Thursday, 5 July 2012

The Higgs-Boson Particle explained

The Higgs-Boson Particle explained by PhD Comics. [Hat tip Geek Press]

And now the particle has been spotted, here are the politicians’ reactions


  1. If the existence of Higgs is really confirmed over time, then its another triumph for Quantum Mechanics. It only makes physicists continue to be deluded in thinking that the universe isn't really real at all. Material objects & things can pop into existence by a probabilistic mechanisms.

    I hold the same belief as objectivists (as giants like Einstein, Schrodinger, De Broglie who all held the same view) in which the universe objectively exists which is independent on any observation or measurement by any observer.

    I think Physicist David Harriman explains it better.

    Quantum Physics Fairy Tale

    Quantum Mechanics has thrown causality out the window long time ago (to be precise, in the 1920s) when it was first developed by the founders.

  2. I agree Fellafullafisi,

    Hell, they've spent all that effort and the best they can do is posit that a minor perturbation on the probability curve lasting for an almost non-measurable instant has found the supposedly-hidden bulk of the universe. They've posited an invisible elephant in the room. Dickheads. Fun to watch though.

  3. ROFL. Quantum mechanics doesn't align with Objectivist dogma. The existence of Higgs Boson although proven is therefore not allowed! A bit like human-induced climate change! You religious extremists are truly anti-reason.

  4. I have to admit, even I'm blinking with surprise at the above posts.

    FF, gregster, you do realise that quantum physics, like all physics, and indeed all science, is based on hypotheses formulated to explain observable (objective) phenomena, right?

    I'm no physicist, so I simply don't have the intellectual arsenal to get into this one too deeply, but from what I've read (Hawking, Krouse), there's nothing "magic" or superstitious about quantum physics. It might bend the mind, but it's all demonstable, repeatable, and the principles are in use right now (quantum computing for example).

    I don't see any incompatibility with objectivism here.

  5. @Greig: A is A. The existence of Higgs Boson particles is proven. No Objectivist should or would have a problem with that: what exists exists.

  6. Greig,

    What I'm saying by

    "the best they can do is posit that a minor perturbation on the probability curve lasting for an almost non-measurable instant has found the supposedly-hidden bulk of the universe"

    is that this is related in their hypothesis to the missing matter in the universe which they are seeking to make their Big Bang theory seem workable. They need to find the matter propelling "expansion."

    It's yet another retrospective add-on to a failed theory inspired by the Genesis myth.

  7. @Gregster: Every time a physicist makes on observation of something, however minuscule the the perturbation, it's an observation of a definite something--something possessing both identity and causality.

    Of course, most physicists must realise this too.

  8. Interested readers might enjoy listening to an interview last year with physicist and philosopher David Harriman, who has some interesting things to say on Quantum theory, the big bang, String theory, what’s real and what’s based on Kantian delusions.

    Oddly enough, it appears at a website called "Gnostic Media," which doesn't seem to affect the content at all.

  9. Thanks for the link PC. And there, the third comment is one theory I'm suggesting people look into, rather than Big Clanger cosmology which makes no correct predictions, and eg. stumbles to explain spiral galaxy formation by gravity.

    By contrast Plasma cosmology can extrapolate from lab experiments and vector the results up to galaxy size, giving predictions relating better to astronomical observations.

    The comment in full:

    "Very Good Interview. Thanks Jan and David.

    In regards to dark matter:
    Plasma cosmology can demonstrate with simple physical principles the electrical formation and behavior of spiral galaxies and stars without recourse to hypothetical dark matter and black holes.

    This Year’s Natural Philosophy Alliance Conference has more
    topics along the same lines of rational inductive thought.

    The Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA) is devoted mainly to broad-ranging, fully open-minded criticism, at the most fundamental levels , of the often irrational and unrealistic doctrines of modern physics and cosmology; and to the ultimate replacement of these doctrines by much sounder ideas developed with full respect for evidence, logic, and objectivity. Such reforms have long been urgently needed; and yet there is no area of scholarship more stubbornly censorial, and more reluctant to reform itself.

    Reigning paradigms in physics and cosmology have for many decades been protected from open challenge by extreme intolerance, excluding debate about the most crucial problems from major journals and meetings. But the founding of the NPA in 1994 provided those struggling against this irrationality and intolerance with the strength, visibility, and credibility that comes from numbers and from collaborative, purposeful effort. It has also enabled them to share, expand, and refine their individual knowledge through contact with many other critical scholars, at NPA general meetings–held at least once per year since 1994–and by phone and mail, both postal and electronic.

    We call the NPA an “alliance” because our members hold a wide variety of different views, yet have joined forces in a common effort. We agree unanimously on little more than that something is drastically wrong in contemporary physics and cosmology, and that a new spirit of open-mindedness is desperately needed in order to correct this situation.


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.