• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The "God" Particle: it was just a burp, folks.

tosca1

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Messages
29,713
Reaction score
3,879
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Remember the big event announced by mainstream media when science discovered a new particle called, the God Particle?


The "God particle" is the nickname of a subatomic particle called the Higgs boson. In layman’s terms, different subatomic particles are responsible for giving matter different properties. One of the most mysterious and important properties is mass. Some particles, like protons and neutrons, have mass. Others, like photons, do not. The Higgs boson, or “God particle,” is believed to be the particle which gives mass to matter. The “God particle” nickname grew out of the long, drawn-out struggles of physicists to find this elusive piece of the cosmic puzzle. What follows is a very brief, very simplified explanation of how the Higgs boson fits into modern physics, and how science is attempting to study it.

The “God particle” nickname actually arose when the book The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question? by Leon Lederman was published. Since then, it’s taken on a life of its own, in part because of the monumental questions about matter that the God particle might be able to answer. The man who first proposed the Higgs boson’s existence, Peter Higgs, isn’t all that amused by the nickname “God particle,” as he’s an avowed atheist. All the same, there isn’t really any religious intention behind the nickname.
https://www.gotquestions.org/God-particle.html



Well, mainstream media seemed to have failed to give a heads up on what happened next.


Eight months after raising hopes that they may have found an intriguing new particle that cannot be explained by the existing main physics theory, disappointed scientists are saying: Never mind.

It was just a statistical burp, not a breakthrough, researchers reported Friday.



Early unconfirmed readings of a new particle in December by physicists at the center, called CERN, set the physics world abuzz. Scientists there had discovered the Higgs boson or “God particle” in 2012, and two new readings from the Large Hadron Collider made it seem like they may had found a revolutionary new particle.


At a Chicago physics conference , Dave Charlton, another CERN chief scientific spokesman, said the additional data showed that what they had seen earlier was just a random “statistical fluke.”
https://www.telegram.com/news/20160806/disappointing-physics-news-god-particle-discovery-was-mistake


I didn't know it was a disappointment, until today.



The Uncertain Future of Particle Physics

Ten years in, the Large Hadron Collider has failed to deliver the exciting discoveries that scientists promised.

In 2012, experiments at the L.H.C. confirmed the discovery of the Higgs boson — a prediction that dates back to the 1960s — and it remains the only discovery made at the L.H.C.

Before the L.H.C. started operation, particle physicists had more exciting predictions than that. They thought that other new particles would also appear near the energy at which the Higgs boson could be produced. They also thought that the L.H.C. would see evidence for new dimensions of space. They further hoped that this mammoth collider would deliver clues about the nature of dark matter (which astrophysicists think constitutes 85 percent of the matter in the universe) or about a unified force.

The stories about new particles, dark matter and additional dimensions were repeated in countless media outlets from before the launch of the L.H.C. until a few years ago. What happened to those predictions? The simple answer is this: Those predictions were wrong — that much is now clear.

The trouble is, a “prediction” in particle physics is today little more than guesswork. (In case you were wondering, yes, that’s exactly why I left the field.)

To date, particle physicists have no reliable prediction that there should be anything new to find until about 15 orders of magnitude above the currently accessible energies. And the only reliable prediction they had for the L.H.C. was that of the Higgs boson. Unfortunately, particle physicists have not been very forthcoming with this information. Last year, Nigel Lockyer, the director of Fermilab, told the BBC, “From a simple calculation of the Higgs’ mass, there has to be new science.” This “simple calculation” is what predicted that the L.H.C. should already have seen new science.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/23/opinion/particle-physics-large-hadron-collider.html
 

Hawkeye10

Buttermilk Man
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
45,404
Reaction score
11,746
Location
Olympia Wa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Ten years in, the Large Hadron Collider has failed to deliver the exciting discoveries that scientists promised.

Never mind!

