Higgs Boson Manufactured Effect Or Splattered Building Blocks?: Universal Law Of Cause And Effect, Is That You Cannot Have An Uncaused Effect.
At the six minute mark on the time line, the narrator explains the experiment cannot prove or disprove the theory of the Higgs Boson. The physicists have no idea why there are now only 12 or a million sub atomic particles. Is it all a manufactured effect or splattered building blocks of subatomic particles. Either way, it is still a process defined by The Theory Of Irreducible Complexity, meaning that the particle if a particle itself, MUST require each and every component of itself (whatever that may be) to be in place before it will function.
In 1994, Nobel Laureate Leon Lederman came up with a nickname for the Higgs boson – the mysterious particle proposed by physicist Peter Higgs back in the 1960s to explain the origin of mass. Journalists loved the name – “the God particle” – which probably explains the huge media interest recently in the work of the Large Hadron Collider. Most scientists hated it, considering it misleading and simplistic. Maybe so. But it certainly got people talking about physics. Telegraph
The Higgs boson is named after Peter Higgs, one of six physicists who, in 1964, proposed the mechanism that suggested such a particle. Although Higgs’ name has become ubiquitous in this theory, the resulting electroweak model (the final outcome) involved several researchers between about 1960 and 1972, who each independently developed different parts. In mainstream media the Higgs boson is often referred to as the “God particle,” from a 1993 book on the topic; the sobriquet is strongly disliked by many physicists, who regard it as inappropriate sensationalism. Wikipedia
Higgs boson: scientists confident they have discovered the ‘God particle’
Or Is This A Sensationalized Effort To Justify $13.25 Billion Dollars?
Scientists are confident that they have discovered the long sought after Higgs boson, known as the “God particle”, which holds the physical fabric of the universe together.
CERN, the European Organisation for Nuclear Research, announced today that after extensive testing it was “looking more and more” like the particle which they discovered last year was the Higgs boson.
Finding the Higgs plugs a gaping hole in the Standard Model of physics, the theory that describes all the particles, forces and interactions that make up the universe.
“The preliminary results with the full 2012 data set are magnificent and to me it is clear that we are dealing with a Higgs boson though we still have a long way to go to know what kind of Higgs boson it is.” said CMS spokesperson Joe Incandela.
The Large Hadron Collider was first turned on in August of 2008, then stopped for repairs in September until November 2009. Taking all of those costs into consideration, the total cost of finding the Higgs boson ran about $13.25 billion.
For one thing, the only way to discover subatomic particles like the Higgs boson, an extraordinary amount of energy is needed. That’s because in order to find the Higgs boson, you have to accelerate a proton to nearly the speed of light – not an easy task.
To get that acceleration, the scientists at CERN used the Large Hadron Collider, which is buried under the French/Swiss border. It’s a circular path that’s about 16.8 miles long and about 330 feet below the surface. The Colliderhas about 9,300 magnets, which are super-cooled to -456.25 degrees Fahrenheit. This enables the Collider to get protons to 99.99% of the speed of light. The protons run through six different detectors, which run different experiments and the amount of electricity that powers it is incredible – 120 Megawatts – about as much as all of the homes in the neighboring Swiss Canton of Geneva. Forbes
One day a group of evolutionists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one evolutionist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him. The scientist walked up to God and said, “God, we’ve decided that we no longer need you; We’re to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don’t you just go on and get lost.” God listened very patiently and kindly to the man. After the evolutionist was done talking, God said, “Very well, how about this? Let’s say we have a man-making contest.” To which the evolutionist replied, “Okay, great!” But, God added, “now, we’re going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam.” The evolutionist said, “Sure, no problem” and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt. God looked at him and said, “No, no, no. You go get your own dirt.”
Who Explains Purpose Or Chance?
The Person Who Determines A PurposeIn Explaining Chance!
(NaturalNews) The ultimate goal of the study of physics is to decode the rules and laws of the universe; to understand what “makes it all tick,” so to speak. That goal, of course, has remained elusive, but great strides have been made toward it over the last few thousand years. Newton’s formulations of the laws of gravity, Kepler’s laws of motion, Bohr’s modeling of the atom, Maxwell’s equations on electromagnetic behavior… these all contributed to a deeper understanding of the very fabric of reality. Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity, and then General Relativity, soon followed.
Father Of The Big Bang, Catholic Priest Georges Lemaitre Pictured With Albert Einstein. “Georges Lemaitre a Belgian astrophysicist/Mathematician developed the theory of the Big Bang. In January 1933, Georges Lemaitre traveled with Albert Einstein to California for a series of seminars. After Georges Lemaitre detailed his Big Bang theory, Einstein stood up applauded, and said, “This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.”
