Scientists say they may be able to determine the eventual fate of the cosmos as they probe the properties of the Higgs boson.
A concept known as vacuum instability could result, billions of years from now, in a new universe opening up in the present one and replacing it, due to quantum fluctuations that will make a tiny bubble of vacuum expand at the speed of light and create a new cosmos from the start. (1)
If any point in the Universe can become a whole new Universe, then Parmenides was clearly right: Everything can be nothing and everything at the same time. Everything seem to be points, when in fact they are potential (so real?) whole worlds…
The paper related to the “discovery” of the Higgs boson was finally published and is freely available here. The paper gives us insight into how scientists today think.
The title is:
“Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC”.
We are initially baffled by the question: how can Higgs boson has mass, since it is the “thing” that creates mass in the first place?
But we would wish this was the only problem…
Not too far ahead, one reads:
The mass mH of the SM Higgs boson is not predicted by theory. However, general considerations , ,  and  suggest that mH should be smaller than ∼1 TeV, while precision electroweak measurements imply that mH<152 GeV at 95% confidence level (CL) .
The scientists predicted “events” (decays) based on their models for various possible masses of the Higgs particle (how can you predict something for a particle with zero electrical charge and unknown mass? how do you predict what a particle with unknown properties will do?), saw the decays for various energies and… they found something that looked like their expected modeled curve… Don’t you see the resemblance between the dotted curve and the observed black one?
Hmmmm… Would you trust ONE experiment with such a “discovery”? Hmmmm… Would you trust ONE experiment with such a “discovery”? A particle which creates (the field which creates) mass which has a… variable mass! A discovery based on an unknown property of an unknown particle, based on arbitrary assumptions on that property. How convenient!
IF it has such mass then…
But IF it doesn’t have that mass?
Would that mean that we discovered other particle?
And WHAT creates that mass if not the field created by that particle with the… unknown mass?!? Wow!
In other words…
It is not that we do not know why and how Higgs has mass, we do not actually know how much it is!
And YET, based on measurements that “IMPLY” a range of mass, we can base our conclusions on ONE experiment and tell the world that we “discovered” the… “particle of God”…!!!!
Well, if God could be found so easily, He would not be worth finding after all…
How many people have cheered about the “discovery” of the Higgs Boson? And how many would question my use of quotation marks when writing the word <discovery>? How many people are thrilled with CERN, while having absolutely no idea of the real and true mechanisms that govern the creation of science today? I have said it many times before: Science is the process of formulating prediction models. Nothing less. Nothing more!
I have argued many times before on the above so I will save you the copy-paste of other articles you can find here (see articles tagged with “Science Philosophy“). The only purpose if this article is to advise on the obvious: when worshiping something, try to learn more about it. No matter how many particles are “discovered”, they will be all VANISHED (and I mean LITERALLY!) when a new physics theory will come in place to replace the existing one! Do you think this it too much? Think again.
It was the same way the ludicrous idea of instant forces from a distance (call me “Newtonian gravity”) was totally replaced by the curved timespace (call me “Einstein gravity”). It was the same way the all mighty Ether suddently “seized to exist” when we “discovered” that light had a constant speed (too controversy in that one – check related articles).
Just waiting for the String Theory to completely obliterate all we “know” and tell us that what we think we see does not “exist”! … 🙂
And a bonus tip: Interpreting the tips in the signal of a SEM microscope as “atoms” does not mean we actually “see” atoms! Check out this page to see what scientists do to avoid directly answering the all simple question “Have we seen atoms?”… Or take a look at the Yahoo! Answers page… Search in Google images for “atoms” and you will see very good graphics but not one image that resembles the atom the CERN boys are searching for.Even scanning tunneling microscope does not guarrantee you that what you see is what you “see”. Measuring tunneling-current density is not “seeing”. And do not even dare to forget the key name: Hillman (check out here)… It is not just a matter of not-enough magnification. It is a matter of “seeing what you like to see”…
And a second bonus tip: The fact that each model is more “accurate” than the previous one does not mean anything more than “we create the next model so as to fit better the observations”! It is the models who are created based on observations! and not models who happen to be more “accurate” because we “progress”… The difference is important. AFTER knowing the desired results, one can create a much more accurate geocentric model than the heliocentric we have now… (even though that would not be more “correct” – see Earth at the Center of the Universe?)
The world is rejoicing with the “discovery” of the Higgs Boson. But although Higgs is thrilled and is giving one interview after the other, no one really cares to know where the second part of the “God’s particle” name comes from. Who the hell is Bose (সত্যেন্দ্র নাথ বসু Shottendronath Boshū) ? Once more, western science has managed to force an ultra-important and super-capable scientist into oblivion just because he was not from the West. Bose’s contribution was widely recognized from Einstein himself (see Bose-Einstein statistics, Bose-Einstein condensate). However Bose was never awarded with a Nobel prize even though colleagues of him who worked closely with him in the same projects (e.g. Fermi)… Coincidence?