/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4844451
Is the above right? Does the Higgs Boson give greater meaning to the Big Bang Theory to name it law?
I thought the Big Bang gave life to these particles. How could they precede it? It makes no sense.

>>4844452
Unless I'm misunderstanding something.

The difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law is semantics. Creationists and psuedo-science fanatics have caused confusion, in an attempt to discredit actual science simply because it's called a theory. I'm not even going to read your post because the tl;dr is so worthless.

>>4844468
I'd advise that you do because you missed the entire point of the post.

I was quoting someone else. That was a small question that I asked and you answered. There were bigger ones you left unaddressed

>>4844468
Actually, I retract that statement. You missed the entire point of the thread.

>>4844468
are you stupid? there is a big difference between 'theory' and 'law'.

>>4844468
umm theories get proven wrong all the time.

it's okay if you want to live your life by a 'possibility' though.

your just like a theist.

>>4844483
>>4844488
Guys, guys, guys. You are all missing the point of the thread.

Please read it before you comment.

>>4844468

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/WhatTheory.HTM

>The redefinition of "theory" seems to be largely driven by the abuse of the term "theory" at the hands of creationists. In response to the intellectual dishonesty of creationists, who equated "theory" with "hypothesis" or "conjecture" in regard to evolution, some scientists have begun trying to make an end run by redefining "theory" to mean something with a high degree of confirmation. But you don't counter scientific illiteracy and intellectual dishonesty with your own scientific illiteracy and intellectual dishonesty.

>>4844490
too deep 4 us

ask easier questions. your on /sci/ afterall

>>4844498

Thank you for the link but please stop.

It's not the point of the thread.

>Mr. Kaku, a professor of theoretical physics at CUNY

my sides are vibrating

>>4844502
>now mine are

but seriously..

since you're an argumentative son of a bitch, we'll take this in tiny babby steps

1) there was no "bang". No reputable scientist calls it a bang. Bangs are noise, eg - BANG !! -. There is no air in space to carry sound, so no bangs either.

Also, we don't use the word "explosion". When we talk about the creation event in words, we will say something like, there was an explosion-like event, or a rapid expansion of time/space.

As for the rest of the "theory" it's not a guess, it's not a supposition or a hypothesis, it's a fucking FACT that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate and we KNOW this because Hubble and astronomy.

the name "big bang theory" was originally an insult to the idea. it was making fun of it.

kind of like how people don't realize Schrodinger cat is a thought experiment against Schrodinger, not an illustration of anything real.

>CERN's collider could lead to the discovery of unseen dimensions, parallel universes, and possibly the "strings" in string theory

>>4844524
>argumentative son of a bitch
Nobody has posted anything worth arguing over yet. But, sure.

>Bangs are noise
Yeah, yeah. Semantics. Waste of time.

>FACT that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate

That's true. Nobody has ever questioned that. The origin of the universe is still a theory and the point of this discussion.

What a wasted post. But thanks.

>>4844540
Explain.

>>4844541
> The origin of the universe is still a theory
> There is no here, here

you sir, are retarded and should lay off the booze

Jews in my science! The Jews they pervert and mock Science! The Hollywood Cabal must pay!

>>4844615
he meant the theory of how our universe began. stop being purposely retarded

>>4844667
there is no theory of how the universe began, we're not even sure it 'began' - it may have been running all the time, and this is a fluctuation

also, this is 4chan. suck my dick

>>4844451
guys big bang

XDDDDDD

>>4844615
He is correct though, theoretic bullshit leads to more theoretic bullshit.

The same guys that were proposing alternate dimensions and universes are the same ones celebrating. Nothing has changed.

I feel like /sci/ IRL is a bunch of nerds trying to confuse people and then circle jerking their own egos by inventing some bullshit theory

it's an effect without a cause.

the cause itself, outside of religion, is metaphysical, epistemological, and philosophical in nature.

It seems to be beyond observation and measurement because it precedes the referent domains in which it can be measured.

>>4844998
That is science in general.

Higgs particle hype aside, one of the most popular theories is that two dimensions overlapped into the same plain of existence, setting off a cosmic "atomic explosion".

>>4844998
we didnt invent the big bang theory

>>4845013
i meant Science in general not just this board /sci/

>>4845013
Infact it was the CBS

>>4845016
gonna need the source on this one, Jim

>>In quantum physics, it was a Higgs-like particle that sparked the cosmic explosion.
>>In other words, everything we see around us, including galaxies, stars, planets and us, owes its existence to the Higgs boson.
>>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.

Inane conjecture. I feel that merely reading that post has made me dumber.

>>4845025
In what way?
He is taken quite seriously in /sci/.

I'd love to hear an average mind like yours challenge it.

>>4845028
I'm not sure which part of "inane conjecture" is hard to understand. Let me know.

>>4845036
In what way was it an "inane conjecture"?

Not a difficult question. You wouldn't happen to be the mod that bans for "inane trolling", would you?
It seems to be your favourite word.

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.

>>4845040
Alright, I'll spell it out for you.

>>In quantum physics, it was a Higgs-like particle that sparked the cosmic explosion.
There is no physical or theoretical evidence for this.

>>In other words, everything we see around us, including galaxies, stars, planets and us, owes its existence to the Higgs boson.
There is no physical or theoretical evidence for this.

>>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.
Broken? How is the universe broken? Also, the mass of a subatomic particle is experimentally ascertained, and I can assure you that it is not random.

TL;DR: Inane conjecture is inane conjecture.

>yfw the guy you quoted is actually religious

What now, nasafag?

>>4844452
>give greater meaning to the Big Bang Theory to name it law
lolwut

>>4845050
The theoretical evidence is within quantum physics, sonny.

It is their theory. Actually, the words 'theoretical evidence' is quite the oxymoron. If there were evidence, it wouldn't be a theory so much a law, would it?

Inane post, is inane post.

Also, mfw OPs initial questions havent even been addressed yet.
>>4844452
>>4844452
>>4844452
>>4844452

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.

>>4845055
It's more than semantics in practicality. Many theories treated as law for practical purposes have been subsequently debunked.

>>4845056
I think you should look up the difference between the words "theory" and "untestable hypothesis", it might do you some good.

>>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.

>>4845050
Just to step in to this little disagreement, i think he states that it "seems" at first random. He doesn't actually believe this. He wasn't quoted in full.

Mr. Kaku isn't someone to shrug at, either.

>>4845067

>>4845062
>yfw almost all theoretical physicists are religious

shouldn't you be at work with 'NASA', ahem ahem.

>>4845074

Yeah, sorry, I'm 30 minutes late...sorry taxpayers!!!

Haha, peace.

>>4845074
>implying you believe he works with NASA

why are you all so gullible?

>>4845077
>dubs don't lie

I was being sarcastic.