What is wrong with Quantum Mechanics?

[zyzygy]

Yeah sure. That was when they first detected it. They weren't sure initially. Now they are. In fact, it is being seen all the time now as they are doing experiments looking for other things.

If you think there is still some doubt, give me a link.

It will be an old link, you can bet on that.

 

[ataraxia]

Let's examine the evidence a little more closely. Here is the report:

Higgs boson - Wikipedia

The importance of this fundamental question led to a 40-year search, and the construction of one of the world's most expensive and complex experimental facilities to date, CERN's Large Hadron Collider,[20] in an attempt to create Higgs bosons and other particles for observation and study. On 4 July 2012, the discovery of a new particle with a mass between 125 and 127 GeV/c2 was announced; physicists suspected that it was the Higgs boson.[21][22][23] Since then, the particle has been shown to behave, interact, and decay in many of the ways predicted for Higgs particles by the Standard Model, as well as having even parity and zero spin,[6][7] two fundamental attributes of a Higgs boson. This also means it is the first elementary scalar particle discovered in nature.[24]
By March 2013, the existence of the Higgs boson was confirmed, and therefore, the concept of some type of Higgs field throughout space is strongly supported.[21][23][6]

The presence of the field, now confirmed by experimental investigation, explains why some fundamental particles have mass, despite the symmetries controlling their interactions implying that they should be massless. It also resolves several other long-standing puzzles, such as the reason for the extremely short distance travelled by the weak force bosons, and therefore the weak force's extremely short range.

As of 2018, in-depth research shows the particle continuing to behave in line with predictions for the Standard Model Higgs boson. More studies are needed to verify with higher precision that the discovered particle has all of the properties predicted, or whether, as described by some theories, multiple Higgs bosons exist.[25]
The nature and properties of this field are now being investigated further, using more data collected at the LHC.[1]

Let's look at what is said, not what people mistakenly think is being said.

The Higgs Boson was confirmed by March 2013. But this was not when the particle was first detected, which was in July 2012. There was a delay in reporting the finding of the Higgs Boson due to the fact they could not be sure they had found the Boson. It looked like it may have been. It acted like they thought it should have acted, and yet there was doubt. Whatever the doubts, they declared the unknown particle to be the Higgs Boson in 2o13, and yet maintained that more research was needed before it could be confirmed. They said, "More studies are needed" to confirm what they suspect.

Also, why are you lumping in the Higgs particle with quantum mechanics? They are only very tangentially related. It seems you are clumping all modern science into the category of "quantum mechanics". Is it just quantum mechanics you really have a problem with, or just all modern science in general?

 

[zyzygy]

Here is some up to date news.

In new results released this month, the ATLAS Collaboration at CERN studied the full LHC Run 2 dataset to give an updated measurement of H→bb, where the Higgs boson is produced in association with a vector boson (W or Z). Among several new results, ATLAS reports the observation of Higgs-boson production in association with a Z boson with a significance of 5.3 standard deviations (σ), and evidence of production with a W boson with a significance of 4.0 σ.

ATLAS Experiment measures the 'beauty' of the Higgs boson

 

[zyzygy]

marke called us gullible, I didn't know that gullible meant 'able to understand evidence'.

 

[marke]

It's not a problem, Marke, because they found it.

Sure they did. So I suppose you think they have reported that they have no doubts they have proven the existence of a scientific sighting of the God particle? I don't they share your certainty.

 

[marke]

Yeah sure. That was when they first detected it. They weren't sure initially. Now they are. In fact, it is being seen all the time now as they are doing experiments looking for other things.

If you think there is still some doubt, give me a link.

Here is a quote:

More studies are needed to verify that this is indeed the particle we were looking for.

 

[marke]

Also, why are you lumping in the Higgs particle with quantum mechanics? They are only very tangentially related. It seems you are clumping all modern science into the category of "quantum mechanics". Is it just quantum mechanics you really have a problem with, or just all modern science in general?

The Higgs boson is an elementary particle in the Standard Model of particle physics, produced by the quantum excitation of the Higgs field,[8][9] one of the fields in particle physics theory.[9]

Higgs boson - Wikipedia

 

[marke]

Here is some up to date news.

