(CNN) -- Scientists say they are almost certain they have proven the existence of the Higgs boson -- a never-before-seen subatomic particle long thought to be a fundamental building block of the universe.

Researchers at the Large Hadron Collider under the Alps are unveiling their latest results on the so-called "God particle" at an eagerly awaited seminar at the CERN particle physics laboratory in Geneva, Switzerland.

Experts say finding the elusive particle would rank as one of the top scientific achievements of the past 50 years.
What is the Higgs boson?

The Standard Model of particle physics lays out the basics of how elementary particles and forces interact in the universe. But the theory crucially fails to explain how particles actually get their mass.

U.S. scientists 'closer' to Higgs particle The Number: Search for the God Particle

Particles, or bits of matter, range in size and can be larger or smaller than atoms. Electrons, protons and neutrons, for instance, are the subatomic particles that make up an atom.
Scientists believe that the Higgs boson is the particle that gives all matter its mass.

Experts know that elementary particles like quarks and electrons are the foundation upon which all matter in the universe is built. They believe the elusive Higgs boson gives the particles mass and fills in one of the key holes in modern physics.

How does the Higgs boson work?

The Higgs boson is part of a theory first proposed by physicist Peter Higgs and others in the 1960s to explain how particles obtain mass.
The theory proposes that a so-called Higgs energy field exists everywhere in the universe. As particles zoom around in this field, they interact with and attract Higgs bosons, which cluster around the particles in varying numbers.

Higgs boson is the last missing piece of our current understanding of the most fundamental nature of the universe.

Imagine the universe like a party. Relatively unknown guests at the party can pass quickly through the room unnoticed; more popular guests will attract groups of people (the Higgs bosons) who will then slow their movement through the room.

The speed of particles moving through the Higgs field works much in the same way. Certain particles will attract larger clusters of Higgs bosons -- and the more Higgs bosons a particle attracts, the greater its mass will be.

Why is finding the Higgs boson so important?

While finding the Higgs boson won't tell us everything we need to know about how the universe works, it will fill in a huge hole in the Standard Model that has existed for more than 50 years, according to experts.

"The Higgs boson is the last missing piece of our current understanding of the most fundamental nature of the universe," Martin Archer, a physicist at Imperial College in London, told CNN.

"Only now with the LHC [Large Hadron Collider] are we able to really tick that box off and say 'This is how the universe works, or at least we think it does'."

"It's not the be all and end all -- but in terms of what can we say practically about the world and how the world is, it actually tells us a lot."

Gordon Kane, director of the Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics, added that finding evidence of the Higgs boson would be a "very wonderful success of science and of people for four centuries."

Why is the Higgs boson called the "God particle?"

The popular nickname for the elusive particle was created for the title of a book by Nobel Prize winning physicist Leon Lederman -- reportedly against his will, as Lederman has said he wanted to call it the "Goddamn Particle" because "nobody could find the thing."

"'God particle' is a nickname I don't really like," says Archer. "It's nothing to do with religion -- the only (theoretical) similarity is you're seeing something that's a field that's everywhere, in all spaces."

How are scientists searching for the Higgs boson?

For the past eighteen months scientists have searched for the Higgs boson by smashing protons together at high energy in the $10 billion Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland.

If we don't see [Higgs], it means the universe is more complicated than we thought.

Inside the LHC, which is located 328 feet underground in a 17-mile tunnel and is the most powerful particle accelerator ever built, high speed proton collisions generate a range of even smaller particles that scientists sift through in search of a signal in the data suggesting the existence of the Higgs boson.

"You're just hoping that somewhere in these collisions that you see something ... some sort of a statistical bump," says Archer.

If Higgs bosons exist, they are elusive, popping up and then disappearing again quickly. It means, says Archer, that scientists at the LHC will only be able to observe their decaying remnants.

It has taken years for scientists to narrow down the range of mass in which they believed the Higgs boson could exist -- but during the past year a statistical bump suggests they're on the right track.

"Now they're starting to get a bump, the scientists should be able to get that result more and more," says Archer.

What if scientists don't find the Higgs boson?

