Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 17th May 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

God particle 'will be found'



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

PROOF of the existence of a force which makes all life possible should soon be possible, according to the scientist who first suggested the idea 40 years ago.
Professor Peter Higgs, 78, who has spent most of his career at Edinburgh University, first argued the existence of the Higgs Field – which gave mass to particles immediately after the big bang – in the early 1960s.

And now he is confident a particle named the "Higgs Bosun", also known as the "God Particle", will be found when a vast particle collider at the Cern research centre on the Franco-Swiss border begins tests next year.





The full article contains 108 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 08 April 2008 10:55 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Technology
 
1

clarkkent,

ramsgate 08/04/2008 13:39:56
There's something of a supreme irony in that the two most pointless scientific pursuits in the history of human kind(an oxymoron if i ever)- putting a man on the moon and understanding the building blocks of matter- have given us the wherewithall to destroy ourselves with the minimum of fuss. It seems "God" left us all a few particles short of an atom. We have survived as a species for 2.5m years without teflon and MRI scans, I doubt we'll survive intact for another 2.5m if we continue to combine and hone the technologies of Ballistic missiles and Partical physics.
Teenagers binge drinking in the sreets are making a more telling contribution to the survival of the species than the load of waistrel freeloaders who call themselves scientists. You would think that wisdom would come with supreme intellegence, but sadly no, only continued back slapping from another branch of the establishment(media)when they're not slapping they're own back. Failure to investigate and question many of the so called great technologies developed over the previous 200 years has brought us to the edge of the precipice we now find ourselves. Shame on you.
2

Stu_R_20,

08/04/2008 14:13:00
#1
Are you being serious? That is utterly ridiculous.
3

Mr Fuzzy,

Edinburgh 08/04/2008 16:12:35
It's Higgs Boson, not Higgs Bosun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson
4

Duncan in Edinburgh,

08/04/2008 16:34:56
#1 So what you're saying is that you'd prefer it if we just closed the door on scientific discovery, and said "that's best left alone"?

You must be ripe for some cult to recruit you.
5

Calum Crubag,

08/04/2008 17:44:25
#1 - I think he saying that he doesnt use any scientific products. Which leaves me thinking... why TF is he writing posts on the internet? God must have told him.

Bit like the Catholic church criticising 'Frankenstein' medicine just before Cardinal 'O Brien goes and gets a pacemaker fitted.
6

clarkkent,

ramsgate 08/04/2008 20:57:05
where in my post do I say that I'm against science? WHERE IN MY POST DO I IMPLY TECHNOLOGY IS BEST LEFT ALONE. If you reread my post in the context of a person who has become disilllusioned with the great opportunities that have been missed because of the repeated misapplication of all the great technologies.
I have been involved in the developement of a recent technology myself and I am a trained researcher, statistician and mathematician. What annoys me most about establishment scientific bodies and the supporting establishment media is the failure to see beyond the end of their noses when it comes to the application of technological breakthrough, nor are they that bright at spotting the relative benefits(or drawbacks) of one competing technology over another, whether it be a preceding or superseding technology.
I have nothing to do with religion nor cults, and if you were a little more observent you would have noticed that I put the word "God" enclosed in inverted comma's, why would I do this? You all seemed to have so much insight into my post, you tell me.

In conclusion(as opposed to jumping to conlusion) I would put forward that a great deal of vested interests are at work when deciding wether new scientific work is used for the benefit of ordinary people or the benefit of Establishment interests.

St_R I am serious, are you? To call something ridiculous with out reading it properly and no alternative hypothesis smacks of levity

Mr.Fuzzy It might as well be Higgs Bottom for all I care.

Duncan of Edinburgh Do you not think I have opened a door to this world discussion? And as you can(?)see I will not leave this technology(I have helped develope) alone.

Calum Crubag I think there is a rare intellegence in your reply, unfortunately I'm struggling to find it, though I notice your judicious use of inverted commas, I wonder what you could mean by there use? You are a lot like the catholic church, critising before you have fully comprehended what h
7

clarkkent,

daily planet 08/04/2008 22:08:53
has been written.

the blog cut me off!

And finally, if I had been some kind of Amish fruit cake no's 1-5 would have been absolutely correct in their replies, I would have been next on the blog............................. once i had turned on the waterwheel to power up my BBC Acorn.

the researcher in me thinks it'll be Man U.
the statitician in me thinks Liverpool
mathematical probability shies towards chelsea

As I'm a better researcher than a stats and maths person it must be the Manure.