In new results released this month, the ATLAS Collaboration at CERN studied the full LHC Run 2 dataset to give an updated measurement of H→bb, where the Higgs boson is produced in association with a vector boson (W or Z). Among several new results, ATLAS reports the observation of Higgs-boson production in association with a Z boson with a significance of 5.3 standard deviations (σ), and evidence of production with a W boson with a significance of 4.0 σ.

ATLAS Experiment measures the 'beauty' of the Higgs boson

This is from the horse's mouth:

The Higgs boson: Revealing nature’s secrets | CERN

This understanding is built up gradually over time. Back in July 2012, physicists were cautious about calling the new particle a Higgs boson, let alone the Higgs boson predicted by the Standard Model of particle physics. And with good reason: while the simplest theoretical formulations required there to be only one kind of Higgs boson, some extensions of the Standard Model proposed that there could be as many as five kinds of bosons that are involved in the mass-giving mechanism. So for the first few months after the discovery, it was referred to as Higgs-like, shorthand for “a particle that seems to behave like the Higgs boson predicted by the Standard Model but we need more data to be sure”.

Yet, the Brout-Englert-Higgs mechanism remains among the least-understood phenomena in the Standard Model. Indeed, while scientists have dropped the “-like” suffix and have understood the Higgs boson remarkably since its discovery, they still do not know if what was observed is the Higgs boson predicted by the Standard Model.

 

[calamity]

This is from the horse's mouth:

The Higgs boson: Revealing nature’s secrets | CERN

This understanding is built up gradually over time. Back in July 2012, physicists were cautious about calling the new particle a Higgs boson, let alone the Higgs boson predicted by the Standard Model of particle physics. And with good reason: while the simplest theoretical formulations required there to be only one kind of Higgs boson, some extensions of the Standard Model proposed that there could be as many as five kinds of bosons that are involved in the mass-giving mechanism. So for the first few months after the discovery, it was referred to as Higgs-like, shorthand for “a particle that seems to behave like the Higgs boson predicted by the Standard Model but we need more data to be sure”.

Yet, the Brout-Englert-Higgs mechanism remains among the least-understood phenomena in the Standard Model. Indeed, while scientists have dropped the “-like” suffix and have understood the Higgs boson remarkably since its discovery, they still do not know if what was observed is the Higgs boson predicted by the Standard Model.

lol...that article does not say what you think it does. :lol:

 

[ataraxia]

Here is a quote:

More studies are needed to verify that this is indeed the particle we were looking for.

What is the year on that quote?

 

[ataraxia]

Sure they did. So I suppose you think they have reported that they have no doubts they have proven the existence of a scientific sighting of the God particle? I don't they share your certainty.

I think it just bothers you that they call it the God particle. Somehow you see that is a threat to the existence of God. It’s not. It’s a funny story of how it got to be called that, and most scientists today really try to discourage the use of the term anymore.

The Man Who Coined 'The God Particle' Explains: It Was A Joke! : The Two-Way : NPR

So does that help address your anxieties and make the science more credible to you on this matter?

 

[NWO_Spook]

Quantum mechanics is the secularist evolutionist atheist scientist's perfect solution to all the problems atheistic secularist scientists face when they encounter scientific contradictions to their erroneous theories. When scientific facts conflict with atheistic theories, the atheists simply concoct some irrational explanation in quantum mechanics which is supposed to erase all contradictions on the basis of the complexity of the scientific nature and details of quantum mechanics which 'everyone' don't have to make sense or agree with known scientific facts.

LOLOL That's quite funny.

 

[marke]

What is the year on that quote?

The Higgs boson: Revealing nature’s secrets | CERN

This understanding is built up gradually over time. Back in July 2012, physicists were cautious about calling the new particle a Higgs boson, let alone the Higgs boson predicted by the Standard Model of particle physics. And with good reason: while the simplest theoretical formulations required there to be only one kind of Higgs boson, some extensions of the Standard Model proposed that there could be as many as five kinds of bosons that are involved in the mass-giving mechanism. So for the first few months after the discovery, it was referred to as Higgs-like, shorthand for “a particle that seems to behave like the Higgs boson predicted by the Standard Model but we need more data to be sure”.

