News24

'God particle' hopes fade

2011-08-23 08:14

Washington - International scientists searching to solve the greatest riddle in all of physics said that signs are fading of the elusive Higgs-Boson particle, which is believed to give objects mass.

Recently, physicists announced at a European conference that a big atom-smasher experiment had shown tantalising hints of the Higgs-Boson, as the search to identify the particle enters the final stretch with results expected late next year.

Sometimes described as the "God particle" because it is such a mystery yet such a potent force of nature, the Higgs-Boson - if it exists - represents the final piece of the Standard Model of physics.

"At this moment we don't see any evidence for the Higgs in the lower mass region where it is likely to be," said physicist Howard Gordon, deputy US Atlas operations programme manager.

Atlas is the biggest particle collider lab at the European Organisation for Nuclear Research's (Cern) Large Hadron Collider (LHC).

Data

"I think it is true that the hints that we saw in July are not as significant - they weren't very significant in July - but they have gotten less significant now," Gordon said.

However, physicists are not ready to rule out the possibility that it exists, and atom-smasher experiments must still sift through an immense amount of data at the low-end of the spectrum, he said.

"Basically the data has increased by about a factor of two since the report from the European Physical Society meeting in July because the Large Hadron Collider is producing lots of data," said Gordon.

"I think it has always been a possibility that the Higgs would not be there but I don't think we are ready to say that at this moment."

A statement summarising the latest data, released at a conference in Mumbai, India, said the LHC's "Atlas and CMS experiments excluded with 95% certainty the existence of a Higgs over most of the mass region from 145 to 466 GeV".

Cern research director Sergio Bertolucci said whether the particle exists or not, scientists expect to know more by next year.

"Discoveries are almost assured within the next 12 months. If the Higgs exists, the LHC experiments will soon find it. If it does not, its absence will point the way to new physics," said Bertolucci.

Debris

The LHC, located near Geneva, Switzerland, is designed to accelerate protons to nearly the speed of light and then smash them together in house-sized labs where detectors record the seething sub-atomic debris.

The collisions briefly stoke temperatures 100 000 times hotter than the Sun, fleetingly replicating conditions which prevailed split-seconds after the "Big Bang" that created the universe 13.7 billion years ago.

In addition to Atlas, Cern's CMS experiment, short for Compact Muon Solenoid, is a general-purpose detector that is also searching for the Higgs boson, extra dimensions, and the essence of dark matter.

"Whatever the final verdict on Higgs, we're now living in very exciting times for all involved in the quest for new physics," said CMS spokesperson Guido Tonelli.

Comments
  • saturnz - 2011-08-23 08:28

    It will be interesting to see what would happen to the direction of physics if this particle is not discovered. Also the lack of information on dark matter and energy is reflective of the limited knowledge we possess about physics and indeed how the universe was created. Indeed if this particle is not found the whole big bang theory becomes questionable in itself.

      Mr. Fusion - 2011-08-23 09:47

      It was never questionable before?

      Martin du Plessis - 2011-08-23 09:50

      Oh well then, then it'd be time to refine the theories and try to find evidence that fits those theories, as scientists do.

      DABOSS247365 - 2011-08-23 10:17

      This big bang theory in itself does not make any logical sense whatsoever... We may fully understand the theory, however what makes very little, if any sense, is firstly that apparently it all started with something so small we cannot see it, yet has now grown beyond our imagination... Secondly, even if this is possible, expanding into what??? what surrounds this universe? or better yet, before the bang, where was this particle? Someone once told me to look at it from a different point of view: *Electrons orbit an atomic core, Atomic cores create all matter *Matter made of atoms is in orbit al around us (moon earth, earth sun, planets stars) *All these planets orbiting stars are then in orbit in their respective galaxies *Galaxies themselves are moving in an orbit around something... Where does it end? how far can we really see? The deepest we have peered into the universe was in 2004... how deep was this? 60%? 10%? 0.0001%? to the edge? Personally I think that the more we think we know, the more questions arise, many of them may never have a mathematical, earthlogical answer. Consider the first time we discovered the advent electricity... to what we have done with it now... to what we will know in 1000 years from now, & even then still be millions of years away from any answer....

      Risen Ape - 2011-08-23 10:27

      Philosophy can be applied to quantum mechanics in a practical way but to call Higgs-Boson a "god particle" by journalists only attract anti-science god-zombies to the site.

      Cire - 2011-08-23 10:28

      Big bang has always suffered from the philosophical problem - creation from nothing - that suggested it was a theology rather than a theory. Steady state made more sense but suffered from the same problem. String theory and membranes avoid the theology problem but there's even less evidence. Still, it's pretty amazing that we can measure things like background radiation and smash atoms. Failure to find the Higgs Bosun may contribute to the pressure for paradigm change in physics that has mounted steadily with the difficulty of reconciling relativity and quantum. Exciting times, indeed!

      k1dbl4ck - 2011-08-23 10:42

      truthfully... particle physics is a mess, and any "elegance" a mere product of creative mathematics. i have always said the GUT would be simple, elegant, and most likely iterative. Just like the simple two factor equations that give rise to the most beautiful complexity as modeled by, for example, the Mandelbrot set.

      Tooth Fairy - 2011-08-23 11:00

      A Universe From Nothing' by Dr Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009 - www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo Lawrence Krauss gives a talk on our current picture of the universe, how it will end, and how it could have come from nothing- Insights from modern physics

      Justin.A - 2011-08-23 12:26

      //This big bang theory in itself does not make any logical sense whatsoever// Neither does quantum physics, but that doesn't stop it from being having the most accurate outcomes in all of science.

      Justin.A - 2011-08-23 12:27

      //Big bang has always suffered from the philosophical problem - creation from nothing - that suggested it was a theology rather than a theory// Philosophy has no bearing on scientific outcomes, the big bang is accepted because of the evidence for it, the evidence is by no means as overwhelming as for evolution. Not understanding doesn't make it wrong, it just means we don't understand.

      Risen Ape - 2011-08-23 12:38

      @ Tooth Fairy Thats a great link, thanks. I'm busy watching it now. Had to laugh when he said: “Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be here today.”

      Krush - 2011-08-23 14:03

      *sighs* Perhaps it's time to realise that God created everything.