Who said that science cannot be used to benefit the common man?
8

Calum Crubag,

08/04/2008 22:12:19
Clarkkent - Ah ken tae...

So after all this fuss about omnipresent grumpy auld guys in the sky wi white beards, 'god' turns out be a particle. Bit of an anti-climax. Maybe we shouldn't turn our backs on science afterall. I mean where would the catholic hypocrites get their pacemakers?
9

clarkkent,

krypton 08/04/2008 22:26:14
What about the proddy,yiddish,mullah,buddah and humanist hypocrites? and not forgetting the amish hypocrites(the worst kind), have I left out anybody? And while we're at it those atheists and agnostics can be a bit hypocritical too!!
10

Duncan in Edinburgh,

08/04/2008 22:41:18
#6 Perhaps part of the reason you are apparently being misunderstood is that your writing is very difficult to wade through. Can I recommend re-reading it yourself before hitting the post button, and perhaps ensuring that it is at least in coherent sentences.

As far as I can tell, in #1 you called particle physics one of the most pointless pursuits in the history of mankind. It is hardly unreasonable for readers to conclude that you are somewhat agin science.

Where I suspect we have common ground, if I have interpreted your later comment correctly, is that the media tend to be unhelpful when it comes to reporting science and holding it up to scrutiny. Too many snake-oil salesmen get into the papers, and too little fact.

But that hardly explains why you have posted this guff about being "on a precipice" as a result of the Large Hadron Collider and the efforts of the scientists who are using it.

What did I miss?
11

clarkkent,

batcave 09/04/2008 00:01:34
Duncan of Odinstown

Could it be that another part of the reason for your misunderstanding of my writing is that you are trying to read stuff in my writing that's just not there, therefore complicating it beyond reason.

Since when is Particle Physics all of science?

I express a fairly aimed opinion that Particle Physics is by self definition a "navel gazing exercise" by the scientific community and is a bit of a gravy train(the Cern collider being the perfect example). I must then be "somewhat agin science" as any reasonable reader might conclude. Ergo from your conclusion you must be a reasonable person.

Can you please quote the line where I state clearly we are on a precipice as direct result of the particle collider in Cern?

you are still commiting the classic act of intepreting a statement to fit into the point you wish to make.

I state clearly that "Failure to investigate and question many of the so called great technologies developed over the previous 200 years has brought us to the edge of the precipice we now find ourselves. Shame on you".
The comment is directed at the writer of the article(whom I presume takes the time to read the comments)not you. The writer is renforcing the continued uselessness of the establishment media in questioning, investigating and reporting on a scientific community which sucks in 300+ billion of public money globally, without any kind of proper audit of the benefits accrued. Shame on him and his ilk.

In the confines of a blog it doesn't pay to try and read between the lines, stick to the literal and avoid the ethereal. Any reasonable person would.

The "precipice" is the complete confusion and uncertainty over everything from Global warming(or not) to the effect (or not) of microwaves on health. We are all going to fry!!!!(or not)one way or another. The continued feeding of this confusion will lead to the dropping of imortant technologies and the continuation of useless(or dangerous)technologies.

Y
12

clarkkent,

Cern 09/04/2008 00:03:13
You didn't miss anything, but you did see a few things which were not there. A rare skill that you should try and develop further, perhaps the Scientific Community could benefit from this skill.
13

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

Newington 09/04/2008 01:25:31
clarkkent informs us:

"I have been involved in the developement of a recent technology myself"

Uhuh. I'll get to that in a second...

"and I am a trained researcher, statistician and mathematician."

Who cannot spell "particle".

"What annoys me most about establishment scientific bodies and the supporting establishment media is the failure to see beyond the end of their noses when it comes to the application of technological breakthrough"

So you've made a "breakthrough" that's off-the-wall wacky and a conspiracy of "establishment" scientists is preventing yougiving the world its benefits and your Nobel Prize.....

Go on. Do tell. Is it time travel? Antigravity? A new alphabet?

14

clarkkent,

utter pish 09/04/2008 03:32:05
Well done Friend of Fernando you've won your place in Nobel prize history

I research and highlight articles at the beginning of blogs, usually of a scientific nature, logging the statitical probability of how long it takes for some pedant to come on and win the complete argument, disproving even the most reasoned and controlled debate, due to the presence of one tiny spelling mistake.

