"god" particle
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>those of you who aren't ;-^)
Connie
<conrad.geller@gmail.com>forum. The name is a journalistic invention intended to excite people,
only appropriate because it is theoretically the force that gives mass
to particles (I suppose "creates" them, in a way), and so makes the
material reality that we experience around us. Validation of the Higgs
boson at CERN will not advance discussions about the existence of God
in any way.
On Dec 12, 9:27 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i'm too dumb to understand this, but thought i would pass it on for
> those of you who aren't ;-^)
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/science/physicists-anxiously-await-...
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>
Timbo
<thcustom@sbcglobal.net>On Dec 12, 10:17 am, Connie <conrad.gel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Higgs has nothing to do with God, as that entity is discussed in this
> forum. The name is a journalistic invention intended to excite people,
> only appropriate because it is theoretically the force that gives mass
> to particles (I suppose "creates" them, in a way), and so makes the
> material reality that we experience around us. Validation of the Higgs
> boson at CERN will not advance discussions about the existence of God
> in any way.
Reality check. I totally agree. Thanks Connie
Ed Jarrett
<edjarrett53@gmail.com>Higgs has nothing to do with God, as that entity is discussed in this
forum. The name is a journalistic invention intended to excite people,
only appropriate because it is theoretically the force that gives mass
to particles (I suppose "creates" them, in a way), and so makes the
material reality that we experience around us. Validation of the Higgs
boson at CERN will not advance discussions about the existence of God
in any way.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/science/physicists-anxiously-await-...
On Dec 12, 9:27 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i'm too dumb to understand this, but thought i would pass it on for
> those of you who aren't ;-^)
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
Ed Jarrett
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>On Dec 12, 10:41 am, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 7:17 AM, Connie <conrad.gel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Higgs has nothing to do with God, as that entity is discussed in this
> > forum. The name is a journalistic invention intended to excite people,
> > only appropriate because it is theoretically the force that gives mass
> > to particles (I suppose "creates" them, in a way), and so makes the
> > material reality that we experience around us. Validation of the Higgs
> > boson at CERN will not advance discussions about the existence of God
> > in any way.
>
> Agreed, although I think the Higgs Boson, if it actually exists, which is
> unknown at this time, is a particle rather than a force.
Observer
Why?
Dave
Ed Jarrett
<edjarrett53@gmail.com>
On Dec 12, 10:41 am, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 7:17 AM, Connie <conrad.gel...@gmail.com> wrote:Observer
> > Higgs has nothing to do with God, as that entity is discussed in this
> > forum. The name is a journalistic invention intended to excite people,
> > only appropriate because it is theoretically the force that gives mass
> > to particles (I suppose "creates" them, in a way), and so makes the
> > material reality that we experience around us. Validation of the Higgs
> > boson at CERN will not advance discussions about the existence of God
> > in any way.
>
> Agreed, although I think the Higgs Boson, if it actually exists, which is
> unknown at this time, is a particle rather than a force.
Why?
Dave
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>On Dec 12, 6:27 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i'm too dumb to understand this, but thought i would pass it on for
> those of you who aren't ;-^)
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/science/physicists-anxiously-await-...
Observer
Thanks for the heads up
Here is an alternative look at the cosmological process.
Let me know what you think of it.
1.1 The most simple theory must be founded on One thing (substance)
existing with properties
This is necessary to abide by two universally accepted principles of
Science and Metaphysics;
Science has a Principle of Simplicity / Occam's Razor - "Essentia non
sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem". i.e. The theory which
deduces the most things from less assumptions is better, thus the best
theory must be founded on the most simple foundation of only one thing
existing.
Metaphysics is founded on the Dynamic Unity of Reality - that One
Thing / Substance necessarily exists and interconnects the many
changing things we experience in the universe.
Bradley. On Metaphysics and the Dynamic Unity of Reality. (Bradley,
1846-1924) We may agree, perhaps, to understand by Metaphysics an
attempt to know reality as against mere appearance, or the study of
first principles or ultimate truths, or again the effort to comprehend
the universe, not simply piecemeal or by fragments, but somehow as a
whole.
So our task is now clearer as we are limited to a foundation of only
one thing / substance existing from which to explain the reality of
this world that we experience.
Aristotle (who first formalized metaphysics and physics) and Leibniz
explain this well;
(Aristotle, 340BC) Metaphysics is universal and is exclusively
concerned with primary substance.(Aristotle, 340BC) The first
philosophy (Metaphysics) is universal and is exclusively concerned
with primary substance. ... And here we will have the science to study
that which is just as that which is, both in its essence and in the
properties which, just as a thing that is, it has. ... That among
entities there must be some cause which moves and combines things. ...
There must then be a principle of such a kind that its substance is
activity.
Reality cannot be found except in One single source, because of the
interconnection of all things with one another(Gottfried Leibniz, 1646
- 1716) Reality cannot be found except in One single source, because
of the interconnection of all things with one another. ... I do not
conceive of any reality at all as without genuine unity. ... I
maintain also that substances, whether material or immaterial, cannot
be conceived in their bare essence without any activity, activity
being of the essence of substance in general.
