The Higgs Boson pokes back (oh drat, it's not what you expected)

[Dave (imported)]

There are good reasons to believe that something existed before the Big Bang that created this universe.

And there are indications that such a theory might be proven true or at least man can find evidence that points to a time before the Big Bang.

It's too early and there isn't enough caffeine and sugar around me this morning to get me to describe the ideas this morning. Simply accept the fact that the current theories point to such a result.

[moi621 (imported)]

There are good reasons to believe that something existed before the Big Bang that created this universe.

And there are indications that such a theory might be proven true or at least man can find evidence that points to a time before the Big Bang.

It's too early and there isn't enough caffeine and sugar around me this morning to get me to describe the ideas this morning. Simply accept the fact that the current theories point to such a result.

That would be "the word" of the Lord. Amen

[Riverwind (imported)]

Well lets break it down, lets say that there was a universe or something before the big bang but when that happen everything that was would have been destroyed by the big bang and the universe we live in has been expanding ever sense. What God? God is made by man in his own image, it says so right in the Bible, but through translation its been turned around, now this may not be so, but its no sillier then any other theology.

Gods would be a good thing if there were any.

So what would have been here before the big bang, one thing is for sure, its gone and does not matter.

River

[bobover3 (imported)]

Of course something preceded The Big Bang. Existence didn't come from nothing, for no reason. It's hard for me to believe the world existed before I was conceived, but I accept it. It's hard for some people to believe there was something before the something we know. But there was.

The recent research just reminds us how far we are from understanding the universe. We really have no idea what we are or where we came from. If there was "nothing," what is nothing? What lies beyond the boundaries of the matter spread by The Big Bang? Physics describes matter by dividing it into particles, and understands particles by dividing them into smaller particles. But when we finally reach the smallest particle there is, what is that particle made of? How do we distinguish existence from non-existence?

Some Eastern religions believe the world stands on an elephant which stands on the back of a tortoise. We're not supposed to ask what the tortoise stands on. Particle physics is the same.

[Dave (imported)]

That would be "the word" of the Lord. Amen

no, the event that created OUR universe was a "big bang" but the theories suggest that there is an even greater structure that our universe is merely a part of. Something happened in that universe (bang) and created our universe.

[BossTamsin (imported)]

There are good reasons to believe that something existed before the Big Bang that created this universe.

And there are indications that such a theory might be proven true or at least man can find evidence that points to a time before the Big Bang.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I know there are a large number of current theories which all support the idea of there being something before the Big Bang (M-theory, for example), but I haven't heard anything as it specifically relates to a potential collapse from a higher-energy state. (Which may itself be an argument against the idea, but doesn't explain why it's not possible.)

(It may not be the most accurate, but 'Through the Wormhole' is a damn fine show. Of course, it doesn't hurt that I'd probably listen to Morgan Freeman reading a phone book, but...)

[Dave (imported)]

I've read talk that the LHC evidence might (AND I SAY MIGHT) point to a doublet particle -- two related Higgs Bosons with each with slightly different properties.

Then I've heard that there is a theory being pushed as a possible answer that uses Chromo-dynamics and predicts a sextuplet of Higgs Bosons to match supersymmetry.

But I'm at the edge of my understanding on those two statements and EVEN I believe they verge on speculation and wishful thinking. I have almost no functional understanding of Quantum Chromo-dynamics or Supersymmetry that I can put into words. Most days, I can't even hold an image of what those things mean in my mind.

I'm a very bright person but there is a limit and these things are just slightly over the line into my "HUH?" zone.

The greatest recent discovery that points to more subatomic particles than just the Higgs Boson is the existence of Dark Matter.

Current models do not predict or explain Dark Matter and are therefore wrong. Well not really wrong just not complete.

So when the research Physicists say that there are unexpected aspects to the data proving the Higgs Boson and they are being extra, super-duper, insanely cautious with their announcement, they are acknowledging that the current models are incomplete and even if the Higgs Boson appeared exactly as predicted, the model would be even more wrong.

I think that the researchers want evidence of something beyond the model.

I think they want something in the data hat points to a greater discovery than the particle that expresses gravity.

Now that would stun the world of science and make someone the next Newton, Galileo, Einstein. Eternal fame and glory. The man or woman who described the impossible.

[moi621 (imported)]

The Big Bang never happened.



Sound waves do not travel in a vacuum.

Yet you "believers" keep spouting off, "Big Bang. . ." "Big Bang . . . ".

And with such enthusiasm find Mr. Higgs' Boson, whether it is there or just another vibrating string.

Hurrah! Hurrah!



Moi

First came the word, then came form.

[foxytaur (imported)]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=J8mTwCRZLWA& ... 8mTwCRZLWA

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I know there are a large number of current theories which all support the idea of there being something before the Big Bang (M-theory, for example), but I haven't heard anything as it specifically relates to a potential collapse from a higher-energy state. (Which may itself be an argument against the idea, but doesn't explain why it's not possible.)

(It may not be the most accurate, but 'Through the Wormhole' is a damn fine show. Of course, it doesn't hurt that I'd probably listen to Morgan Freeman reading a phone book, but...)

Everything sounds better when Morgan Freeman hosts something. He has this way of making sense of deeply convoluted things and re telling it in a simpler form.

[bobover3 (imported)]

Moi, the "sound" of the Big Bang can still be heard. If there were a Big Bang, it would have released wave energy, still observable, of a particular kind. In fact, those waves were discovered several years ago, just as predicted. The entire known universe is bathed in it. That makes the Big Bang a theory with near-conclusive proof.