      NuttyZA - 2011-08-23 14:21

      Krush, that is such an unbelievably naive statement. The Higgs-Boson is predicted to exist in the standard model of Particle Physics... there are other models that do not require the Higgs-Boson to exist at all... this does not invalidate the Big Bang Theory in anyway whatsoever...OR validate your particluar flavour of god

      Cire - 2011-08-24 15:31

      @Justin. I don't diagree with you but there is a very clear distinction between theory and theology. Big bang is a theory that attempts to explain as much of the evidence we have been able to accumulate as possible but those few nano-seconds where the laws of physics do not apply (infinities) appears are a real hassle. We extrapolate and that introduces theology. Philosophy merely asks for evidence - not the impossibility of finding/measuring evidence. The failure to explain gravitation (the 'vector'?), and the dificulty of reconciling quantum and relativity, suggests that the theory needs to be treated as a theory - not as a theology. I certainly agree that evolution has a huge and, above all, consistent evidential basis - especially since the development of genetic science. On the other hand, 'inflation' may be a sort of 'fudge' to explain inconsistencies in big bang (not-smooth) perhaps like the addition of yet another epicycle to preserve the early earth-centred cosmology? To twist your closing comment, not understanding does not imply the theory is correct! Anyhow - exciting times for physics just when we thought we had most of the Ts crossed and Is dotted. Physics remains the queen of human sciences that sets the standrads for the rest of us non physicists. And, as Popper insisted, evidence, evidence, evidence! Go well.

      schmerz - 2011-08-24 16:29

      Ah, if the big bang theory doesn't fit, just fabricate something else? What could make more sense than an explosion out of nothing? I've heard people say that we know more about space than we know about our own ocean. How ignorant must you be to believe that? Nothing is better than a human is it? AHAHAAHHAHAH

      schmerz - 2011-08-24 16:33

      @DABOSS247365, hmm I don't think the universe has any borders. People once thought the world was flat.

      Alf - 2011-08-25 09:56

      Funny how hard we must try to get God out of the discussion of the big bang (ontology). God must rather stay out of science, its better left to the real scientists, He must preferably stick to how much He loves me and all those religious things. No amount of proof will ever be enough to prove Who made the Big Bang (instead of What caused the Big Bang). God Himself can even come down to earth and raise people from the grave, some people will still not believe (Oh! He's done that by the way!). Its not that People don't believe due to a lack of scientific evidence, but because they have chosen not to believe. If they would believe, it means they will have to account to someone and that is not preferred thank you very much. God doesnt really suit my lifestyle for now. Ignorance is bliss and I will accept any science (even if the burning question is where matter and energy came from originally) that supports my preferable and current predetermined world view.

      HappyGoLucky - 2011-08-25 10:23

      highly recommended video for you all www.metacafe.com/watch/5901853/science_saved_my_soul/ OR www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6w2M50_Xdk ive watched it SOOOOOOOOOOO many times

  • Tomas - 2011-08-23 08:36

    I think the scientists have assumed too much. Many of the theories regarding the Higgs-Boson particle was built on other theories. They have built a pyramid of theories, and when one theory in this house of cards fail, it will be back to square one. It's like dark matter. It was created simply because they didnt have another explanation for the inequalities of gravity in the universe. Doesnt mean it exists, its just the explanation they have for now until they come up with a better one.

      Tomas - 2011-08-23 08:39

      And before I get flamed.... no I am not a religious nut, and yes I think it is commendable the work that was done so far. I just think some of the theories are a bit premature, and assumes too much. But one day, we will get there.

      saturnz - 2011-08-23 08:43

      well theories are created and then tested, without these theories I doubt we would have gotten this far. If they fall flat on their back that would be progress as well, it would just be interesting to see where that progress would take us should these theories fall flat. It would be a bit boring if these theories were actually true, because then we just go on with our lives so to speak.

      Tomas - 2011-08-23 08:56

      @ Saturnz, I agree with you a 100%. Maybe their inability to find the Higgs-Boson, will open up new trains of thought! I still feel they concentrate too much on the physics of the Big Bang itself, and must rather devote more research on the flow of time that occured before and after the Big Bang. If time itself changes its nature, or even direction for that matter, it will also explain alot about our expanding universe(or contracting, depending on the direction time is flowing, and how you view it).

      Ben - 2011-08-23 08:58

      Yup. Failing theories is part of the road... But the great thing about science is , there will be new ones.

      CapeTownJunk - 2011-08-23 09:18

      @Tomas: the Higgs Boson is not the wobbly card upon which the whole of physics stands or falls. Its existence (or non-existence) is just another piece of the puzzle. Either way, the physicists have learned something, and science advances regardless.

      Tomas - 2011-08-23 09:31

      @ CapeTownJunk, yes you are quite right. I was merely making a point about the theories sometimes being built one upon the other, but yes the Higgs-Boson doesnt play that big a part. And yes, sometimes you advance science not by creating new theories, but by eliminating some others.

      jjhvan - 2011-08-23 09:46

      We have a lot of dark matter in SA

      Martin du Plessis - 2011-08-23 09:51

      Theory and testing, testing and practice, refine theory if evidence does not fit original theory. Thats how science works.

      k1dbl4ck - 2011-08-23 10:49

      A 10 000 000 000 Euro shrug? lol.

  • Malcop - 2011-08-23 09:01

    My definition of a Scientist and and Engineer is as follows. "A person who spends their life trying to find a question for an answer."

      neo_acheron - 2011-08-23 09:08

      No no no... A scientist maybe, but an Engineer spends his life finding a solution to a problem that he's trying to avoid.

      JMan - 2011-08-23 09:34

      Exactly neo_acheron. I'm an engineer and what Malcop says is BS in my opinion. But that's his opinion.. :)

      Just Me - 2011-08-23 09:55

      And the answer is right in front of them, all they need is a bit of humility and belief: That in the begining GOD created the heavens and the earth. Simple

      Duke - 2011-08-23 09:56

      Dear Malcop (aka Domkop), you are using a computer, the internet and I am very sure a cell phone, modern transport etc. Enough said for science and engineers. You out of your depth.

      NuttyZA - 2011-08-23 10:03

      lulz@Just Me... I think you are confusing humility with delusion

      Louis C - 2011-08-23 10:17

      @Just Me - that God created everything is not an answer... We can see that it's created because it's here. They are trying to understand HOW it was created. What are those unknown things that He created which makes up everything? :)

      Tooth Fairy - 2011-08-23 11:05

      Dear JustMe: Science can't disprove existence of a creator and it's not trying to. However the religions' version of a God and how we got here, is what is consistently and cumulatively being disproven by science. "Creationists eagerly seek a gap in present-day knowledge or understanding. If an apparent gap is found, it is assumed that God, by default, must fill it." — Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion)

      GveHmAnChan - 2011-08-23 11:37

      You obviously don't understand the difference between engineering and science.

      JMan - 2011-08-23 11:53

      ...a bit of humility and belief...and imagination...and naivety...and blindness...sheep mentality...etc etc.

      Krush - 2011-08-23 14:05

      @Toothfairy - it hasn't been disproven. There is evidence for nothing, only speculation and theories. Please prove evolution to me. Please provide me with evidence of it.

      Risen Ape - 2011-08-23 14:38

      @ Krush I know I'm waisting my time with you but I'm bored at the moment. Read The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins. http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594787 If you are sincere about wanting to know what the evidence for evolution is, and I strongly doubt that you do, then this book should be at the very top of your list.

      Mzungu - 2011-08-23 14:40

      Krush, firstly, it can not be empirically proven(no biology really can) Secondly, I knew some ignoramus was going to mention evolution Thirdly, go read some scientific literature(*This does not include the bible) start with Origin of the Species, by the good ol' Charles Darwin. Fourthly:"And on the seven trillionth day, god created Charles Darwin...Whoops"

      Tooth Fairy - 2011-08-23 22:23

      Krush, The evidence for common decent and the mechanisms around it (= evolution) can be found consistently and cumulatively in various disciplines. Start with the bare basics at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent Just one: 16 shared endogenous retroviruses (ERV) on both the human and chimp genome. There are around 50 millions possible spots where an ERV can insert itself on a genome. One shared ERV on exactly the same spot on both our genomes = around 1 in 50m chance. For it to be the SAME ERV in the same spot is incalculable. And for this to happen 16 times over is err.. beyond incalculable odds. Somehow, I suspect this is going to roll from your back like water from a duck’s back… Integrate common decent into your religion and move on… www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQgawJkxKF4

      john - 2011-08-25 10:39

      Just Me, I took my car in for service last week. It kept pulling to the left for some reason but the mechanics couldn't find out why. Eventually the head mechanic came to me and said "I think we must just accept that it's God's will that your car must pull to the left." I thanked him profusely for opening my eyes to the obvious answer.

      Cire - 2011-08-25 12:07

      @Krush. It you have not seen the evidence for evolution by now its because you don't want to see it! Simple as that.

  • FIO - 2011-08-23 09:04

    Theories are just that - thumb suck explanations, based on limited available information, for what we dont understand that hold true until they can be disproved. Science is not about what cane be proved, but what cannot be disproved. Anything that is "proved" is simply a reflection of high probability.

      cromagnon - 2011-08-23 09:20

      Calling it thumb suck is taking it a bit far, theories are supported by valid scientific experiments and in a lot of cases mathematical models. Theories are not just ideas, it is ideas backed up by enough research to make it acceptable as a truth. Hypothesis is thumb sucking before the experiments validate it into theories.

      JMan - 2011-08-23 09:35

      Yeah....... thumb suck explanations...you basically described religion there...

      malThinus - 2011-08-23 09:56

      planes don't fly based on a thumbsuck

      k1dbl4ck - 2011-08-23 10:50

      +1 Jman.

      Tooth Fairy - 2011-08-23 11:10

      FIO, everything in science is "only a theory", and remains a theory - open for rejection, adaptation or confirmation. The Heliocentric theory (planets orbit the sun), gravity, evolution, etc are also "only" theories. Well proven by now though...

      FIO - 2011-08-23 14:57

      Take note, thumbsuck based on limited information. It is impossible to prove something, as that would imply 100% knowledge about that something, which is impossible. Everything is theory based on probability. Throughout history so called proven facts have been discarded in the face of new information. There will always be new information, so everything always hasa chance of being proved wrong. Consider we only know and understand an estimated 5% of the universe, so do you really think think that with 5% knowledge we are qualified to say anything is proven? The basic premis of scientific enquiry is that any theory is held to be true until proven otherwise. Until then it all remains theory, albeit in many cases with a high probability of being true, but we can never be 100% sure of that. Even Newtonian physics is on the brink of collapse with increased understanding and knowledge of quantum physics. So where do sceintists get theories from? We think them up with the limited knowledge/information we have, hence thumb-suck.

      FIO - 2011-08-23 15:04

      @Malthinus - planes fly on probability. If they flew on certainty there wouldn't be crashes. Besides, we only understand the basics of aerodynamics, lift, drag etc, science is still unable to explain the quantum forces that allow for lift, drag etc. In its simplist form we can explain lift, just as in its simplest form people can explain rain by saying it comes from clouds. @cromagnon, experimentation does validate hypotheses into theories, but none-the-less they are still theories, nothing more.

  • James - 2011-08-23 09:07

    And there I thought my wife had the god particle?

      tonno - 2011-08-23 09:28

      *smile*

  • cromagnon - 2011-08-23 09:15

    I read in a science magazine that it is called the 'god particle' because a frustrated scientist refered to it as 'that goddamned particle' he couldn't proof existed.

  • DesertConvert - 2011-08-23 09:16

    Time to bring in Dr Sheldon Cooper. I'm sure he'll have an answer, as well as a snide remark or two. Something I have always wondered about...What went "bang" in the Big Bang, & where did that all come from?

      NuttyZA - 2011-08-23 09:32

      Nothing went bang in the big bang, the term was coined after the George LeMaitre Hypothesised it... there was no explosion whatsoever, but rather a sudden expansion of matter... as to where it came from, who knows????

      Martin du Plessis - 2011-08-23 09:54

      WWEEEAATTOOONNNNNN!!!!!!!

      k1dbl4ck - 2011-08-23 10:57

      @NuttyZa : thats assuming that everything is moving away from us and its not actually light slowing down slightly as it travels for eons. ;)

      NuttyZA - 2011-08-23 11:22

      @k1dbl4ck As far as I understand Einsteins famous equation (e=mc2), the c stands for the speed of light and is designated with a c, as the speed of light is constant (and never slows down)..

      k1dbl4ck - 2011-08-23 12:03

      Yes Nutty. And within the bounds of our experimental resolution it holds true. But there is no way to devise an experiment to let a beam of light travel for millions even billions of years, and simulate all the (assumed negligible) interactions it has with things as it goes along. Just as Newtons equations held true up to a point when our measurements became more accurate, so to will Einsteins until (IF) out measurements surpass it. Although we just (marginally) managed to prove relativity with those super accurate "space balls" they put in orbit... so it will be a while.

      k1dbl4ck - 2011-08-23 12:06

      and just to add... im not saying the upper bound (c) can be broken.. im merely suggesting that red shift is caused not necessarily by galaxies moving away from us, but possibly by light from them slowing down (c-x)

      k1dbl4ck - 2011-08-23 12:14

      thus challenging the biggest premise of big bang theory. besides. a 13 bil y/o universe. kamaaan. this place is trillions if not zillions of years old. yet, since time is relative, it may just be a second at the next point of resolution in the GUT iteration. can it be possible that here, on the ass end of africa, sits a drum n bass listening, pot smoking heathen that has unified physics yet is not telling anyone about it because he prefers to have tea in peace on sunday afternoons?

      dogue - 2011-08-23 12:16

      @ NuttyZA "there was no explosion whatsoever, but rather a sudden expansion of matter... " huh?! in a bilionth of a second it expanded like... how much? it must have been the most amazing explosion ever!

      NuttyZA - 2011-08-23 12:39

      k1dbl4ck, Would light slowing down cause red shift??? Einstein himself initially thought that the Universe was static and not expanding, it was in fact George Lemaitre that changede his mind... I am no physicist tho, just a lowly IT nerd... so yeah, maybe you HAVE unified physics... Dogue... fair comment, although what I was getting at is the term Big Bang, was coined by Fred Hoyle, who believed the Universe was Static and used the term perjoratively (it just stuck)... but yes, a huge expansion of matter, call it an explosion if you like

      k1dbl4ck - 2011-08-23 12:44

      @Nutty : im also an IT nerd. i have not unified physics... and im merely rambling on as a matter of debate (mostly) based on the premise that the universe cannot possibly be only 13 billion years old. its just doesnt feel right... although... physics as we know is not about emotion... yet the lack of the Higgs IS making me smile as it affirms a bit more of the unification theory i am, in my spare time, working on. And to all you other peeps... no i dont have a girlfriend.

      shane.jacoby - 2011-08-23 14:09

      Hi NuttyZA... The whole reason for this experiment is to find the Higgs-Boson as they theorize that this is the component that adds "mass" to matter. In terms of E=MC2, it would mean that the speed of light can be detested. Basically all our experiments are grounded on certain fundamentals such as gravity. Meaning that gravity and time affects every experiment we conduct. But if we were to change the parameters of Gravity and keep light at a constant, it would affect the out come of a experiment (depending on the nature of the experiment naturally). But new theories have emerged that Gravity can perhaps play a role in time itself as well. Perhaps you should read up on the theories of gravity and light within the "black hole" theory. Interesting stuff. Basically it means that the speed of light could possibly be manipulated by gravity... If the theory is correct, it would give the phrase "space and time" a whole new meaning...

      NuttyZA - 2011-08-23 14:38

      Hi Shane, Thanks for the info :)

  • CapeTownJunk - 2011-08-23 09:25

    There is no God... particle! Every time someone refers to the Higgs boson as the God Particle, I just want to scream blue murder. It's science! It's got nothing to do with any gods of any sort. Adding God (and all His metaphysical baggage) to a physics discussion is unnecessary and dishonest. Just call it the Higgs boson, for, ummm, God's sake!

      Shistirrer - 2011-08-23 09:53

      There is no Higgs-Boson. God 1, CapeTownJunk 0.

      Risen Ape - 2011-08-23 09:54

      My thoughts exactly. Why taint science with silly god-nonsense.

      Martin du Plessis - 2011-08-23 09:55

      See above comments for explanation of why it's called that. "I read in a science magazine that it is called the 'god particle' because a frustrated scientist refered to it as 'that goddamned particle' he couldn't proof existed. "

      Agent Bastad - 2011-08-23 10:09

      We should all pray for CTJ.

      Sickly - 2011-08-23 10:16

      Aaah but that would hardly meet the sensationalist journalism we have come to expect from most of the SA media.

      CapeTownJunk - 2011-08-23 12:10

      @Agent Bastad: I notice that your offer to pray for me has been thumbs-downed. Does that mean I'm being sent to hell?

      dogue - 2011-08-23 12:18

      While we're at it, let's change the planets names too. They're named after gods.

      NuttyZA - 2011-08-23 12:27

      Dogue... no, the planets weren't named after gods, they WERE the gods (ppl quite literally thought that the Jupiter they saw in the Sky WAS Jupiter, the god)

      dogue - 2011-08-23 12:50

      NuttyZA, I don't know much about mythology and probably stand corrected, but didn't the gods live in Olympus or some Roman version?

      NuttyZA - 2011-08-23 13:25

      Dogue, The greek gods lived on Olympus except for Hades, who lived in the Underworld, which was a huge lake of fire, where naughty souls went when they died (sound familiar????)... Don't think the roman gods lived in any particular place (altho I could be wrong) BUT I do know that they thought the bright lights they saw in the skies at night were their gods, not planets and named then such... Jupiter or Jove, being the brightest in the sky and also the roman equivalent of Zues

  • malThinus - 2011-08-23 09:52

    ironically it's called the God particle, no wonder they can't find it

      Agent Bastad - 2011-08-23 10:08

      Your intellectual starvation is showing through.

      Ateis - 2011-08-23 10:18

      @Agent Bastad You believe: that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree And you question malThinus's intellect?

      Martin du Plessis - 2011-08-23 10:33

      LOL malT.

      JMan - 2011-08-23 11:55

      Good one.

      k1dbl4ck - 2011-08-23 16:10

      +100 Ateis. Classic.

  • Agent Bastad - 2011-08-23 10:07

    There was certainly a lot of "faith" involved in this experiment...

      Ateis - 2011-08-23 10:21

      Do scientists admit when they are wrong? Certainly. Do religious folk? Nope, they just claim that you must be misunderstanding scripture, or that god's will is mysterious - or any other bad excuse to justify their belief.

      ocon777 - 2011-08-23 12:17

      they do??? really?

      Justin.A - 2011-08-23 12:32

      //There was certainly a lot of "faith" involved in this experiment... // From the article (you can scroll to the top of this page to actually read it) *However, physicists are not ready to rule out the possibility that it exists, and atom-smasher experiments must still sift through an immense amount of data at the low-end of the spectrum, he said.* Experiments have been carried out for years, a lot of experiments, a lot of standards and a lot of data to asses. No faith, just hard work. You seem to think they connected wires to a battery, once, and left it there.

  • Rudi van der Walt - 2011-08-23 10:11

    If only they had Sheldon Cooper to help them out... ;)

      CapeTownJunk - 2011-08-23 11:09

      Bazinga.

      JMan - 2011-08-23 11:56

      You're in my spot.

  • TruthTeller - 2011-08-23 10:11

    They won't find it.

  • Rage_wolf - 2011-08-23 10:25

    This is the scientific method, sometimes you may not be right, it is a fact of life. However unlike religion, science is not afraid to admit it my be wrong and move on to an alternate theory. Religion on the other hand will never admit to being wrong they would rather use a faith argument to try and save face.

      Martin du Plessis - 2011-08-23 10:34

      Much like the Roman Catholic church and the whole celibacy thing.

      dogue - 2011-08-23 12:32

      @ Martin du Plessis - Roman Catholic Church bashing, huh. At least they accepted that evolution is a reality, that the Bible is not a scientific book and apologised to Galileu Galilei (even if 500 years late). That's more than protestants can do, who are still arguing today that the world was created in 6 days (which is an impossibility) and would have gladly crucified Darwin if it was still legal. Oh well, at least they're no longer arguing that the World is flat.

      Mzungu - 2011-08-23 14:46

      Dogue, all those thumbs down seems to me like you upset a whole bunch of NG kerk tannies

      dogue - 2011-08-23 15:05

      LOL@Mzungu, ja, but at least now i have two thumbs up. Earlier there was zero!

  • arthur.amgen - 2011-08-23 10:37

    Facts and religion do not go together. Religion is based on faith not facts. To be religious today you have switch your logic centre off in your brain. Otherwise you will not believe the superstitious nonsense propagated by religion. At least Scientist are open minded to facts. Science is answering all our questions one by one.

      lory - 2011-08-23 13:30

      Religeous people always very easily deny scientific theories as nonsense, but they accept these theories to run their appliences and treat their medical conditions.......

  • Carl Archary - 2011-08-23 10:40

    Ok, so I checked Wikipedia....after a collaboration with over 10,000 scientists and engineers from over 100 countries, as well as hundreds of universities and laboratories, as well as a total: "With a budget of 7.5 billion euros (approx. $9bn or £6.19bn as of Jun 2010), the LHC is one of the most expensive scientific instruments[64] ever built.[65] The total cost of the project is expected to be of the order of 4.6bn Swiss francs (approx. $4.4bn, €3.1bn, or £2.8bn as of Jan 2010) for the accelerator and SFr 1.16bn (approx. $1.1bn, €0.8bn, or £0.7bn as of Jan 2010) for the CERN contribution to the experiments" .... they come out with absolutely nothing to prove their wild imaginations...can somebody say EPIC FAIL !!!!

      Ateis - 2011-08-23 10:44

      The LHC was not only built for research into the Higgs-Boson particle. http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/lhc/LHCExperiments-en.html

      Risen Ape - 2011-08-23 10:51

      @ Carl If the Higgs-Boson is not found, that in itself would be of great significance. It would mean the standard model is wrong and the direction of research would then shift as a result of it. What methods would you suggest we use to find answers about the environment we live in?

      Thabiso marumo - 2011-08-23 11:10

      Carl Archary, this has been an epic fail.

      CapeTownJunk - 2011-08-23 11:30

      Carl Archary, you seem to think that money just disappeared into a black hole. Do you think all the scientists, engineers and construction workers are hiding that money under their beds? Or do you think that money found its way back into the economy by, oh, I don't know... people spending it? A society that refuses to invest in scientific research is a society that is setting itself up for, how you say, epic fail? Epic fail. That's what I thought.

      Rage_wolf - 2011-08-23 12:08

      Do a quick calculation on how much money the catholic church alone has spent on all the bull**** it peddles. Then compare this to how much they have contributed to the world in doing what they do. (suppress scientific progress, propagate the spread of STI's and provide intangible solace to the weak minded but to mention a few)

      Justin.A - 2011-08-23 12:18

      //Ok, so I checked Wikipedia// From the THIRD paragraph on the wikipedia page: *The Large Hadron Collider was built by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) with the intention of testing various predictions of high-energy physics, including testing for the existence of the hypothesized Higgs boson[3] and of the large family of new particles predicted by supersymmetry.[4]* //can somebody say EPIC FAIL// Yes indeed, quotemining, anti-science, promotion of ignorance FAIL.

      dogue - 2011-08-23 12:35

      Ask your great grand kids when they go back in time to see you. Your logic is the same as "if God wanted us to fly he would have given us wings".

      shane.jacoby - 2011-08-23 14:24

      Let me guess... You don't understand what this "experiment" is about so you calculate the value to give you a small understanding... So $1.1Bn is a lot to spend on gibberish? Explain to me this: what is electricity? Explain to me the essence of the power in itself... More difficult than you think, yet you just accept when you flick the switch it is there... These experiments provide technologies tomorrow that will make today's technologies look stone-age...

      whereu - 2011-08-25 09:03

      So called negative outcomes add enormously to our knowledge. Here is an example. In the 19th century scientists postulated the existence of what that called aether as a medium necessary for the propagation of electromagnetic radiation (including light). Numerous attempts to detect the presence of the aether failed. Far from being a failure the insight that the aether does not exist provided a leap in knowledge which lead at least partially to Einstein formulating the Special Theory Relativity. So showing the absence of Higgs-Boson would be a huge step forward in our quest to understand the universe. That's the way science works.

  • arthur.amgen - 2011-08-23 10:42

    Fact plus evidence equals TRUTH. Fact plus lack of evidence equals LIES (as in religion.)

      ocon777 - 2011-08-23 12:19

      is that a fact?

  • Francois - 2011-08-23 10:51

    Results are expected next year... on 23 December 2012 :-)

      StaalBurgher - 2011-08-23 14:01

      lol

  • GLY - 2011-08-23 11:09

    Can someone explain to me why there should be a particle that gives objects mass? I though that mass came from a collection of atoms?

      NuttyZA - 2011-08-23 11:14

      @GLY, so you are finally admitting that you DON'T actually understand particle physics and the Big Bang Theory and that you assertion that their has to be a god is because of this!

      Tooth Fairy - 2011-08-23 11:22

      Keep on reading you bible GLY, believe like a child... That's the kind of stuff that make sense to you.

      CapeTownJunk - 2011-08-23 11:32

      No, mass comes from the Catholic Church. There, are you happy?

      Risen Ape - 2011-08-23 11:51

      @ Capetownjunk Bwahaha ... that was clever.

      GLY - 2011-08-23 13:28

      I am trying to understand what all the hype is about. Sacrcasim is the lowest for of wit and the biggest weapon for an undfeveloped mind. @toothfairy I will keep on reading the Bible and there is a great deal of intellect needed to understand some of the isssues. Enough of that. By the response to my genuine question I can safely conclude that NuttyZA,Tooth Fairy CapeTown Junk and Risen Ape do not have the answer to my question. I realy want to understan this. Perhaps the four of you should follow my example and investigate something that you do not understand i.e. the Bible. Or maybe you have the answers and are scared that I might be able to create another "wobbly theory based upon other theories" If you don't like something change it; if you can't change it, change the way you think about it. - Mary Engelbreit -

      Ateis - 2011-08-23 13:33

      Is this the same GLY that posted that moses crossed the DEAD sea on http://www.news24.com/SciTech/News/Fossils-shows-life-possible-on-Mars-20110821? Still waiting for your references to this statement you made: "have raed many scientific articles and yes many of them are now proving events in the Bible to be true"

      CapeTownJunk - 2011-08-23 14:08

      @GLY: We're not here to spoonfeed you. If you're really curious about science, why not go link-hopping around Wikipedia for a bit? Otherwise we'll have to suspect that you're just tossing hard-to-answer curveballs, in the hope that nobody answers you. Then you can claim a victory, saying "See, science can't explain this, therefore Goddidit!".

      DoktaPhill - 2011-08-23 14:11

      @ nuttyZa @ Tooth Fairy @ CTJ @ risen Ape Gly didn't mention God in His/Her comment! I think He/She simply wanted a genuine answer, to a genuine question! What's with all the nastiness?......Jeeeeees. "Mass comes from the Catholic Church", is quite funny though.

      Risen Ape - 2011-08-23 14:15

      GLY wrote: "I realy want to understand this." No you don't. You accepted Biblical mythology as truth and reject all evidence that contradicts it. I have just watched a youtube video "A Universe From Nothing' by Dr Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009" that ToothFairy linked to in one of his comments above. www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo If you genuinely want to learn, you can start by watching that.

      NuttyZA - 2011-08-23 14:15

      GLY, if you are really interested in finding out about it, why don't you just google it??? I am not a partical physicist and although I have a very basic understanding, I would probably get a lot (if not most) of it wrong... far better for you to read about it from a credible source...but I don't really think you are interested, think you are far more interested in trolling

      NuttyZA - 2011-08-23 14:29

      @DoktaPhill... GLY constantly posts on articles like these, spouting his/her creationist nonsense... GLY doesn't really want an honest or informed answer...

      shane.jacoby - 2011-08-23 14:46

      GLY - Let me best try to explain it... An Atom is made up of Protons, Electrons, Neutrons and a Nucleus. BUT it can be broken down even further. So now you break the Nucleus down into Gluons and Quarks. Basically the Higgs-boson is a part of the make up in the most basic foundations of a atoms components. This would be the part that would add mass to matter. Meaning that if it are true, even you and I would have the "Higgs-Boson" component within us. IF this theory were to be correct, we should rather ask: If the Higgs-Boson added mass to matter (on an atomic level), then what would the parameters be for the mass to vary? Meaning: How much Higgs-Boson component would be needed to be added to change the mass of an object (atomic or larger or smaller)and how would you quantify it? If it does not exist, we may just proceed to believe that various atomic substances vary in mass and volume.

      GLY - 2011-08-23 15:57

      Shane. Thank you for the simple explanation. i am pleased someone answered my question.

      GLY - 2011-08-23 16:20

      @ateis. References to Moses crossing the Red sea (dead was a typo) please see as follows:- www.philstar.com www.wnd.com, ravingathiests.com, creativeministry.org. The first two references refer to ther remains of charioyts being found at the bottom of the red sea. The last two refer to a study done by Naum Volzinger on "The hydrodynamic situation during the exodus." This was published ina Russian scientific journal. NuttyZA, you are rather presumtious. I do genuinely look for scientific answers as this is a subject that interests me.

      Ateis - 2011-08-24 06:42

      @GLY I am quite aware of the articles discussing the remains of the chariots found at the bottom of the red sea. It is widely accepted that this "discovery" was a hoax. To mention but one of many links: http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/chariot-wheels.htm Also go read a bit about Ron Wyatt - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Wyatt - not exactly an archaeologist now is he? "ravingathiests.com/" does not load - I guess you meant "ravingatheists.com" - which is a big community site, so please post a direct link to the article you mention. I found the article you spoke about on the creative ministry site. Have you actually read it? It just says that a red sea parting was (in their opinion) POSSIBLE. How can that possibly be proof of the event? This interests me. You are obviously a christian, so you obviously feel belief in god is enough (as opposed to proof of god's existence). Yet you do try to find "evidence" that confirms that belief. Do you also search for evidence that disproves your belief?

  • Billy_Bob - 2011-08-23 11:53

    http://xkcd.com/812/

  • Jason - 2011-08-23 12:18

    The pro God are loving this it would seem. Its like it proves God, but still the lack of physical evidence regarding his existence isn't questioned. Its just a failed science experiment people.

      StaalBurgher - 2011-08-23 14:20

      Religious people labour under this misconception that if you "disprove" something that is held as true in science that they "prove" their truth. This is impossible. Science in anyway is happy to accept new evidence and re-evaluate their beliefs in light of it. Religion however has a conclusion and everything else must be forced to fit in with it, or ideally ignored, regardless of logic or other explanations. Since there is not a single shred of evidence in favour of a Creator I find it highly ironic that religionists jump on gaps in modern scientific knowledge.

      Eugene - 2011-08-25 04:57

      The reason for this epic failure is actually found in the Bible: 1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 1Ti 6:21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen. 2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. Joh 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. Joh 5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? @ StaalBurgher: I believe in true science, however, people who follow the faith of evolutionism should follow their faith outside the forum of science. There is nothing SCIENTIFIC about evolution... Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence be taught in science classes?

      whereu - 2011-08-25 10:02

      Eugene, And your point is? (in relation to the Higgs-Boson)

      whereu - 2011-08-25 10:10

      Jason, Please, it's not a failed experiment. If the experiment shows the absence of a Higg-Boson, this is a valid outcome. I'll repeat a previous post. So called negative outcomes add enormously to our knowledge. Here is an example. In the 19th century scientists postulated the existence of what that called aether as a medium necessary for the propagation of electromagnetic radiation (including light). Numerous attempts to detect the presence of the aether failed. Far from being a failure the insight that the aether does not exist provided a leap in knowledge which lead at least partially to Einstein formulating the Special Theory Relativity. So showing the absence of Higgs-Boson would be a huge step forward in our quest to understand the universe. That's the way science works.

  • anadish - 2011-08-23 12:49

    Remember a little voice who always said you find the solution to gravity and mass elsewhere? Rumpelestitlskin or Anadish? Who was he?

      CapeTownJunk - 2011-08-23 13:14

      A tinfoil hat is what you need to keep those crazy voices out of your head.

      NuttyZA - 2011-08-23 13:18

      Not sure about gravity and mass BUT gravy and mash can be found at KFC

  • dogue - 2011-08-23 13:05

    If they don't find the Higgs, it will certainly mean new physics, yay! Maybe making teleportation possible in our time. Double yay! Reminds me of that experiment (something Molsley or something) that they made about 100 years ago to prove the existence of the "ether" which subsequently proved the opposite: that the ether doesn't exist. This opened the way for Einstein’s theory of relativity (just a theory, but it makes GPS work better).... so in my opinion it's more exciting if they do not find the Higgs.

      CapeTownJunk - 2011-08-23 13:12

      dogue: The way you just wildly leaped to that conclusion suggests that teleportation is indeed possible.

      dogue - 2011-08-23 14:45

      CapeTownJunk, my comment about teleportation was to be taken lightly, the main point is that if they do not find the Higgs, physics will need an overhaul. They’ve been discovering all the theoretical particles except the Higgs, which keeps slipping through the net. My guess is that they will eventually find it, like they found all the others, but if in another 30 years they still don’t find it, then it’s time to re-look at the Standard Model. It could even turn out highly disappointing, that teleportation is not possible after all, that the speed of light is indeed the speed barrier (I’m still in hope that this will be surmountable), that there’s no parallel universes... sad day for sci-fi fans.

  • Nick - 2011-08-23 13:07

    Apparently the LHC is still operating on 50% total power until the end of 2012. Then they will increase power until they reach 100% in 2014. So it's possible that the power requirements needed to possibly see the Higgs is above the estimates of current testing being done by the physicists. So, given more time, maybe some positive results will appear. Looking forward to 2012 and beyond!

      Justin.A - 2011-08-24 20:21

      //Apparently the LHC is still operating on 50% total power until the end of 2012.// double the power is going to be incredible, there shold be very interesting results then!

  • carlkristen - 2011-08-23 13:25

    looks like the atheist evangelists are out in full force again...can't anyone see the hypocrisy? quoting Dawkings in a physics discussion, Risen Ape's reference to Jesus and the stars ("forget Jesus....") You want to keep faith away but you are the ones always bringing it into the discussion...All true science leads to God - John Amos Comenius

      Ateis - 2011-08-23 13:34

      Who is "Dawkings"? ".All true science leads to God" LOL! Would you care to elaborate?

      trueblu&real - 2011-08-23 13:39

      oh gosh so theres no "g"...get a life dude...you know who i mean..the biologist you would never have heard about unless he wrote The God Delusion

      Ateis - 2011-08-23 13:46

      The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it. —Astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away. —Philip K. Dick It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. —Carl Sagan

      Ateis - 2011-08-23 13:51

      @trueblu&real ".you know who i mean" Is your other nickname "carlkristen"? ".the biologist you would never have heard about unless he wrote The God Delusion" I hardly think that's Richard Dawkins only claim to fame. He might also be very well-educated in biology and written other books - like "The selfish gene"

      CapeTownJunk - 2011-08-23 14:01

      @carlkristen: Oh the irony, you complain that atheists quote Dawkings (yeah, like, whoever) while ending your own epistle with a religious quote of your own. The atheists here tend to agree about science being awesome and great. And this is the science and technology section, so we feel quite at home here. But really, we don't mind if you religious types want to blunder your way in here and inflict your woo-addled nonsense on us, just because you see the word "God" in an article's title. It's great fun (and educational to some) for us to squish your intellectually-starved arguments and fallacious excuses for logic.

      dogue - 2011-08-23 14:52

      I searched this page for Dawkins and only find you (and replies to you) mentioning him (?)

      dogue - 2011-08-23 14:57

      Oh... Typo, I see the Tooth Fairy did mention Dawkins.

      trueblu&real - 2011-08-23 16:16

      Cape Town Junk...pity we can't have a real chat on these forums...

      rantoftheday - 2011-08-23 17:07

      @Carl Why is your god more valid than any other?

      Justin.A - 2011-08-23 21:43

      //All true science leads to God// Explain that in terms of evolution.

      Epicurius - 2011-08-25 10:25

      @ trueblue&real - The Selfish Gene, River out of Eden, Unweaving the Rainbow, The Ancestor's Tale, Greatest Show on Earth, A Devil's Chaplain, The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable, The Extended Phenotype - these are some of Dawkins' other books - all of them except one, written long before The God Delusion, some of them as early as the 1970s. Dawkins was quite well known in the fields of biology and science prior to TGD. Dawkins has been at the forefront of evolutionary biology since the 70s. Certainly, The God Delusion made him infamous, but to say he was unheard of before hand is a tad naive. And besides, if The God Delusion was the first Dawkins book for some people, so be it. What difference would that make?. My first was The Blind Watchmaker, which presents evidence for evolution by natural selection without the involvement of a designer.

  • arthur.amgen - 2011-08-23 14:13

    @gly You say you will keep on reading the Bible. People who know the Bible know that it is full of ancient so called knowledge and superstition and contradictions and myths. Like Noahs ark. Where did all the water come from? Where did it all go? No rainbow before the ark. Really! Billions of humans and animals killed for only a few saved. Really! The Bible is a horror story and should be banned for kids reading and for adults to see how not to behave only.

  • stephen scott - 2011-08-23 14:33

    What you need is more faith, not more hope, then you'll find the god particle.

      AntiThesis - 2011-08-25 07:01

      Look at the middle east my friend, to see "more faith" and "less hope" in action, and you will see the irony in your statement

  • shane.jacoby - 2011-08-23 15:10

    Perhaps we have someone really smart who can answer a question for me: According to theory, depending on the type of Quarks or Gluons, it will determine the type of Higgs (Spin/neutral) which then is a component of the Higgs-Boson. The theory is that this component would add mass to quantum physics and the object in question. My question is this: At which point theoretically would these components comprise and come together to form an Atom and theoretically, what would the "cross-over" actions between basic building blocks (Gluons, Quarks and Higgs-Boson) to Nucleus (element in the Atom) be? E.g. energy?

  • Craig - 2011-08-23 16:42

    Im a religious nut...and I believe one thing..."In the beginning, GOD"...and everything else makes sense to me... How someone can believe that noone + nothing could equal everything and call that "scientific" to "prove" big bangs and evolution is beyond me, just like believing in a Creator God is beyond you...Now let the God intolerance commence...:)

      NuttyZA - 2011-08-23 16:49

      Craig... you believe that noone + nothing equals everything... i.e. noone+nothing created god, who created everything!!! Nowhere in the Big Bang Theory does it state that everything came from nothing

      rantoftheday - 2011-08-23 17:05

      @Craig Who made God?

      CapeTownJunk - 2011-08-23 20:44

      Yeah Craig, you're allowed to come up with a big ol' supernatural creator to explain the universe, without having to explain where that creator comes from. Meanwhile, those of us who trust science get bogged on because we've come up with a theory which fits with the observable universe and the known laws of physics, but completely ignores your god. If you want to understand why there's intolerance of those who are on God's side, it's because you feel obliged to reject all scientific truths when they conflict with your religion. Since those scientific truths are based on reality, and your religion is based on Bronze Age and Iron Age myth, we find it awfully hypocritical and disingenuous of you to continue to reap the benefits of science, while actively opposing its progress at every opportunity. What does disingenuous mean? Here's an example of it at the end of this comment, using this smiley which you don't deserve. :)

      Justin.A - 2011-08-23 21:46

      //How someone can believe that noone + nothing could equal everything and call that "scientific" to "prove" big bangs and evolution is beyond me// This is because you couldn't be bothered to make the slightest amount of effort to understand the world around you. I wonder what your creator would think of your stunning ignorance?

  • Sythe - 2011-08-24 14:43

    Never had any hope in such nonsense in the first place. God created the earth and everything on it. No such ridiculous particle has any merit whatsoever. I suppose all the "non believers" will start going crazy now. By the way there is no such as people who believe in nothinh...everyone believes in something?!

      Mark Fysh - 2011-08-24 15:09

      @Sythe. If I have no religious belief, is that, according to you, a belief?

      Justin.A - 2011-08-24 20:16

      //No such ridiculous particle has any merit whatsoever// Er the "ridiculous particle" would complete the standard model enabling us to describe everything made of baryonic matter in our universe. Everything. Btw the particle is called the Higgs-Boson, no serious physicist calls it the god particle, you've been trolled. Do you really think you are doing your faith or your deity any service by spouting ignorance and distaste for scientific knowledge?

  • Sythe - 2011-08-24 16:24

    @Mark U believe in something....it is impossible to believe nothing unless you are brain dead.

      Justin.A - 2011-08-24 20:19

      //@Mark U believe in something....it is impossible to believe nothing unless you are brain dead. // What do you mean?

      Spoedvark - 2011-08-25 16:05

      Justin Forget it. They cannot fathom the idea that some people simply do not believe. We MUST believe in "something" even if that "something" turns out to be "nothing." No, it is not logical and makes no sense, but who uses logic and reason anyway?

  • frankm - 2011-08-24 16:58

    And the Almighty opened His mouth and spoke the Universe into being. It may very well have been a big bang, but God created and caused it

      AntiThesis - 2011-08-25 06:58

      You are in the wrong place frank, this is not the dark middle ages

      whereu - 2011-08-25 10:05

      Who/ What created this Almighty?

      Spoedvark - 2011-08-25 16:02

      "One day Bumba, in pain from a stomach ache, vomited up the sun. The sun dried up some of the water, leaving land. Still in pain, Bumba vomited up the moon, the stars, and then some animals: the leopard, the crocodile, the turtle, and, finally, some men, one of whom, Yoko Lima was white like Bumba." So it was not a Big Bang. It was a Big Barf.

  • Spoedvark - 2011-08-25 07:34

    @ schmerz "Ah, if the big bang theory doesn't fit, just fabricate something else? What could make more sense than an explosion out of nothing?" A god out of nothing? The irony hurts!

  • Strider - 2011-08-25 08:04

    Just wish they would stop calling it 'the god particle'. That is the most stupid name! Call it the "osama" particle... very elusive and expensive to find (lol)

  • masamune - 2011-08-25 09:46

    its amazing how much of you disregard the bible,like it doesnt exist,but im not here to force a believe on you. My question is, do you think earth is getting better or worse.the bible tells you how to live, what to eat etc,if we tried our best to live like the bible says,do you think this earth would be in this state.

      NuttyZA - 2011-08-25 10:38

      Definitely getting better.... People live longer, there is less disease, less war and less famine... Most peoples standard of living is better... most peoples levels of health is better... If we all lived according to the bible, we would still be stoning Gay people and adulterers in the streets!

      whereu - 2011-08-25 10:50

      Yes

      Messenger - 2011-08-25 11:06

      NuttyZA, either you forgot what Jesus did, or you don't know that part of the Bible.

      masamune - 2011-08-25 13:00

      lol NuttyZA and whereu less famine,less disease which world are you living in. The food that we eat is rubbish, which cause more diseases.elevated stress levels caused by the lifestyle that we have. And we dont live longer compared to someone who reached +900 years,like the bible says. The environment is getting worse, so tell me is that better. the problem with humans is that you looking at things short term. we are always trying to look for easier ways to do things,forgetting that the are no short cuts in life.engineering food to our preferences etc,the will always be side effects to all these things.

      Spoedvark - 2011-08-25 15:56

      Masamune, I disregard the bible i.a. because it tells us to treat leprosy with the entrails of a bird. As far as leprosy is concerned, we are certainly better off. But, please, tell us what you think about the article. Higgs Boson particles and the work being done at Cern. Then nobody can accuse you of forcing your belief.

  • juanontheweb - 2011-08-25 10:03

    and so the debate continues, remember though that your time on this earth is very short, may eternity be nothing for those who dont favor love and peace but continue to be argumentative, agrresive and look down on those who have faith in our creaotor, instead of embracing them and respecting there beliefs and faith in God, teacher of love and peace. And May those who do believe in the almighty creator go on to be eternally at peace and be with love and all that is good. Earth sucks most of the time anyway!

      whereu - 2011-08-25 11:08

      juanontheweb, I'll take you seriously when the majority of religious people display tolerance to those who disagree with them, and display the love and peace that you mention. Threatening people with eternal damnation for not agreeing with your religious beliefs is, IMO, just bulling and not displaying love and compassion. In any case I thought that it is supposed to be God who judges and not his followers.

      Spoedvark - 2011-08-25 15:58

      Juanontheweb Have you an opinion on the article or are you using the opportunity to push your beliefs?

  • a3aan - 2011-08-26 16:00

    Interesting - CERN cost millions - just to get to NOTHING. This is all very simple - you either BELIEVE in the "big-bang" - or you BELIEVE that there was a Creator. BOTH is believe systems. There is no scientific proof for the big-bang - only theory.

  • pages:
  • 1