I'm collating the data and applying it to a set of formulae which will then be reapplied to all known scientific documents written in the previous 2000 years. We hope to establish once and for all what is bull(or not).

The resultant paper will be surrendered to the Nobel Prize Commitee for consideration for the 2009 Nobel Give Us All PEACE prize.

I'd like to name the paper "Friend of Fernando the Pedants Pedant", with your permission of course. We were going to call it the "Al Fayed syndrome" but he let us down at the last minute and refused permission, telling us to "fugg off you members of the establishment"

we will pay you a small fee for your input, the rest of the prize money(we're a shoe in for a win) will be donated to the Edinburgh Festival fund for Ladyboy faceshaving. It's the best a man can do!
15

clarkkent,

mikeholmes 09/04/2008 03:55:05
I've been trying to hook you for ages now, I find your work facinating and acerbic and always worth a read. I like how you keep all those time-server's in edinburgh on their toes.
If there is someone spouting half-baked ideas somewhere in the ether, then you're there to turn up the heat and puncture their souffle. I like it, It's entertainment on a stick.

I have to admit to stealing some of your ripostes and paraphrasing them for my own use. I'm not a journalist or anything like that so i don't have those sharp writing skills. I'm more pisstake merchant though I do have my moments.

16

Proximaking,

Dundee 09/04/2008 10:35:26
Old hat rubbish. You don't need mass to explain the effects of mass. All you need is an information balance theory. At least Shell seem to think so. If you bang your head off the wall every time you look for mass surely it is time to rethink things. http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2008/01/06/crackpot-or-genius-has-a-shell-boffin-stumbled-on-a-scientific-breakthrough/ as I have said here a million times before. There is a lot of money tied up in "big science" but the little questions along the way were never answered it seems from the attached. All you need for existence it seems is self-consistency.
17

Duncan in Edinburgh,

09/04/2008 10:43:38
#11 I'm at a loss. What is it about particle physics that is "navel gazing"? Can you give me an example of a scientific pursuit which you do not consider to be so, so that I can try to understand your issue?

You appear to have a problem with the expense of some science. Is that your main objection? Are you in favour of cheap science?

Help me out here. Name me a scientific area which you consider worthwhile investing in, so that I can see why you pour such scorn on this one.
18

clarkkent,

eden 09/04/2008 11:44:35
Duncan the edinburgher


I can't keep up this dissection of every post I've made and explain it line by line. Do a bit of research yourself and come back to me. I've met 8 year olds with a better grip on science and better developed debating skills.

If you can't think of some worthwhile scientific areas to invest in then I'm at a loss. OK I give up, I bow to you sharp, incisive questioning and your clearly superior intellect.

I didn't say that Particle Physics is "naval gazing". What I actually stated was that "Particle Physics is by self definition a "navel gazing exercise" by the scientific community and is a bit of a gravy train(the Cern collider being the perfect example)."

By inserting the words "self" and "definition" I surmised that a perfectly reasonable person might work out that I was perhaps quoting the scientists themselves. Don't take my word for it, many of the papers and articles are available on various academic sites, feel free.

Try and reread a post before replying, this is becoming a bit tedious and, if you're making a point, at least give some sort of opposing argument. You never know I might change my mind and agree with you!

It'll save a bundle of time if you and I stop with the yes/no, up/down, in/out type of discussion, I don't have the stamina for it. There is no right or wrong when it comes to this subject only opinions and as we all know opinions are entirely subjective. Lets hear your thoughts on the matter......you do have some???


19

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

Newington 09/04/2008 11:46:18
#15: Well (blush) thanks for the compliment, but I'm not a journalist either but (quoting) just a concerned citizen like yourself, who never lost his childish sense of mischief.

#16: On the physics side of things. I've often been driven to the suspicion that we are in fact in a Matrix-style simulation and that it's being written on the hoof by a lazy programmer. Basically he gets up at lunchtime and discovers we've built a bigger collider. He then has to pull an all-nighter to write in a particle that's consistent with what we've worked out about the simulation so far.

Could be that this is the night he'll run out of coffee and pizza...

I'll call it "Fairly Bright but Tardy Design"...
20

Duncan in Edinburgh,

09/04/2008 11:51:44
#18 Oh stop it. How hard is it to understand that I consider particle physics to be worthwhile? And that it was your assertion that it wasn't worthwhile that started this discussion? And every time I ask you why you fail to answer.