Guys like me who have been talking for a very long time on the subject of the corruption of science are shocked, naturally....
 

blarg

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 19, 2014
Messages
14,826
Reaction score
2,015
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Remember the big event announced by mainstream media when science discovered a new particle called, the God Particle?



https://www.gotquestions.org/God-particle.html



Well, mainstream media seemed to have failed to give a heads up on what happened next.



https://www.telegram.com/news/20160806/disappointing-physics-news-god-particle-discovery-was-mistake


I didn't know it was a disappointment, until today.




https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/23/opinion/particle-physics-large-hadron-collider.html

um from what you posted the higgs was discovered and something else was a fluke
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
33,038
Reaction score
32,814
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It is very suspect when all of a sudden religion embraces science, just long enough to claim something else it does not understand. Then worse, claim science is hiding something.
 

Fenton

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
29,771
Reaction score
12,231
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Remember the big event announced by mainstream media when science discovered a new particle called, the God Particle?



https://www.gotquestions.org/God-particle.html



Well, mainstream media seemed to have failed to give a heads up on what happened next.



https://www.telegram.com/news/20160806/disappointing-physics-news-god-particle-discovery-was-mistake


I didn't know it was a disappointment, until today.




https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/23/opinion/particle-physics-large-hadron-collider.html

CERN, where Scientist spend their down time performing mock human sacrifices in front of a statue of the Hindu Good of Shiva

Lol.....WTF ?
 

FieldTheorist

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2015
Messages
3,325
Reaction score
2,348
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Remember the big event announced by mainstream media when science discovered a new particle called, the God Particle? Well, mainstream media seemed to have failed to give a heads up on what happened next. I didn't know it was a disappointment, until today.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/23/opinion/particle-physics-large-hadron-collider.html

No, you have radically confused three distinct things. You're (and the Telegram) are confusing three separate things: a.) The discovery of the Higgs particle. b.) The hope that their might be a new particle discovered back in 2016 due to diphoton bumps, which turned out to be a statistical fluke. c.) The lack of a discovery of physics beyond the Higgs at the LHC.

To address each article individually:

1. Your first article was published before the Higgs was discovered, which is why it still refers to the search as being "under way." Specifically, it was published in "2008-06-02" according to the page source code. (Right click -> "view page source".)


2. The second article is a wonderful illustration of how bad scientific journalism is. I cannot believe there isn't a retraction to this article. This article is 100% fake news, and it's likely because the author doesn't understand what they're writing about.

Compare this to The Indepedent's reporting on the same event, only in this case it was reported correctly:

It was tipped to be a potentially groundbreaking discovery of a new particle, which could have led to the re-writing of phsyics as we know it.

But eight months after scientists hinted at the possibility of findings “more exciting than the discovery of the Higgs [Boson] itself" from the Large Hadron Collider, the latest data has shown it to be nothing more than a statistical blip.

3. Sabbine's article: Now you're confusing the lack of a discovery of Supersymmetry and beyond-the-Standard-Model with the Higgs. The Higgs was discovered. Physics/particles beyond the Higgs was not discovered. Sabbine literally confirms the Higgs existence in the article that you cited:

In 2012, experiments at the L.H.C. confirmed the discovery of the Higgs boson — a prediction that dates back to the 1960s — and it remains the only discovery made at the L.H.C. Particle physicists are quick to emphasize that they have learned other things: For example, they now have better knowledge about the structure of the proton, and they’ve seen new (albeit unstable) composite particles. But let’s be honest: It’s disappointing.

Before the L.H.C. started operation, particle physicists had more exciting predictions than that. They thought that other new particles would also appear near the energy at which the Higgs boson could be produced. They also thought that the L.H.C. would see evidence for new dimensions of space. They further hoped that this mammoth collider would deliver clues about the nature of dark matter (which astrophysicists think constitutes 85 percent of the matter in the universe) or about a unified force.