Our understanding of physics accelerated throughout the 20th century with theories on the Big Bang, inflation and the inflaton field, string theory, M-theory, supersymmetry, quantum mechanics, parallel worlds, bubble universes and much more. It’s truly fascinating to observe all this as a conscious being sitting inside the very universe we’re all trying to figure out, and one thing I really appreciate about physicists in general is that they require an extraordinarily convincing burden of proof before they announce something to be “discovered.”
That’s in great contrast to the pharmaceutical industry which essentially just “makes stuff up” and passes it off as “science.” Drug companies give science a terrible name, but physicists are the redeeming individuals who help restore credibility to the very name “science.”
(For example, in clinical drug trials, a pharmaceutical only has to work on five percent of the test group in order to receive FDA approval as “safe and effective for everyone!” In the realm of particle physics and cosmology, however, experiments usually have to reach a level of certainty approaching 2,999,999 out of three million (5 sigma), thereby leaving only one chance in three million of the conclusion being wrong. Now that’s what I call confidence!)
This is why physicists, chemists and other “hard sciences” people who end up throwing their hats in with the pharmaceutical / vaccine / chemotherapy industries only end up discrediting themselves. The for-profit health care industry is largely based on quackery that merely borrows the label of “science” but follows none of its stringent requirements for proof. Physics and cosmology, in great contrast, has (almost) nothing to patent and nothing to sell to the public at monopolistic prices. Particle physics, cosmology and even quantum field theory is truly all about the quest for knowledge and not about hyping up some false pandemic to sell more dangerous vaccines to an unsuspecting public.
Even with the extreme attention to evidentiary detail, however, there’s still something the physicists have been overlooking for a long, long time: Consciousness.
Irreducible complexity is a term used to describe a characteristic of certain complex systems whereby they need all of their individual component parts in place in order to function. In other words, it is impossible to reduce the complexity of (or to simplify) an irreducibly complex system by removing any of its component parts and still maintain its functionality.
The otherwise benign concept of irreducible complexity incites fierce controversy when it is applied to biological systems. This is because it is seen as a challenge to Darwinian evolution, which, needless to say, remains the dominant paradigm in the field of biology. Charles Darwin conceded, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down” (Origin of Species, 1859, p. 158).
Michael Behe argues, “An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional” (Darwin’s Black Box, 1996, p. 39) Dgenerated1
Father Of Modern Science, Catholic Bishop Nicole Oresme‘ Of Lisieux, France 1323 – 1382.
Nicole Oresme made significant contributions to late medieval natural philosophy. He studied and wrote about philosophy, mathematics, economics, physics, musicology, and psychology, and anticipated the ideas of early modern scientists such as Copernicus, Galileo and Descartes.
He developed a geometric model to quantify and compare the intensities of qualities and of speeds. Oresme also developed the language of ratios, introduced by Thomas Bradwardine to relate speed to force and resistance, and applied it to physical and cosmological questions.
He made a careful study of musicology and used his findings to develop the use of irrational exponents and the first theory that sound and light are a transfer of energy that does not displace matter. More than thirty-four books and treatises by Nicole Oresme are extant.
His translations of Aristotle’s works introduced a number of technical terms into the French language. He did not agree with Aristotle that “qualities” existed objectively, and worked extensively to prove that they were subject to the perception of the human mind.
He studied the influence of the subconscious mind on perception, and also the physical phenomena, such as atmospheric distortion, which cause errors in perception. He also developed the use of probability ratios to determine the extent to which accurate perception was possible. (For a complete list, visit Nicole Oresme Bibliography by Ulrich Taschow)
The quest for particles (while ignoring consciousness)
Why would anyone want to spend a few billion dollars smashing atoms together and analyzing the results of the splatter? To find out what atoms are made of, of course. But more importantly, to find out what the universe is made of. That’s what CERN is all about, and as long as its results are understood in the proper context, it’s valuable science.
There’s a huge gap in all this, unfortunately, and that gap has its origins in the thinking that atoms are made entirely of particles. The wildly misnamed “God particle” known as Higgs boson has been the single most sought-after particle by physicists in their quest to find physical evidence to back up their mathematical equations of the “Standard Model” of the universe.
To understand why that matters, let’s back up for a minute. Physicists and especially cosmologists spend an enormous amount of time working in the abstract realm of mathematics. The purpose of the mathematics is to attempt to model physical reality, which is, of course, engineered into the fabric of the universe with the language of mathematics. (Consciousness is also woven into the fabric of reality, many argue, but that’s a subject I’ll revisit later.)