I suspect that you haven't thought it through at all. Your opening post was full of invective and you have nothing whatsoever to back it up.
21

Calum Crubag,

09/04/2008 12:01:49
Clarkkunt has too much time on his hands... maybe he is the god particle?
22

Mr Fuzzy,

Edinburgh 09/04/2008 18:31:34
#1
Up until 200 years ago, all we knew about electromagnetism was that a lodestone or a magnetized needle immersed in water would always point in the same direction - people didn't even know that there were only two magnetic poles. Once we understood the mathematical theory, we could build loudspeakers, microphones, recording devices, electric motors, dynamos, radio transmitters and receivers, consequently we have mobile phones, satellite TV and GPS.

So far, our knowledge of the actual atomic level of gravity is still theory, and there aren't any other ways of performing experiments apart from using colliders as described in this article.
23

clarkkent,

kunt 09/04/2008 18:55:20
drunkan in edinbooger

Didn't I say its because Particle Physics was navel gazing(by waistrel free-loaders) costing almost 100 billion, which could have been spent on less worthy pursuits such as Malaria, Aids,Food Production, education for the poor etc, etc, etc, etc, etc......

clum ba'bag

I feel I'm in Groundhog day here, so the space/time continuum doesn't apply here(or here). Yes I think you're right, I may have too much time on my hands but at least I 'm spending it with You.......

FOF POO

I think you may have the synopsis for a really interesting cyberpunk novel there, follow that thread blogdriver. Who knows perhaps Keanu might give you a call!!!
24

clarkkent,

the matrix 09/04/2008 22:09:37
mr fuzzy

I'm stumped and you right, I have no answer to your post, when you boil it down to those perfectly formed simply constructed sentences.

The 3.5 billion people on this planet waiting for the existing technologies to improve their lot will have to just wait a while longer.
While 3 dozen of the greatest minds produced by Humanity can gain a little more understanding of the sub-atomic universe. This expansion of the pool of Knowledge is vitally important for the much needed improvement in the quality of loudspeakers, microphones, recording devices, electric motors, dynamos, radio transmitters and receivers, mobile phones, satellite TV and not forgetting GPS, how else would we find our way to the retail parks to buy all this stuff. Absolutely right on mate.

You haven't thought that one through have you? Mr. Fuzzy Wuzzy. Though neither has the rest of the western world (2bn), so you're in the majority(of sorts). Accordingly, by the indisputable rules of Democracy you are absolutely right. I must therfore defer to your superiority in this matter and give due jurisprudence on the matter.

What else can I do I do under the weight of such evidence.
25

Calum Crubag,

10/04/2008 22:46:05
Clunkclick- you'd like to spend time with me. Does the 'good' book allow that?
26

clarkkent,

the garden of england 10/04/2008 23:38:45
Cumbag

Absolutely, I know a number of "good" books that thoroughly recommends it!

Are we still on the same subject?
27

Robert,

Kirriemuir 14/04/2008 18:40:44
I subscribe to the premise expressed in submission #1. It is, indeed, an indictement on many whose vocabulary is void of the word altruism and I would lay the blame on academe and the culture created and perpetuated by the public school system. The sentiments expressed in the second paragraph lends support to the argument of the first. It is reassuring to discover someone with the perception and toughness to stand and be counted and to competently defend the argument. As another irreligious type it is manifest that the crucifixtion has a more profound secular meaning to those who have the preception to comprehend. ClarkKent's comment was not about science as such but rather the state of humanity and hence the final sentence 'Shame on you'. He has made an interesting but sad commentary and I too share his fears.
28

Kipling,

30/04/2008 01:20:11
I thought this particle collider was going to produce a black hole into which we'll all be swallowed. Is the above a shadow of things to come ?
29

clarkkent,

omega persius 2 04/05/2008 10:14:40
kipling

there is absolutely no scientific evidence to disprove your thought, one of the basic tenets of sub-atomic physics is the chain-reaction. Who is to say that once you start fracturing sub-atomic particles that it will stop just stop there? No amount of concrete and heavy metal will halt a chain reaction of the magnatude possible in the Cern collider, for every action there must be a reaction.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 

More Technology

More Technology >>

Today's Vote

Would you like to be linked to your neighbours through an intranet system?
Yes, it would keep the community spirit alive.
No, it encourages people to avoid meeting face to face.
No, it’ll give people the chance to gossip and moan.

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.