The stories about new particles, dark matter and additional dimensions were repeated in countless media outlets from before the launch of the L.H.C. until a few years ago. What happened to those predictions? The simple answer is this: Those predictions were wrong — that much is now clear.

I mean she states her case about as well as she usually does (in other words, not very well --there's a lot that's wrong with her article), but what she said there about the Higgs is 100% accurate.
 
Last edited:

tosca1

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Messages
29,713
Reaction score
3,879
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No, you have radically confused three distinct things. You're (and the Telegram) are confusing three separate things: a.) The discovery of the Higgs particle. b.) The hope that their might be a new particle discovered back in 2016 due to diphoton bumps, which turned out to be a statistical fluke. c.) The lack of a discovery of physics beyond the Higgs at the LHC.

To address each article individually:

1. Your first article was published before the Higgs was discovered, which is why it still refers to the search as being "under way." Specifically, it was published in "2008-06-02" according to the page source code. (Right click -> "view page source".)

I was showing the excitement over it at the time!



2. The second article is a wonderful illustration of how bad scientific journalism is. I cannot believe there isn't a retraction to this article. This article is 100% fake news, and it's likely because the author doesn't understand what they're writing about.

Compare this to The Indepedent's reporting on the same event, only in this case it was reported correctly:

Except for the difference in style of writing - can you show exactly what's different between the Telegram.com and Independent.com, as far as info is concerned.





3. Sabbine's article: Now you're confusing the lack of a discovery of Supersymmetry and beyond-the-Standard-Model with the Higgs. The Higgs was discovered. Physics/particles beyond the Higgs was not discovered. Sabbine literally confirms the Higgs existence in the article that you cited:



I mean she states her case about as well as she usually does (in other words, not very well --there's a lot that's wrong with her article), but what she said there about the Higgs is 100% accurate.


Who's saying the Higgs wasn't discovered????

Since you say "there's a lot that's wrong with her article" - what are they?
Can you offer anything to support your claim?
Surely you don't expect anyone to just take your word for it, huh?
 

blarg

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 19, 2014
Messages
14,826
Reaction score
2,015
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I was showing the excitement over it at the time!





Except for the difference in style of writing - can you show exactly what's different between the Telegram.com and Independent.com, as far as info is concerned.








Who's saying the Higgs wasn't discovered????

Since you say "there's a lot that's wrong with her article" - what are they?
Can you offer anything to support your claim?
Surely you don't expect anyone to just take your word for it, huh?

you seem to be saying the higgs wasn't discovered with the thread name

God par·ti·cleDictionary result for God particle
noun
an informal name for the Higgs boson or particle.




The "God" Particle: it was just a burp, folks.
 

FieldTheorist

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2015
Messages
3,325
Reaction score
2,348
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I was showing the excitement over it at the time!

Except for the difference in style of writing - can you show exactly what's different between the Telegram.com and Independent.com, as far as info is concerned.

Who's saying the Higgs wasn't discovered????

Since you say "there's a lot that's wrong with her article" - what are they?
Can you offer anything to support your claim?
Surely you don't expect anyone to just take your word for it, huh?

I see, so now that it's transparent that your OP is completely wrong, you're going to back-pedal and pretend like that wasn't what your OP plainly said. But it's the title of your thread, you're going to need to be Lance Armstrong to try to back-pedal your way out of this.
 

zyzygy

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2014
Messages
43,804
Reaction score
8,669
Location
Flanders.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Who's saying the Higgs wasn't discovered????

Somebody called tosca1.
 

tosca1

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Messages
29,713
Reaction score
3,879
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

Thread: The "God" Particle: it was just a burp, folks.

That's the title. :lol: Do you make conclusions out of reading headlines? :mrgreen:



Did you read the OP? Here's the first sentence:


Remember the big event announced by mainstream media when
science discovered a new particle called, the God Particle?





What's the issue? It's in the OP, too!


Well, mainstream media seemed to have
failed to give a heads up on what happened next.



Is it clear now?




Who's saying the Higgs wasn't discovered????

Somebody called tosca1.

hahahahaha Somebody needs a nap? :lamo
 
Last edited:

<alt>doxygen

"I want MY WALL!"
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2016
Messages
8,932
Reaction score
4,192
Location
Floriduh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
That's the title. :lol:


Did you read the OP? Here's the first sentence:

Remember the big event announced by mainstream media when
science discovered a new particle called, the God Particle?

Now it's time for tosca to spin her self-defeating OP into something that almost makes sense. Lots of big, bold, bright letters are coming, I'm sure.:lol:
 

FieldTheorist

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2015
Messages
3,325
Reaction score
2,348
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Now it's time for tosca to spin her self-defeating OP into something that almost makes sense. Lots of big, bold, bright letters are coming, I'm sure.:lol:

It's unbelievable how people will try to pretend like they didn't say something embarrassingly wrong, and try to argue that secretly they meant something different than what they plainly said.

Like, at first I felt bad because I don't expect a layperson to know technical minutiae in a very technical field, but jesus. Just admit you were wrong. But some people just can't do it.
 

Surrealistik

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Messages
9,039
Reaction score
4,604
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Now it's time for tosca to spin her self-defeating OP into something that almost makes sense. Lots of big, bold, bright letters are coming, I'm sure.:lol:

TBH, one of those people that in my experience just aren't worth engaging with due her utterly entrenched, double down mentality regardless of the facts; a model partisan.

On the plus side however, she can often be very entertaining, albeit unintentionally.
 

<alt>doxygen

"I want MY WALL!"
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2016
Messages
8,932
Reaction score
4,192
Location
Floriduh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
It's unbelievable how people will try to pretend like they didn't say something embarrassingly wrong, and try to argue that secretly they meant something different than what they plainly said.

Like, at first I felt bad because I don't expect a layperson to know technical minutiae in a very technical field, but jesus. Just admit you were wrong. But some people just can't do it.

Yes.

BTW, thanks for the detailed take down. That should have been /thread right there.
 

FieldTheorist

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2015
Messages
3,325
Reaction score
2,348
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Yes.

BTW, thanks for the detailed take down. That should have been /thread right there.

I'm not a physicist by trade anymore, but it's so frustrating to see people walk into the public sphere and start asserting really wrong things. Again, the entity most responsible here for this thread is not the OP, but the Telegram. That was egregiously incorrect, irresponsible reporting. It's frustrating to see major news outlets not even bother to correctly report science because they aren't even interested enough to get to the truth or else they are so concerned with sounding flashy and making a news-bite that they discard any pretense of journalistic integrity.

This is also why I'm so frustrated with people like Lawrence Krauss, Sabine Hossenfelder, Peter Woit, Lee Smolin, and Lubos Motl. It's bad enough when journalists make **** up or misrepresent what's going on in contemporary physics research (e.g. drivel like this by Jim Baggot). But when physicists get in on the action and make mountains out of mole-hills, and then when they largely lose their case in the court of science, they try to take it to the court of public opinion where they aren't up-to-date or understanding of the really subtle issues... It's just such an egregious abuse of their public platform and their scientific burden to inform the public.

I think "4 Gravitons" and "Of Particular Significance" are the only physics blogs I've found that actually shoulder the burden of responsibly informing the public. Although both are not as frequently updated as I would like. Sean Carroll's blog isn't bad, either.
 

<alt>doxygen

"I want MY WALL!"
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2016
Messages
8,932
Reaction score
4,192
Location
Floriduh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I'm not a physicist by trade anymore, but it's so frustrating to see people walk into the public sphere and start asserting really wrong things. Again, the entity most responsible here for this thread is not the OP, but the Telegram. That was egregiously incorrect, irresponsible reporting. It's frustrating to see major news outlets not even bother to correctly report science because they aren't even interested enough to get to the truth or else they are so concerned with sounding flashy and making a news-bite that they discard any pretense of journalistic integrity.