What’s often lacking in this scientific quest is physical experimental evidence that backs up the math. So it only makes sense to attempt to conduct real-world experiments to either prove or disprove what the theory predicts. That’s what CERN is all about. Now that the Higgs particle has been convincingly demonstrated to exist, this helps nail down all sorts of answers, thereby leading to a deeper exploration of other questions, each of which grants a measure of understanding to human civilization.
Ultimately, physicists are attempting to understand the origins of the universe, which has turned out to be a tricky question for lots of reasons, some of which are almost impossible to imagine. In addition to the parallel worlds and multiverse theories that have joined the complexities, there is also “brane theory” to deal with. It’s a theory that says, in a nutshell, multiple universescoexist intertwined with each other but not interacting. You can’t touch another brane world even though it may exist right alongside our own brane world.
What’s important to realize in all this is that even the so-called “Standard Model” of explaining everything is currently an unsatisfactory patchwork of equations and mathematical transformations that don’t play well together when it comes to different physical contexts such as really small things or really large, massive things. Try to meld large-scale equations of gravity, for example, with really small phenomena such as quantum fluctuations of atomic nuclei, and you get nonsensical mathematical answers such as “the answer is X divided by zero!”
Virtually all present-day reality modeling equations break down at singularity events such as black holes, too. The Standard Model is seriously lacking, in other words, and one of the reasons there is so much excitement about Higgs boson is because it would help fill in the gaps of the Standard Model explanation.
There’s little doubt that the Standard Model is only a temporary quick fix in the bigger picture, of course. It’s not “wrong” in the sense of being terribly incorrect; it’s most likely just incomplete. Ultimately, physicists hope to find a “unified theory” that explains everything with a single set of mathematical understandings and equations that apply to all observable phenomena in the universe: electromagnetism, gravity, mass, light and so on. Einstein spent a considerable portion of his life in search of the unification of these fundamental forces but was unable to achieve it. This is a goal of understanding that may yet take lifetimes to achieve.
If it were achieved, it would represent one of the most profound achievements in the history of humankind.
Yet, as I hinted above, there’s still something missing from all this: Consciousness. Without consciousness, the universe cannot be fully explained, as consciousness is increasingly emerging as a fundamental force impacting the very fabric of reality. This is really, really frustrating for many scientists because, for starters, the majority of them don’t even believe in the existence of consciousness. Stephen Hawking is famous for his rather short-sighted remarks that people are mindless, soulless beings — “biological robots” — and that religion / spirituality is a realm for “people who are afraid of the dark.”
He titles chapters of his book, “The Theory of Everything” and yet does not even acknowledge the existence of consciousness or free will — two things that are fundamentally tied into quantum theory equations in the context of the “Observer.” It goes without saying that until modern-day physicists can embrace and attempt to understand consciousness and the role of the Observer in shaping the physical universe, even their most determined efforts to find a unified theory of everything will come up short.
This is frustrating for physicists because, to date, there are no equations that describe the behavior or properties of consciousness. Although consciousness can be experienced first-hand by conscious beings, it so far has defied measurement and experimental validation. How can anyone prove consciousness exists? Other than the fact that it is self-evident to those who possess it, is there an independent way to measure it and thereby confirm its existence?
This may ultimately prove impossible because of an error in the question. An “independent” measurement, in classical physics, describes a measurement being conducted by a mechanism that has no ties to any conscious observer. Yet in order to become aware of the measurements, a conscious being must, one way or another, interact with the results of the experiment. This interaction, as quantum theorists are increasingly realizing, is itself part of the experiment and may alter its outcomes even after the fact. The Observer cannot be isolated from the events observed.
This also means that all of today’s science is, in fact, biased toward consciousness. All the evidence that makes up the entire history of known science suffers from a glaring “selection bias” because it was all observed and selected by conscious beings.
Even this recent Higgs boson discovery may have been brought into existence solely because so many conscious beings were focused on bringing into reality what they imagined to be real. I know this almost starts to sound New-Agey, but such is the nature of things in a conscious universe: All science being conducted today is carried out under the influence of “consciousness bias.” And so we need to understand what this means and how it impacts our understanding of reality.
Gaining a deep understanding of this may be exceedingly difficult for human beings to achieve. It may, in fact, be beyond the capabilities of biological beings with limited neurological capacity. Nevertheless, I believe that the more modern science understands about the Higgs boson, quantum theory, particle physics and cosmology, the closer science will be to initiating a scientific study of consciousness.