Yet, the Brout-Englert-Higgs mechanism remains among the least-understood phenomena in the Standard Model. Indeed, while scientists have dropped the “-like” suffix and have understood the Higgs boson remarkably since its discovery, they still do not know if what was observed is the Higgs boson predicted by the Standard Model.

(4 July 2020.)

 

[Lisa]

Sure they did. So I suppose you think they have reported that they have no doubts they have proven the existence of a scientific sighting of the God particle? I don't they share your certainty.

The god particle isn't what you think it is. It has nothing to do with belief or a sentient creator.

 

[zyzygy]

The god particle isn't what you think it is. It has nothing to do with belief or a sentient creator.

Gods should be kept out of science.

 

[zyzygy]

Here is a quote:

More studies are needed to verify that this is indeed the particle we were looking for.

What does that have to do with QM? What is wrong with QM?

 

[ataraxia]

The Higgs boson: Revealing nature’s secrets | CERN

This understanding is built up gradually over time. Back in July 2012, physicists were cautious about calling the new particle a Higgs boson, let alone the Higgs boson predicted by the Standard Model of particle physics. And with good reason: while the simplest theoretical formulations required there to be only one kind of Higgs boson, some extensions of the Standard Model proposed that there could be as many as five kinds of bosons that are involved in the mass-giving mechanism. So for the first few months after the discovery, it was referred to as Higgs-like, shorthand for “a particle that seems to behave like the Higgs boson predicted by the Standard Model but we need more data to be sure”.

Yet, the Brout-Englert-Higgs mechanism remains among the least-understood phenomena in the Standard Model. Indeed, while scientists have dropped the “-like” suffix and have understood the Higgs boson remarkably since its discovery, they still do not know if what was observed is the Higgs boson predicted by the Standard Model.

(4 July 2020.)

I am not sure what it is you’re upset about.

Scientists observed something in the particle collider, clearly. And it fits with the math and predictions first worked out in the 1960s. But this is the bleeding edge of science right now, and of course many questions remain open. It IS even possible what was observed is something different than what was predicted- although that would be truly weird and uncanny if true. But I guess we will have to see. That’s why we do research. There’s always open questions, and when you answer one, several more always open up. That’s how science grows.

But I am puzzled as to why you see all this as so threatening. And what does this have to do with quantum mechanics? I think you feel threatened just because they were calling it the “God particle”. Forget it- they’re not doing that anymore- it has fallen out of fashion and scientists discourage the use of that term. It has as much to do with God as the rings of Saturn. You can relax.

” GENEVA — “We don’t call it the “God particle,” it’s just the media that do that,” a senior U.S. scientist politely told an interviewer on a major European radio station on Tuesday.

“Well, I am the from the media and I’m going to continue calling it that,” said the journalist — and continued to do so.

The exchange, as physicists at the CERN research centre near Geneva were preparing to announce the latest news from their long and frustrating search for the Higgs boson, illustrated sharply how science and the popular media are not always a good mix.“I hate that “God particle’ term,” said Pauline Gagnon, a Canadian member of CERN’s ATLAS team of so-called “Higgs hunters” – an epithet they do not reject.

“The Higgs is not endowed with any religious meaning. It is ridiculous to call it that,” she told Reuters at a news conference...

Calling it the ’God particle’ is completely inappropriate,” said the German physicist, who divides his time between CERN and teaching at London’s Imperial College.

“It’s not doing justice to the Higgs and what we think its role in the universe is. It has nothing to do with God.”...

“Hearing it called the ’God particle’ makes me angry. It confuses people about what we are trying to do here at CERN.”
Higgs boson: Why scientists hate that you call it the ‘God particle’ | National Post

There, does that make the science seem less threatening and OK now?

 

[marke]

What does that have to do with QM? What is wrong with QM?

This may be why some researchers refer to the Higgs Boson as the "God particle:"


Quantum mechanics and the consciousness connection | American Association for the Advancement of Science

Now that physicists have found the Higgs boson, the "God particle," the study of physics has entered a new phase. However, a new phase of a different type emerged nearly a century ago as scientists and others explored the merging of science with spirituality in relation to quantum physics. ...

When you put these together and add spirituality into the mix by taking into account the role of consciousness on the matter (energy) around us, you get an interesting set of theories. ...

At one point in his life he collaborated with psychiatrist Carl Jung to study synchronicity, in part because of the "coincidences" surrounding his effect on matter. Not surprisingly, he believed in psychokinesis— the influencing of matter by thought—and that parapsychology was worthy of study. In fact, he was one of the first to consider and explore "quantum metaphysics," although Max Planck (1858 — 1957), the "father" of quantum physics, also believed in the metaphysical. Planck said, "I regard matter as derived from consciousness." ...

Now that the Higgs boson has been found, the role of religion in relation to science again comes to the fore. Max Planck said, "All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."

Even Albert Einstein, who categorically rejected conventional religion but gained a cosmic awareness, said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

 

[marke]

I am not sure what it is you’re upset about.

Scientists observed something in the particle collider, clearly. And it fits with the math and predictions first worked out in the 1960s. But this is the bleeding edge of science right now, and of course many questions remain open. It IS even possible what was observed is something different than what was predicted- although that would be truly weird and uncanny if true. But I guess we will have to see. That’s why we do research. There’s always open questions, and when you answer one, several more always open up. That’s how science grows.

But I am puzzled as to why you see all this as so threatening. And what does this have to do with quantum mechanics? I think you feel threatened just because they were calling it the “God particle”. Forget it- they’re not doing that anymore- it has fallen out of fashion and scientists discourage the use of that term. It has as much to do with God as the rings of Saturn. You can relax.



There, does that make the science seem less threatening and OK now?

"Threatening" is not even close to how I see scientific studies and reports about the God Particle.

 

[ataraxia]

"Threatening" is not even close to how I see scientific studies and reports about the God Particle.

——
Why?

 

[marke]

——
Why?

Because all science provides Christians an opportunity to do research and contribute to the dissemination of truth over the errors so commonly disseminated by those who misunderstand science.

 

[ataraxia]

Because all science provides Christians an opportunity to do research and contribute to the dissemination of truth over the errors so commonly disseminated by those who misunderstand science.

OK. Still not sure though why you are here trying to discredit the science. Why not just follow your own recommendation and do whatever you think it is that the science provides you the opportunity to do?

 

[zyzygy]

This may be why some researchers refer to the Higgs Boson as the "God particle:"


Quantum mechanics and the consciousness connection | American Association for the Advancement of Science

Now that physicists have found the Higgs boson, the "God particle," the study of physics has entered a new phase. However, a new phase of a different type emerged nearly a century ago as scientists and others explored the merging of science with spirituality in relation to quantum physics. ...

When you put these together and add spirituality into the mix by taking into account the role of consciousness on the matter (energy) around us, you get an interesting set of theories. ...

At one point in his life he collaborated with psychiatrist Carl Jung to study synchronicity, in part because of the "coincidences" surrounding his effect on matter. Not surprisingly, he believed in psychokinesis— the influencing of matter by thought—and that parapsychology was worthy of study. In fact, he was one of the first to consider and explore "quantum metaphysics," although Max Planck (1858 — 1957), the "father" of quantum physics, also believed in the metaphysical. Planck said, "I regard matter as derived from consciousness." ...

Now that the Higgs boson has been found, the role of religion in relation to science again comes to the fore. Max Planck said, "All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."

Even Albert Einstein, who categorically rejected conventional religion but gained a cosmic awareness, said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Religion has bugger all to do with science, no matter how much you wish for it.

 

[zyzygy]

Because all science provides Christians an opportunity to do research and contribute to the dissemination of truth over the errors so commonly disseminated by those who misunderstand science.

You misunderstand science. Does all science also give Hindus an opportunity? Name some of these misconceptions.

 

[marke]

OK. Still not sure though why you are here trying to discredit the science. Why not just follow your own recommendation and do whatever you think it is that the science provides you the opportunity to do?

I am not discrediting science. I am refuting errors and assumptions made by others who misunderstand science.