This is also why I'm so frustrated with people like Lawrence Krauss, Sabine Hossenfelder, Peter Woit, Lee Smolin, and Lubos Motl. It's bad enough when journalists make **** up or misrepresent what's going on in contemporary physics research (e.g. drivel like this by Jim Baggot). But when physicists get in on the action and make mountains out of mole-hills, and then when they largely lose their case in the court of science, they try to take it to the court of public opinion where they aren't up-to-date or understanding of the really subtle issues... It's just such an egregious abuse of their public platform and their scientific burden to inform the public.

I think "4 Gravitons" and "Of Particular Significance" are the only physics blogs I've found that actually shoulder the burden of responsibly informing the public. Although both are not as frequently updated as I would like. Sean Carroll's blog isn't bad, either.

Thanks for the recommendations.

Physics isn't my field, but a bit of it was required in my curriculum (EE). Just because of my career trajectory I didn't remotely keep up. Still, it's always interesting to try to wrap my head around the stuff the smart folks are exploring.
 

Checkerboard Strangler

GOP WHEEL OF MORAL PANICS!
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
62,348
Reaction score
44,411
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
2. The second article is a wonderful illustration of how bad scientific journalism is. I cannot believe there isn't a retraction to this article. This article is 100% fake news, and it's likely because the author doesn't understand what they're writing about.

My father's favorite pet peeve.
I'll never forget him showing me a framed copy of a 1947 Washington Post story in which the science editor announced that Bell Laboratory scientists had "invented a new type of transistor tube".

homer-simpson-doh.gif
 

<alt>doxygen

"I want MY WALL!"
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2016
Messages
8,932
Reaction score
4,192
Location
Floriduh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
My father's favorite pet peeve.
I'll never forget him showing me a framed copy of a 1947 Washington Post story in which the science editor announced that Bell Laboratory scientists had "invented a new type of transistor tube".

View attachment 67249181

That would make an awesome guitar amp! Unfortunately, you can only digitally simulate them these days.:lol:
 

Checkerboard Strangler

GOP WHEEL OF MORAL PANICS!
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
62,348
Reaction score
44,411
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That would make an awesome guitar amp! Unfortunately, you can only digitally simulate them these days.:lol:

Not so, you just have to pay through the nose to get a new vacuum tube amp.
Or, if you're a dinosaur like I am, pick up some old crap and restore it.
I'm restoring a couple of old Dynacos and an Altec, both are 1960's vintage, they're going to scream.
They're not guitar amps, they're for my stereo, but the Altec does use the giant 6L6's...YEAH BUDDY!!
 

<alt>doxygen

"I want MY WALL!"
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2016
Messages
8,932
Reaction score
4,192
Location
Floriduh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Not so, you just have to pay through the nose to get a new vacuum tube amp.
Or, if you're a dinosaur like I am, pick up some old crap and restore it.
I'm restoring a couple of old Dynacos and an Altec, both are 1960's vintage, they're going to scream.
They're not guitar amps, they're for my stereo, but the Altec does use the giant 6L6's...YEAH BUDDY!!

I've had 6L6 guitar amp power stages before, but the amps I still have laying around here are a 100W EL34 and a 100W KT88. I also have an old 70's Acoustic (brand) guitar combo amp - 200W. That Acoustic has 2 settings : Loud and Peel Paint. :)

I can't play anymore, so I really need to get that stuff up on reverb.com and sell it.

My (currently non-functioning) home audio system has a tube pre and a solid state power amp. It's actually a good combination. The power amp has tons of clean headroom and the pre gives the setup all the warmth and smoothness I could want. Well, I could always want more/better, but I can't afford to add more of that stuff right now. I need to get what I have fixed and working again. Until I do, I'm listening to music through the powered studio monitors on one of my computers.
 
Top Bottom