/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4845050

>In quantum physics, it was a Higgs-like particle that sparked the cosmic explosion.

Yes there is theoretical evidence.

>In other words, everything we see around us, including galaxies, stars, planets and us, owes its existence to the Higgs boson.

Yes there is theoretical evidence.

>Why is the universe so unsymmetrical and broken? When you calculate the masses of the subatomic particles like the electron, proton, neutrino or neutron, at first they seem almost random, displaying no rhyme or reason at all.

You took "broken" out of context. He means "broken" as in "spread out" in a seemingly stochastic web of matter and anti-matter.

TL;DR: Theoretical physics is not for high school physics students.

>yfw the guy you quoted is actually religious
Lol, oh well, there are lots of religious scientists believe it or not. It isn't a mental handicap ALL the time.

I'm off to work though, can't check back in until 5pm EST.

Keep this going. Stop trying to argue if you have nothing to contribute. Research the difference between a theory and a law first at least. In my field, I pretty much treat theories as if they are laws. It is definitely semantics, but an interesting topic on possibly the most important theory of our short lifetimes.

Hey guys, OP of this quoted thread here.

Glad to see it being brought back up for discussion. My tl;dr was a joke btw for people too lazy to read the whole quotation. But I do believe there is some truth to the idea. We finally have "proof" to explain the birth of the Universe and that our model has still held strong to another huge discovery. I'm not sure if we will ever have enough proof or data to remove the "theory" from Big Bang Theory though. We'll see, that would really get the religiousfags pissed off.

>>4844104

^ What he said. He beat me to it by 2 min.