The general consensus among physics academics is that the Higgs field and boson exists, according to Archer.

"It just makes sense within the framework that we've got everything set up in, given that everything else that we can describe and we can see seems to be described in this simple way," says Archer.

Nearly every scientist believes that the Large Hadron Collider will either prove or disprove the existence of the Higgs boson once and for all -- so if the LHC doesn't find it, it doesn't exist, experts say.

Martin Archer believes a failure to find the Higgs boson would be even more exciting than discovering the elusive particle.

"If we don't see it, it actually means that the universe at the most fundamental level is more complicated than we thought," says Archer, "and therefore maybe the way we've been attacking physics isn't right.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/13/world/europe/higgs-boson-q-and-a/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

I don't know if its just me or all of the above is in fact incredibly boring.

Deep Sight:

I don't know if its just me or all of the above is in fact incredibly boring.

Boring or just scary to you? The fact that we may be on the verge of gleaming a new understanding of the universe is certain to be unsettling to many. old ideas and paradigms may fall and people's comfort zones may shatter. But dont worry, Its just human nature. I feel the same way when newer models of mercedes benz roll out, simply I had not finished my lover affair with the previous model. It takes me a while before I begin to appreciate the finer blend of beauty and functions in the newer models.
Take heart all you theists
.

Deep Sight:

I don't know if its just me or all of the above is in fact incredibly boring.

Not sure I want to read what you pasted above. That would probably be boring. But when that professor fellow was explaining it on the radio this morning, it was all so lucid and interesting.

plaetton:

Boring or just scary to you? The fact that we may be on the verge of gleaming a new understanding of the universe is certain to be unsettling to many. old ideas and paradigms may fall and people's comfort zones may shatter. But dont worry, Its just human nature. I feel the same way when newer models of mercedes benz roll out, simply I had not finished my lover affair with the previous model. It takes me a while before I begin to appreciate the finer blend of beauty and functions in the newer models.
Take heart all you theists
.

I wouldn't say this at all. There is nothing to scare theists about this Higgs Boson thing. Nothing.

plaetton:

Boring or just scary to you?

GBAM !!!

MyJoe:
I wouldn't say this at all. There is nothing to scare theists about this Higgs Boson thing. Nothing.

Unless MyJoe speaks for all theists, I'd suggest a revision of the above statement.

@ Plaetton and Jayriginal, you guys are too damn funny. What on earth does the discovery or non discovery of that particle have to do with the existence or non existence of God?

You see, these are knee jerk reactions on your part, and they confirm the innuendo i was making in my one line OP. I knew very well that that innuendo would be lost on most, as it has on you both.

Deep Sight:
@ Plaetton and Jayriginal, you guys are too damn funny. What on earth does the discovery or non discovery of that particle have to do with the existence or non existence of God?

You see, these are knee jerk reactions on your part, and they confirm the innuendo i was making in my one line OP. I knew very well that that innuendo would be lost on most, as it has on you both.

You are trying to be clever by half. It wont fly.

What if I told you I find it "boring" as well ?

EDIT:
Just so its clear, I did not mention god and neither did Plaetton.

So, "God" ?

Clever by half? Nah. It truly escaped you then.

I was referring to the lousy fact that some people repeatedly conflate the whats and hows with the whys and wherefores.

As crude example, a person who discovers exactly what makes a car work cannot for that reason conclude that it had no maker. It is a repeated trend amongst baby atheists; the assumption that discovering nature's secrets renders nature self existent.

Boring? On the contrary I find this news quite exciting and intriguing.

Deep Sight:
Clever by half? Nah. It truly escaped you then.

I was referring to the lousy fact that some people repeatedly conflate the whats and hows with the whys and wherefores.

As crude example, a person who discovers exactly what makes a car work cannot for that reason conclude that it had no maker. It is a repeated trend amongst baby atheists; the assumption that discovering nature's secrets renders nature self existent.

Lol, you are the one chasing shadows. Verbal gymnastics wont save you my brother. You're the one who missed it.

emöfine2: Boring? On the contrary I find this news quite exciting and intriguing.

Its significant news but I prefer to "Siddon look" (with apologies to late Bola Ige) until the data is fully collated and a more or less stable statement of fact is released on this issue.
Thats why my "boring" is in quotes.

emöfine2: Boring? On the contrary I find this news quite exciting and intriguing.

not with respect to atheistic / theistic discourses. My point is that many ill schooled people imagine that this has any bearing on the question of the existence of God. It doesn't.

The fact that even my dear and respected Plaetton would imagine that this is an issue for any theist - and chorused by Jayriginal - just seals my point. As a physiscts issue, its interesting, just as surely as dicovering the atom was. By boring, i mean that it is irrelevant to theistic / atheistic debates. Its just the same thing as if, at the discovery of the atom, anyone thereby imagined that that posed a theistic problem.

The scientist looking for this elusive particle hope to understand how matter is held together and also to understand what role it played at the beginnings of our universe. Given that theists have already claimed to have the answer to those questions, the dicovery of the higss boson particle, may, in time, offer scientific conclusions that may shatter long held belief that only a conscious intelligent being could be pulling the strings of the universe.

If In the course of their studies, they conclude that particles of matter are capable, under certain conditions,of springing up from what we call vacuum(energy in potential),then we athiests can say with scientific conviction, that the universe created itself or is self existent, similar to the popular idea that god created himself or is self-existent .

The above falls apart for the simple reason that there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum anywhere observed in the universe - ever. Dont take my word for it, research it.

As such, your surmise fails.

^^^^^
That was exactly my point. You missed the words in bracket.

.

.

where did the energy come from?

Deep Sight:
Clever by half? Nah. It truly escaped you then.

I was referring to the lousy fact that some people repeatedly conflate the whats and hows with the whys and wherefores.

As crude example, a person who discovers exactly what makes a car work cannot for that reason conclude that it had no maker. It is a repeated trend amongst baby atheists; the assumption that discovering nature's secrets renders nature self existent.

@deepsight
Friend, following ur post so far on naira land and this thread inclusive.
And the thread on love ur neighbor as urself. That u politely advice martian to be cautious with his opinion.

I cant help but pick u out to my knowledge as the most honest atheist on nairaland,
additionally, u line of thinking is on the 3D plane. (deepsight indeed)

Pls. Keep it up and dont change for the garlary.
Thanks and peace.

"Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy."

"There is a strange ring of feeling and emotion in these reactions [of scientists to evidence that the universe had a sudden beginning]. They come from the heart whereas you would expect the judgments to come from the brain. Why? I think part of the answer is that scientists cannot bear the thought of a natural phenomenon which cannot be explained, even with unlimited time and money. There is a kind of religion in science; it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the Universe. Every event can be explained in a rational way as the product of some previous event; every effect must have its cause, there is no First Cause. … This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized."

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.".......Robert Jastrow (American astronomer, physicist, cosmologist and leading NASA scientist)
[b][/b]

plaetton: The scientist looking for this elusive particle hope to understand how matter is held together and also to understand what role it played at the beginnings of our universe. Given that theists have already claimed to have the answer to those questions, the dicovery of the higss boson particle, may, in time, offer scientific conclusions that may shatter long held belief that only a conscious intelligent being could be pulling the strings of the universe.

If In the course of their studies, they conclude that particles of matter are capable, under certain conditions,of springing up from what we call vacuum(energy in potential),then we athiests can say with scientific conviction, that the universe created itself or is self existent, similar to the popular idea that god created himself or is self-existent .

understanding how matter is held together will in turn invalidate the the existence of an the creator? i think that statement is a grave fallacy indeed, knowing what hold say a bolt joint together can hardly be evidence for the non existence of the bolt maker can it? I think a lot of you atheist guys hold wrong assertions to be evidence for your disbelief! knowing the role something played does explain the all important question of the Universe waking up one day and decided to explode out of nothing for no reason . . .

Da Mayor[b:
]"Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world[/b]. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy."

"There is a strange ring of feeling and emotion in these reactions [of scientists to evidence that the universe had a sudden beginning]. They come from the heart whereas you would expect the judgments to come from the brain. Why? I think part of the answer is that scientists cannot bear the thought of a natural phenomenon which cannot be explained, even with unlimited time and money. There is a kind of religion in science; it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the Universe. Every event can be explained in a rational way as the product of some previous event; every effect must have its cause, there is no First Cause. … This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized."
"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.".......Robert Jastrow (American astronomer, physicist, cosmologist and leading NASA scientist)
[/b]

Sorry mate, but your write up is full of contraditcions. You even have contradictions in a sentence.
First,science uses observation,experimentation and analysis to gain facts and then make conclusions thereof. science is about questions and discovery and no scientist goes into any study with pre-convieved notions of what the results should be. The scientific method has a filtration process that prevents a dogmatic attachments to scientific issues.
Theology, on the other hand, claims to have conclusions of everthing and then makes up, amends, and edits facts and fables to fit their conclusions. Do you dispute this?
And yes every phenomena has a rational explaination, even if that explaination has not been articulated due to insufficient knowledge on the subject. We explain what we know and [b]we ask questions and investigate what we do not know.

That we do not know something at this level of our civilization does not mean that we cannot ever know that thing. Only very narrow minded individuals would say that something cannot be known.
Just imagine what we know today compared to 300yrs ago.

vedaxcool:

understanding how matter is held together will in turn invalidate the the existence of an the creator? i think that statement is a grave fallacy indeed, knowing what hold say a bolt joint together can hardly be evidence for the non existence of the bolt maker can it? I think a lot of you atheist guys hold wrong assertions to be evidence for your disbelief! knowing the role something played does explain the all important question of the Universe waking up one day and decided to explode out of nothing for no reason . . .

No one ever said so.
Understanding how matter is held together may shed more light on how the universe began and forces(known and unknown) that made it possible. Now, for theologians who say they already have the answers, I expect them, as has always been the case, to be nervous. It is just human nature.

But what is your definition of a creator? Who or what is the creator, and ofcourse, who could have created such a creator? I continue to say that it is absolutely absurd [/b]to say that there must have been a creator who created everything, [b]BUT, the creator first had to create himself or is self-existent(whatever the hell that means).

If the creator can be self created and self-existent, why the hell can the universe not also be self-created and self-existent?

plaetton:

If the creator can be self created and self-existent, why the hell can the universe not also be self-created and self-existent?

Because the universe is subject to process. Whatever it's state, there is always a prior state.

Can Non-existence be considered a state though? Too much plaintain in my belly at the moment. I'm feeling sleepy.

@Vedaxcool:

Have you ever considered for one second, that there might just be a singularity and that the self-created, self-existent, immutable god and the universe are one [/b]and the same? And that the big ba.ng was just a [b]transition from pure energy to physical matter?
Does that not make a lot more sense?
It sure does to me.

plaetton: . . . no scientist goes into any study with pre-conceived notions of what the results should be.

Can you thump your chest with certainty and say that there are no scientists who absolutely and adamantly reject even the remotest possibility of a spiritual cause of phenomena?

Is it not the case that the vast majority of western scientists would be adamantly opposed to even countenancing such a possibility in their investigations?

Has it not been our joint experience even here on NL, that even mentioning such a possibility will result in basket-loads of mockery from adamantly materialist "scientific" apologists?

Was it not you who once said, in a given thread, that the scenario whereby one closes one's mind to any possibility is close minded?

Is it not true that many "scientists" minds are absolutely closed to the possibility of a spiritual cause and angle to this existence?

Is it not also true that the totality of human existence, experience and consciousness, does not warrant such a posture to the possibility?

Theology, on the other hand, claims to have conclusions of everthing and then makes up, amends, and edits facts and fables to fit their conclusions.

Are you sure that there are not well recorded cases of scientists who have embarrassingly done same?

plaetton:

No one ever said so.

In your very first post, you clearly insinuated so: do not withdraw from it.

Understanding how matter is held together may shed more light on how the universe began and forces(known and unknown) that made it possible.

And such forces definitely exclude the spiritual?

Now, for theologians who say they already have the answers, I expect them, as has always been the case, to be nervous. It is just human nature.

Nervous at what exactly? You are annoyingly repeating the irritating notion that made me open this thread. Who was nervous when the atom was discovered?

What is there in the discovery of any particle to make any theist nervous?

Honestly, I still see knee jerk reactions here.

It is dumbfounding how anyone will imagine that his discovery of how something works poses a theistic problem. Science has been discovering how things work throughout the ages and will continue to do so. How does that answer the eternal question: why something instead of nothing? How does that resolve the sudden expansion of the universe from a dot?

But what is your definition of a creator?

What is your definition of a universe.

Who or what is the creator, and ofcourse, who could have created such a creator?

What is a universe, and who could have created such a universe?

I continue to say that it is absolutely absurd [/b]to say that there must have been a creator who created everything, [b]BUT, the creator first had to create himself or is self-existent(whatever the hell that means).

I continue to say that it is absolutely absurd [/b]to say that there must have been a universe which created everything, [b]BUT, the universe first had to create itself or is self-existent(whatever the hell that means).

If the creator can be self created and self-existent, why the hell can the universe not also be self-created and self-existent?

If the universe can be self created and self-existent, why the hell can the creator not also be self-created and self-existent?

Point: Every single question you pose against a self existent creator can be posed against a self existent universe.

And at all events: the universe, for the umpteenth time: had a beginning, and is demonstrably finite and mutable and as such could not be self-existent.

Pastor AIO:

Because the universe is subject to process.

Pefect. B[b]a[/b]ng on point.

I am not sure that either Plaetton, Jayriginal or persons such as thehomer or Idehn will ever grasp this exceedingly simple and SELF EVIDENT explanation.

plaetton:

No one ever said so.
Understanding how matter is held together may shed more light on how the universe began and forces(known and unknown) that made it possible. Now, for theologians who say they already have the answers, I expect them, as has always been the case, to be nervous. It is just human nature.

But what is your definition of a creator? Who or what is the creator, and ofcourse, who could have created such a creator? I continue to say that it is absolutely absurd [/b]to say that there must have been a creator who created everything, [b]BUT, the creator first had to create himself or is self-existent(whatever the hell that means).

If the creator can be self created and self-existent, why the hell can the universe not also be self-created and self-existent?

U said so clearly the bold indicated such except offcourse u words means different things to you, you argument is an absolute fallacy because it mistakes better understanding to be equivalent to cause, the fact remains the Creator made them the way they are, whether u say it will shed more light on the origin of the universe or not is neither here nor there, the ultimate fact remains it does not prove that there is no God! You mistake what theologians say, is God created the world, they do not explain how he did it! Now to claim religion says explains how the universe came about to the minutest details remains not true.

U know u atheist (are u one) make the strangest reasoning/argument, u emotionally ask who created the creator yet have you that deny the creator ask urself who created everything? We theist account for the physical universe by logically attributing it to a creator u illogically claim it came out of nothing in essence nothing exploded for no reason whatsoever! U are the ones that makes illogical arguments. We can say the creator evidently was not created because we do not conceive the creator with respect to physical laws we humans use to understand our universe!

And truly their finding the goddam particle cannot effect my beliefs in any little way possible it will only make me further cherish my Lord and creator the more!

vedaxcool: you argument is an absolute fallacy because it mistakes better understanding to be equivalent to cause,

Honestly, this summarizes everything I am trying to say perfectly.

plaetton: @Vedaxcool:

Have you ever considered for one second, that there might just be a singularity and that the self-created, self-existent, immutable god and the universe are one [/b]and the same? And that the big ba.ng was just a [b]transition from pure energy to physical matter?
Does that not make a lot more sense?
It sure does to me.

It does not make much of a sense or are u a pantheist? There many theories that concieve the universe as being a part of god some claim it is an extension of him and many as such, the fact remains they do no deny his existence, I believe they must have been an organizer for the universe to be the way it became coherent cause nothing exploding for no reason and then arranging itself to become something makes no sense?

vedaxcool:

It does not make much of a sense or are u a pantheist?

HE IS.