As we shall see, there is an important clue here relating to motion /
activity being a necessary property of substance.
1.2 This One Thing / Substance must be Space (that we all commonly
experience)
There are many different minds and material things but only One common
Space. This is true when we consider the Space around us - we all
experience many different humans (their bodies & minds) living on
Earth which orbits the Sun, which orbits our galaxy as one amongst
many billions within the observable universe - yet all this occurs
within one common Space.
From this most simple foundation of Space as the one substance that
exists we can then deduce that it must be infinite (not bounded by
another substance), eternal (not created by another substance) and
continuous (not made of parts). As Aristotle wrote;
This shows us two things: you cannot have parts of the infinite and
the infinite is indivisible.
1.3 Matter is formed from the Wave Motion of Space
It is well known that there is a particle-wave duality for light and
matter. Given this most simple science theory is founded on One
substance, Space, we must consider the Properties of Space, thus we
cannot add 'parts / particles' to Space. So we are left only with
waves.
Thus there is only one solution - Space must exist with the Properties
of a Wave Medium, and matter is formed from wave motions of Space.
So Aristotle and Leibniz were largely correct, they just did not
realize that matter's activity / motion really came from the wave
motion of Space (vibrating Space is a simple way to imagine it).
1.4 Matter's Particle Effect is Caused by the Wave Center of the
Spherical Standing Wave
Note: This is a two dimensional cross section of a spherical standing
wave (there is a moving image below) but it is obviously hard to show
a sphere / spherical wave on a flat computer screen so some
imagination is needed!
The Electron / Positron (Anti-Matter) Fig.1 - The Electron / Positron
The image represents the most simple form of matter, the electron. The
positron (anti-matter) is simply the opposite phase standing wave
which sensibly explains matter / anti-matter annihilation due to
destructive wave interference. (The proton and neutron are more
complex wave structures which still need further study)
It is easy to see how the particle effect of matter is formed at the
Wave Center.
You can also see why Pythagoras' theorem is not just a mathematical
(axiomatic) truth, but fundamental to physical reality. If you draw
two lines at right angles to one another, radiating from the wave
center, one 3 wavelengths, the other 4 wavelengths, then complete the
rectangle, magically! you find the hypotenuse is exactly 5 wavelengths
long. This is because this wave diagram truly represents how matter
interacts / forms its spatial dimensions.
Further, three dimensional space and spherical space are equivalent,
as it takes three variables to describe a sphere. In fact the cause of
three dimensional space is simply that matter interacts spherically
(see Einstein quote below).
The fourth dimension of 'time' is really just the motion of the wave
(motion causes time).
It is important to realise that this conception of matter founded on
waves in Space has a different metaphysical foundation. Currently in
physics we have a Metaphysics of Space and Time to which we add
discrete 'particles' and thus also continuous 'fields' to connect them
(thus we have four different things - space, time, matter particles
and fields).
The Wave Structure of Matter is founded on one thing, Space, existing
as a wave medium. i.e. A Metaphysics of Space and (wave) Motion -
where matter is formed from the spherical standing wave motions of
Space. This unites Space, Time, Motion and Matter. Thus Aristotle was
also correct when he wrote;
Movement, then, is also continuous in the way in which time is -
indeed time is either identical to movement or is some affection of
it. ... there being two causes of which we have defined in the
Physics, that of matter and that from which the motion comes.
(Aristotle, Metaphysics)
This is also consistent with the fact that atomic clocks use the
natural resonance frequency of the cesium atom (9,192,631,770 Hz) to
measure time.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Most-Simple-Scientific-Theory-Reality.htm
Dave
Neil Kelsey
<neil.m.kelsey@gmail.com>On Dec 12, 7:17 am, Connie <conrad.gel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Higgs has nothing to do with God, as that entity is discussed in this
> forum. The name is a journalistic invention intended to excite people,
The name comes from the book "The God Particle" by Leon Lederman (I've
read it three times - it fills me with non-spiritual awe). He jokes
that he wanted to call his book "The Goddamn Particle" but his
publisher wouldn't let him.
> only appropriate because it is theoretically the force that gives mass
> to particles (I suppose "creates" them, in a way), and so makes the
> material reality that we experience around us. Validation of the Higgs
> boson at CERN will not advance discussions about the existence of God
> in any way.
Completely agree.
> On Dec 12, 9:27 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > i'm too dumb to understand this, but thought i would pass it on for
> > those of you who aren't ;-^)
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/science/physicists-anxiously-await-...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>On Dec 12, 12:14 pm, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 12, 10:41 am, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 7:17 AM, Connie <conrad.gel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Higgs has nothing to do with God, as that entity is discussed in this
> > > > forum. The name is a journalistic invention intended to excite people,
> > > > only appropriate because it is theoretically the force that gives mass
> > > > to particles (I suppose "creates" them, in a way), and so makes the
> > > > material reality that we experience around us. Validation of the Higgs
> > > > boson at CERN will not advance discussions about the existence of God
> > > > in any way.
