http://www.reuters...SBRE8610RK20120703

So of this turns out to be accurate and it explains how the world can be created in a way that makes sense, then I will be a full blown atheist.

Posted by MonkeyPunchBaby http://www.reuters...SBRE8610RK20120703 So of this turns out to be accurate and it explains how the world can be created in a way that makes sense, then I will be a full blown atheist.

The name "god" particle is a little misleading.

I think that there are many good reasons to doubt the existence of any particular god other than theoretical physics. Each god shares the distinct lack of proof of existence and internal inconsistencies.

The experiment is pretty exciting, however. Just like Rutherford's foil, the results "point" to the existence of the Higgs Boson. That would be consistent with existing theories and models.

The take away, I think, is that science continues to answer questions about the universe. The fact that we do not have all the answers, while important, is not sufficient excuse to invent explanations - such as "god".

Yep...we found it under a rock in the North Saskatchewan River. We'll take some time off to celebrate the discovery, but then we'll come back to look for the equally elusive 'cure for cancer.'

All the "god" particle thing means is it's a particle that confers "mass". That's all it means. It just gives something the ability to have weight and take up space. That's all it does. Supposedly it turns nothing into matter.

It doesn't mean that it created every damn thing on earth or in the galaxy.

Posted by Shael All the "god" particle thing means is it's a particle that confers "mass". That's all it means. It just gives something the ability to have weight and take up space. That's all it does. Supposedly it turns nothing into matter. It doesn't mean that it created every damn thing on earth or in the galaxy.

The angle of the dangle is direct proportion to the heat of the meat as long as the mass of the ass stays constant, amirite?

The only reason it's called the "god" particle is because it was originally called the "goddamn" particle but the title was shortened to avoid people taking offence. And it has yet to be discovered, CERN is making an announcement tomorrow (but as someone partially studying quantum physics I'm completely giddy anyway).

Although science is basically my religion this doesn't really belong on the religious board.

Posted by Shael All the "god" particle thing means is it's a particle that confers "mass". That's all it means. It just gives something the ability to have weight and take up space. That's all it does. Supposedly it turns nothing into matter.

I know a lot of people like that...

It doesn't mean that it created every damn thing on earth or in the galaxy.

But it lends credence to the theories that Hawking, Krauss and others have expressed.

Posted by Shael All the "god" particle thing means is it's a particle that confers "mass". That's all it means. It just gives something the ability to have weight and take up space. That's all it does. Supposedly it turns nothing into matter. It doesn't mean that it created every damn thing on earth or in the galaxy.

Conservation of mass (Newton): Matter cannot be created or destroyed - it only changes form.

So if a particle can create something from nothing it would be beyond our current understanding of how the universe works and be "god-like".

Edit: and if that is the only thing that can create matter, then yes, it probably could have created everything on earth or in the galaxy.

I always thought god would be... taller.

Posted by HagensborgViking I always thought god would be... taller.

God comes in the 125 Gigaelectronvolt range,
Also this particle doesn't create matter, just gives it mass.

Talked to my uncle the rocket scientist about this (his original PhD is in Theoretical Applied Mechanics. He got a couple others but I don't know what the string of letters stand for) whereupon he shot down all the cool stuff I had come up with that determining the source mass of might make possible. His two most common answers to my ideas were...

#1-"It doesn't work like that..." followed by an explanation I understood about 50% of the time.
#2-"Possibly, but nobody we know will live to see that technology."

So at least I was in the ballpark for ideas you could do with this cool new knowledge a couple times. But I'm gonna miss the payoff on this one. Sad.