Connect with us

Higgs boson found (again?)

Discussion in 'Electronic Design' started by cameo, Mar 15, 2013.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. cameo

    cameo Guest

    All TV news programs tonight excitedly reported the finding of the "God
    particle." But that was already reported a couple of years ago, so why
    the excitement again?
     
  2. hamilton

    hamilton Guest

    The last time was inconclusive.

    This time will be inconclusive as well.

    There is no god.

    h
     
  3. Gib Bogle

    Gib Bogle Guest

    But there are many gods ;)
     
  4. hamilton

    hamilton Guest

  5. cameo

    cameo Guest

    So who started calling it the "God particle" and why? I assume it was a
    scientist and they are supposed to be ateists, right?
     
  6. Gib Bogle

    Gib Bogle Guest

  7. I think we can blame Leon Ledermen
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_M._Lederman

    Though I think I might have heard him once say that it was the
    publisher who picked the name. Still he went alng with it.

    Nay, I'm a total agnostic, I find certainty ridicules.
    (And I know plenty, with a deep religious faith.)

    George H.

     At least
     
  8. rickman

    rickman Guest

    It seems to be the press who calls it that, but the term was originally
    used in a 1993 book by Leon Lederman. The draft title of the book was,
    "The Goddamn Particle" to illustrate the frustrations in trying to "nail
    the Higgs". The publisher changed that to just "God" for a couple of
    reasons...

    BTW, the wikipedia article on the Higgs uses the term, "sobriquet" about
    this term. WTF? Do contributors always have to show off how smart they
    are? Can't they just *explain* things?

    This same article includes mention of the recent announcement and yet
    still states it is "uncertain" that the new boson matches the
    predictions from the Standard Model. Really? That is not what I'm
    reading in the press. Do they have that wrong too?

    BTW, there is a god, and he has noodly appendages.
     
  9. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    The "New Scientist" article claimed that the latest round of results
    had reduced the the list of possible candidates to two, and they still
    needed to work out the spin of the particle they were looking at to
    eliminate the possibility that it was a graviton (whatever that might
    be) rather than the Higgs boson. It sounded as if a lot of people
    would be very surprised - and extremely interested - if it turned out
    to be a graviton.

    There's discussion of this on the web, but nothing I find particularly
    informative.
     
  10. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    Tea Party Republicans? Chris Mooney has written another book

    http://www.amazon.com/Republican-Br..._B001IU4QGA_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1363398470&sr=1-1

    which seems to write up recent research linking cognitive styles and
    political affiliation, which suggested that Republicans generally
    aren't into evidence-based decision-making.

    I'll buy the book when it comes out in paperback (or maybe download it
    onto my Kindle sometime - I like the idea of the Kindle, but still
    seem to by buying more stuff on paper).
     
  11. rickman

    rickman Guest

    Who doesn't exist, Tea Party Republicans? If not, that would explain
    why the Republicans did so poorly in the last election.
     
  12. hamilton

    hamilton Guest

    Lets call a spade a spade:

    The Republicans lost because they wanted to lose.

    They (Republicans) know that this country can not live under W's tax cuts.

    So they had to give the Democrats the election so they (Democrats) can
    do what they (Republicans) could not do.

    Raise taxes like Regan did, and save face.
    (Regan raised taxes by calling it something else)

    Blame the Democrat's for raising taxes, a Republican president did not
    do that, saves face.

    Now the Republicans want to save face again by giving illegal emigrants
    a path to citizenship ( or something close) so they can get elected.

    Why start now ??

    They have the taxes to now reduced the debt and it was not their
    (Republicans) fault.

    Life is now good and they (Republicans) did not have to do what they
    could not do. (Raise taxes)

    H
     
  13. cameo

    cameo Guest

    I don't know, but I imagine that even those who are believers in a
    supreme being might keep it to themselves to avoid being attacked by
    atheists. Like many who do not believe in any significant man-made
    global warming, but keep quiet about it for fear of intimidation and
    grant denials. In any case, I've read somewhere that even Einstein
    believed in a creator. At least toward the end of his life.
     
  14. cameo

    cameo Guest

    But maybe they left a copy in the archived files of the b**ing.general
    news group. ;-)
     
  15. cameo

    cameo Guest

    Oh well, if there is a book about it, then it must be true. Figures.
    My experience finds the arguments of democrats to appeal more to
    emotions than to reason.
     
  16. Guest

    OK, you're an idiot. Glad you agree.

    <moronic babble snipped>
     
  17. Guest

    One word: guns.
     
  18. hamilton

    hamilton Guest

    And when they (Republicans) lose in the next election, how would you
    explain that ??

    H
     
  19. Gib Bogle

    Gib Bogle Guest

    It's true that there is a significant overlap between the believers in
    gods and the disbelievers in man-made global warming. I don't think
    it's for the reason you suggest. ;)
    All through history the believers have attacked, even murdered
    non-believers, and even today no person who admitted to disbelief could
    become president. The reason biologists are not religious is that they
    know too much about the complexity of life. Obviously they know that
    evolution is written in every page of the book of life, so they are not
    going to stand with the know-nothing believers who reject it. They also
    appreciate the fact that for all the mind-boggling complexity of life,
    even in a single cell, the required complexity of a notional creator is
    a different order of infinity.
    As for Einstein's belief - forget it. This is a wrong construction put
    on his use of metaphorical language.
     
  20. They did poorly because there are so many 100% gullible absolute idiots
    of voting age these days.
     
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-