I have never been faced with such a stupid physics-hype as this one. I dont know what it is that they discovered, but what they claim about it makes less than no sense.
How does the Higgs boson account for mass of other particles? In all the trillions of elated media coverages of crying scientists, not a single word dedicated to seriously explaning this. It’s very likely complete bullcrap.
The only sensible thing I have read in this hype is a quote by one scientist saying that very likely this will not result in a confirmation of the standard model, but help physicists look beyond it, into deeper layers of working. If they’d stop referring to whatever it is they observed as a particle, and try to interpret their measurements less far from what they’re measuring, that might be possible. But indeed for that a philosophical revolution needs to take place in physics - someone has to step up and actually do some thinking.
So what exactly did they measure, which they interpreted as the boson?
Sub atomic farts by purple wombats, by the sounds of things…
No really, they must have been measuring something significant, I assume, and it could be that it does relate to what mass, and gravity, really is. If they would not interpret it as a particle. It’s like the graviton, a hypothesized particle that causes the mass of particles, ingorning the grotesque contradiction in that hypothesis. Let them for christ sakes just stick to what they observe, and not infer particles, objects from it. How hard can that be? I mean, is that even possible for these people? Or do we need another twothousand years until this God is dead?
Even the very little I ‘know’ doesn’t discount the importance of this discovery. All the talk about particle and mass… The scientists are looking at the edges of what is matter and what is energy at a sub-atomic level where the interactions of matter and energy are quantum maybe-I’m-this or maybe-I’m-that or maybe-I’m-both or maybe-I’m-neither. And all of this is happening in millionths of a second at extreme levels of excitation. At best, all we can see are the ‘footprints’ of these interactions. That we don’t have a ‘particle’ we can hold in our hand in no way invalidates the discovery. To demand a particle with mass is to show complete ignorance. All of everything we can ‘see’ and ‘touch’ begins in the heart of a star where energy and matter are created. Creating that environment is what these people are doing and the discoveries made at CERN are part of the explanation of existence.
Are you saying those people at Cern are showing complete ignorance? I don’t know what you are saying, to what it relates.
I’m saying the people who are poo-pooing the importance of this have no understanding of what the scientists are discovering. That they cannot hand us the particle was an impossibility from the beginning. To demand the particle as ‘proof’ shows a complete lack of understanding of what high energy particle physics is about. This comes from someone who barely understands the details of their discovery (me). But the implications of solving a tiny piece of the puzzle called existence isn’t lost.
I am more or less saying that, if that helps.
Though it would be more helpful to aim the complete ignorance label at those funding the research. The scientists are surely skilled at what they’re skilled at.
If you want just a quick Rational summary of what causes mass and gravity… From Void to Inertia, Mass, Momentum, Particles, and Gravity. And details with pics are being discussed here. No Higgs-boson required.
…and btw, all of those technical gadgets that you are given to play with came typically from engineers, technicians, and hobbyists who had nothing and got nothing from their inventiveness.
James,
Opinion based on more opinion isn’t very useful. That’s all your referenced blog spot is - opinion. If you want credibility, use some peer-reviewed journal arguments to support your opinions.
The last statement is almost laughable. Any University involved in any sort of research patents and sell the technologies they develop. Very little technology occurs in a garage, urban legends not withstanding.
Opinion based upon the lack of alternative is very useful. And are typically called “facts”.
Opinion that has not been carefully thought out, such as the one you just expressed, is what is not very useful.
Those who do not think for themselves merely follow the mystics.
Are you seeking actual truth? Or just seeking alignment with the most prolific mystic?
Let’s just say that I’m interested in a little more substantial ‘proof’ than what you habitually offer and leave it at that.
“valuing” is the activity of interpreting incoming noise in terms of what supports the accumulation.
Tentative - I’d say we use logic first, empirical proof later. Most true scientists (the mathematical creators) work in this direction.
I’m not saying that the discovery is not of fundamental importance to our understanding of gravity. But the theories floating around and being presented along with it, or rather the descriptions of what is being discovered, do not make sense.
Don’t you find that a bit disturbing?
Why can they discover such an incredibly elusive thing, and not formulate a basic logical idea about what it is?
I fear for them, honestly, if they’re that bad at knowing what they do and that good at what they do.
EXACTLY!!
…about time you saw that. 
…and from that a “particle” forms (a group, idea, mindset, movement,…).
Isn’t it interesting that the math and logic in the theory predicted the boson? And I’ll be damned! They found the footprint of that boson. That suggests that the math and the logic has a bit of credibility that was only ‘theory’ before. This allows downstream predictions that were only speculation before this discovery was confirmed. What more do you want? Boson particles in your breakfast cereal?
Isn’t it interesting that a theory having no empirical or mathematical justification, after consuming billions of dollars using a cloak of mathematical obfuscation, after many failed attempts, announces that it finally has “seen” (“indirectly”) an important part… but can’t actually reveal the exact evidence.
What bank would fund a company that proposed such a thing? … besides the banks enslaving the people.
Ah yes, your ‘science is bunk’ speech. Just keep pissing in the pond, James. It seems that is your holy mission in life. 
Pissing in a cesspool doesn’t change much at all.
Providing a clear bit of water within that cesspool, offers hope (to those seeking it).
For the others, just keep drinking the yellow koolaid.
This is obviouser than obvious, tentative. They could obviously not have measured it (especially since it’s only its shadow) if they had not predicted its existence, if they had not know exactly what they were looking to find. It’s existence is no more than a tiny shimmering of a single instance of a possible verification of a mathematical hypothesis.
That is obviously fundamentally different from predicting a phenomenon that is always going to appear right in front of your eyes wherever you apply the model that predicts it. Such as for example gravity and electricity.
Do you see the difference? I would even guess that they were going to run into this “thing” at one point somewhere, sometime even coincidentally, since the model they work with, and how they work with that model, creates the conditions for its appearing.
I may of course be wrong. I am just pointing to the obvious flaws in what is being presented. Where does the mathematical model have its origin? What are its assumptions? That is the ground of the Higgs boson, what it “is”.
James - that is what value ontology describes, but what it does not or did not until this point describe or even mention, is the noise itself.
Between the ‘absence of impossibility’ of a self-valuing and its real existence, is an area I had not charted. Your theory (the one on the blog, which is perfectly clear and down to earth, which is perhaps what tentative finds unappealing about it) charts precisely this area.
So the theories can be connected.