>
> > > Agreed, although I think the Higgs Boson, if it actually exists, which is
> > > unknown at this time, is a particle rather than a force.
>
> > Observer
>
> > Why?
>
> Why what? I don't know what you asking here Dave.
Observer
Why do you believe that the Higgs Boson if it exists is particle
rather than a force?
Dave
>
>
>
> > Dave
>
> --
> Ed Jarretthttp://aclayjar.blogspot.com/
Ed Jarrett
<edjarrett53@gmail.com>
Dave
dali_70
<w_e_coyote12@hotmail.com>On Dec 12, 5:40 pm, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Observer
>
> > Why do you believe that the Higgs Boson if it exists is particle
> > rather than a force?
>
> As you well know, I am not a physicist. But I do enjoy reading about the
> latest in the world of physics and read all of the 'popular' articles on
> the search for the Higgs Boson. And I do not recall reading anything that
> identified it as a force; it seems always to be identified as a particle.
> Seehttp://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/higgs.htmlfor an
> example.
From the article I liked below...
"The simplest guess goes back to theoretical work by British physicist
Peter Higgs and others in the 1960s. According to this picture, the
giver of mass is a neutral particle with zero spin that we call the
Higgs boson. In today's version of the electroweak theory, the W and Z
particles and all the fundamental constituents--quarks and leptons--
get their masses by interacting with the Higgs boson. But the Higgs
boson remains hypothetical; it has not been observed.
Here's a really good article that's easy to digest.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-exactly-is-the-higgs
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>On Dec 12, 2:40 pm, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com> wrote:
Observer
Thank you . I may be the nut case here but I conceive of it
differently.
If or when such is isolated we shall have a better indication of it's
priorities.
Regards
Neil Kelsey
<neil.m.kelsey@gmail.com>On Dec 12, 2:40 pm, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com> wrote:
The four known fundamental forces (gravity, electromagnetism, the
strong and weak forces) all have force carrying particles associated
with them (although the gravitron has not been detected yet, at least
to my knowledge). Why would you think the Higgs Boson field would be
different in this regard?
dillan
<dfernando@gmail.com>There's no such thing as a Higgs Bozon field. IT's either Higgs field
or Higgs Bozon.
Higgs Bozon, by definition is an elementary particle.
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>On Dec 12, 5:40 pm, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Seehttp://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/higgs.htmlfor an
> example.
>
>
>
> > Dave
>
> --
> Ed Jarretthttp://aclayjar.blogspot.com/
Hey Ed,
The Higgs boson is an excitation of the Higgs field, which is
essentially a force, like electromagnetism or the strong interaction.
Ed Jarrett
<edjarrett53@gmail.com>rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>On Dec 15, 10:23 am, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com> wrote:
The excitations of the Higgs field are the particles. In quantum
mechanics, there is this "particle/wave" duality where the "particles"
act like "waves" and vice-versa. It's the same principle for the Higgs
field and particle.
Ed Jarrett
<edjarrett53@gmail.com>dillan
<dfernando@gmail.com>This "excitation" description is quite new to me as well. I've never
heard particles being described that way before. If I understand
correctly, this wave is a probability wave of the particle's possible
locations? A non-observed particle exists only as a probability wave,
right?
Neil Kelsey
<neil.m.kelsey@gmail.com>I meant Higgs field.
> Higgs Bozon, by definition is an elementary particle.
You can't define something into existence. It has only been
hypothesized and still needs to be discovered. Same with the Higgs
field.
dillan
<dfernando@gmail.com>err.. I was under the impression that's implied?
Bob T.
<bob@synapse-cs.com>On Dec 14, 8:18 pm, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Higgs Bozon, by definition is an elementary particle.
Indeed. Named after Bozo the Clown, the bozon is the elementary
particle of humor.
- Bob T
Neil Kelsey
<neil.m.kelsey@gmail.com>I wasn't, that's why I said " You can't define something into
existence." But now I *know what you mean,* and we are in agreement
here.
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>On Dec 15, 12:02 pm, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com> wrote:
You're not alone :). Long story short: no one really understands it,
hehehe.
If you're interested though, Michio Kaku and Brian Greene are
typically very good at explaining things on a simple level. Lisa
Randall is also a good person to read. Honestly I went after quantum
mechanics from the mathematical side first (in college) and then "went
back" to understand the implications, etc.
It's really totally non-intuitive, so don't feel bad if you don't "get
it". I only "get" the math to begin with, the rest is totally,
completely nuts ;).
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>Right. Think about the field like the ocean. Then the "particles"
would be like the wave traveling to the beach. It gets more
complicated than that though, because there are non-zero spins
involved (but ignore that for conceptual understanding).
Ed Jarrett
<edjarrett53@gmail.com>Lisa
Randall is also a good person to read. Honestly I went after quantum
mechanics from the mathematical side first (in college) and then "went
back" to understand the implications, etc.
It's really totally non-intuitive, so don't feel bad if you don't "get
it". I only "get" the math to begin with, the rest is totally,
completely nuts ;).
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.