boson, in that particular
configuration). The Standard Model of physics is true just like
classical mechanics is true,