We’ve got to get the hard sciences out of the way first, in other words, before the interaction between mind and matter can even be approached.
Consciousness, parallel worlds and more:
Consciousness, you see, isn’t made of particles. Thus, you can’t smash consciousness in a particle accelerator and hope to see the tiny bits of what it’s made of. (You can crush free will, of course, but that takes a government.) Yet there is increasingly compelling evidence that consciousness interacts with the physical world and may even create parallel physical worlds when it is exercised. Hints of this are emerging from the study of quantum physics, which immediately leads to the possibility of “multiple worlds” and parallel realities.
The search for Higgs boson, ultimately, is an important one, but the approach is incomplete if our civilization seeks to uncover the fundamental forces that unify our observable universe. Those forces do not exist in a vacuum absent the minds of the conscious inhabitants of the universe. Where there is life, there appears to be consciousness, and if there’s one thing most physicists and cosmologists agree on, it’s that life is ridiculously abundant across the cosmos.
Not in terms of units of life per square meter, of course, since most of the universe is, physically speaking, just empty space. The average density of the known universe (roughly 28 billion light years across) has been estimated at 6 hydrogen atoms per cubic meter. That’s a lot of empty space, but it’s filled with literally trillions of stars, each of which may harbor life and therefore consciousness.
To achieve a fundamental understanding of the origins and mechanisms of our known universe without factoring in the impact of consciousness and the conscious observer is, to put it bluntly, a blind approach to ultimate understanding. It’s like trying to bake a cake but leaving out the flour. The recipe of reality from which our universe has sprung must take into account consciousness. If it does not, no unification of fundamental forces will ever be complete, I believe.
Who or what created our reality?
Then there is the question of the Architect of this reality. Even if humankind manages to decode the fundamental laws which govern the physical universe, there’s not only the question of “Who or what created the universe in the first place” but the even more difficult question, “Who or what created the laws of physics that govern the universe?”
Because on that question, even a particle accelerator the size of the entire planet can’t shed a single photon of light on the question. The consensus view in physics circles today — which is dominated, remember, by people who don’t believe in consciousness or free will — is that our universe created itself out of nothing, without any intelligent intervention. This is a strange argument of “effect without a cause,” and it simply doesn’t add up.
The far more believable argument is that our universe was created by a Great Intelligence — an Architect or Creator, if you will. The explanations for this Creator run the gamut. Several prominent physicists are right now suggesting that our universe is a simulation, a physics experiment created by a vastly superior race of beings who inhabit a higher dimension.
On the more spiritual side, the explanation quickly centers on a single consciousness known as God. There are seemingly endless additional theories and thoughts on this subject involving a vast array of philosophical and religious beliefs, but they all have in common one idea which should be obvious to even a brilliant physicist: The reason there is something rather than nothing is becausesomeone (or something) had to put it there, and that means there is an intelligence — a consciousness — that exists above and beyond our known universe. Something with the power to create our known universe, in other words.
That creative force / intelligence / consciousness is what I call The Divine. It is divine because it is a Creator in every sense of the word. It creates realities. It carefully selects cosmological constants so that those realities have the capacity to support life. It imbues that life with small slices of consciousness and grants that life the capacity for self awareness and self determination.
These are divine concepts that underpin the deepest inner workings of our universe… far beyond Higgs boson or any theory of particle physics. This gets to the Creator behind the very laws of physics. How was the framework of quantum mechanics created in the first place? Who selected and fine-tuned the cosmological constants to support the formation of stars? How was the framework of dark matter and dark energy engineered?
I intend to begin exploring precisely these questions in a series of upcoming videos and articles on NaturalNews and other websites. I call this “exploring conscious cosmology,” and in my view, it dwarfs the importance of almost anything else that might normally concern us, including politics, nutrition and even exposing fraud.
Watch for announcements on “conscious cosmology” here on NaturalNews.com.
And yes, for the record, in case you were wondering, I am trained in the sciences and have long been a student of many fields of knowledge, including physics, philosophy, cosmology, anthropology, neurology and spirituality. I’m not a master in any of these fields but rather a student of them all. My strength is in understanding complex concepts and explaining them in simple, everyday terms, usually in a way that’s interesting to read. I intend to bring that skill to the forefront as I spend more time focusing on conscious cosmology which necessarily encompasses philosophy, spirituality, quantum theory, physics and more.
After all, if we are conscious beings, shouldn’t we exercise our consciousness and do something with it?