tech

'Mystery' boson finding contradicts understanding of universe

16 Comments
By Pierre Celerier and Daniel Lawler

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2022 AFP

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

16 Comments
Login to comment

For example, it doesn't account for dark matter, which along with dark energy is thought to make up 95 percent of the universe. It also says that the universe should not have existed in the first place, because the Big Bang ought to have annihilated itself.

There have been predictions since the last century that physics had found all that needed to be known.

Good to know that there are many avenues for scientific inquiry still open.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

starpunkToday  09:09 am JST

Just when they think they have all the answers, God throws a cue ball. Note that for millions of years, man thought that there were five planets (other than Earth). The confirmation of the sometimes-visible distant planet Uranus in 1781 changed everything considerably.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Nobody in science ever thought they had all the answers. That's religion. If we had all the answers, we wouldn't need science.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Nobody in science ever thought they had all the answers. That's religion. If we had all the answers, we wouldn't need science.

No, that's not true. Science is great at figuring out how things were designed, are designed, how they work, etc. You know, when you use the good old scientific method where you can actually test things and validate/falsify your hypothesis.

But it is not so good at figuring out origins of things - how they came to be. This is because you can't run experiments to verify/falsify your hypotheses. And even when the evolutionary hypothesis runs into potentially falsifying data, they just tweak the theory to keep it alive - adjust to to try to account for the falsifying data - like junk DNA, vestigial organs, abiogenesis, Big Bang(lots of rescue devices are used to support this that cannot be tested like hyper-inflation, dark matter, etc.)

The Bible speaks more to origins and tells us the world was designed; it is orderly; there are scientific laws that are dependable. The world did have a beginning and will have an end.

But science assumes that God, if He even exists, was not involved in creation in any detectable way. All of evolutionary science is built on this belief - that cannot be tested, but is just assumed/believed to be true.

Thing is, if God does exist and was involved in the origin of things, then much of origins science is wrong from the get go. They are looking or answers where none exist. This is certainly a possibility and could potentially explain why they keep running into problems trying to put together their "theory of everything."

Some people prefer to place their faith in science to eventually explain everything without God, but there is no guarantee. Each person must look at the evidence and decide what to believe.

I have trouble understanding how codes, information(software for the brain with encoded information), scientific laws, efficient interdependent systems, irreducibly complex organs/abilities(ie flight), brains(most complex thing in existence), etc etc could come about by random forces, but then maybe I just don't have enough faith.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Follow the science

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Thing is, if God does exist and was involved in the origin of things,

Which God? Ra? Osiris? Horus? Odin? Loki? Frigg? Zeus? Hades? Pluto? Kali? Shiva? Amaterasu? Inari? Izanagi? Danu? Lugh? Gitche Manitou? Quetzalcoatl? Huitzilopochtli? Svarog? Allah? Yahweh?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

God throws a cue ball

Nope.

I have trouble understanding how codes, information(software for the brain with encoded information), scientific laws, efficient interdependent systems, irreducibly complex organs/abilities(ie flight), brains(most complex thing in existence), etc etc could come about by random forces, but then maybe I just don't have enough faith

Or enough knowledge.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

You think you know everything definitively and then you find out you don't. That's why many of these have the word "theory" attached. I don't believe in most of them anyway.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Thing is, if God does exist and was involved in the origin of things

Then I guess we'd be wondering about the origin of God. I think one thing neither science nor gods can explain is the cause of existence. But I'd love to be proved wrong.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@thedalailamalbifocals

You couldn't be any more misguided. Science pretends to provide answers to questions which are beyond our comprehension. Take for example the creation of the universe. Was it created by god? Oh no, it was the big bang. Ok then, how do you explain what caused the singularity to come into existence? Then what caused the big bang? And very importantly, how about Einstein's theory of relativity which kind of states light being the absolute speed of anything in the universe, a theory every scientist pledges allegiance to daily? The size of the universe means that the initial expansion must have been faster than the speed of light. Ahh, that's easy scientists say. In the infinitely small moments after the big bang the four forces of gravity, strong and weak nuclear force and electromagnetism hadn't been created yet. Oh yeah, right..... You know what that's called? Falsification. Science is all about falsification, nothing more , nothing less. Oh, and I worked as a pharmacologist for a long time so I am coming at this from a " science' point of view.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

how about Einstein's theory of relativity which kind of states light being the absolute speed of anything in the universe, a theory every scientist pledges allegiance to daily? The size of the universe means that the initial expansion must have been faster than the speed of light. 

I think the theory of relativity describes the absolute speed of light (or electro-magnetic waves) traveling through space. It doesn't cover the expansion of space itself which generally explains the increasing distances between objects such as galaxies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

 Science pretends to provide answers to questions which are beyond our comprehension. 

As I said before, if science explained everything we wouldn't need science.

Electricity was beyond our comprehension. Fire was beyond our comprehension.

Strawman arguments about the most extreme questions in science don't invalidate all the achievements in science so far. It is the same level of debate that pseudoscience nuts use.

Religions explain nothing because they are just pure fiction.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Science pretends to provide answers to questions which are beyond our comprehension

Extremely arrogant to think you know what is beyond our comprehension.

As someone with a background in medical science, I’m sure you’d agree it’s a good job people like Jenner and Pasteur didn’t share this attitude.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And very importantly, how about Einstein's theory of relativity which kind of states light being the absolute speed of anything in the universe, a theory every scientist pledges allegiance to daily

Ummm, no. The speed of light can perhaps be exceeded if one is able to distort the space-time continuum. With enough power that may be possible and space flight faster than the speed of light may indeed be very possible. A fission reactor, possible a future fusion reactor or perhaps something else may provide the necessary power. It is not a trivial amount of power to achieve this but it is theoretically possible. There are good minds in science and engineering exploring this now.

https://medium.com/the-infinite-universe/faster-than-light-travel-is-impossible-for-this-one-reason-4a07280b188

https://astronomy.com/news/2021/04/warp-drives-physicists-investigate-faster-than-light-space-travel

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Science pretends to provide answers to questions which are beyond our comprehension

If you were well grounded in the scientific process and knew the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law you would realize that statement is not true. Scientists offer up theories of how they think things in our universe work, but those theories live or die on how well, or poorly, they are supported by measurements taken of the physical world the theory seeks to describe. If the measurements match what the theory predicts then the theory is strengthened. If the measurements contradict the theory, one has to wonder if the theory is correct, or maybe the measurements were not accurate. This is an iterative process that goes on in some cases for centuries. Nobody was around for the formation of the Universe, or the formation of our Solar System so the best description we will ever have of these events are theories.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

TheDalaiLamasBifocalsApr. 8  03:30 pm JST

Thing is, if God does exist and was involved in the origin of things,

Which God? Ra? Osiris? Horus? Odin? Loki? Frigg? Zeus? Hades? Pluto? Kali? Shiva? Amaterasu? Inari? Izanagi? Danu? Lugh? Gitche Manitou? Quetzalcoatl? Huitzilopochtli? Svarog? Allah? Yahweh?

Many of the names you listed here are of the same deity, in various cultures, times and languages.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites