You've been pasting bs, that's not writing. There is no ' and hence'. The precision needed to find Higgs has no basis in non scientific precision tuning of the universe assertions. It's blatantly obvious assertions are not about precision. So you're suggesting all the time god was just a particle. That would at least be the most reasonable thing you've said.
Only in your alternate universe does what you are writing resemble anything but troll nonsense. here is reality... http://www.economist.com/node/21558248 "The constant gardener One problem is that, as it stands, the model requires its 20 or so constants to be exactly what they are to an uncomfortable 32 decimal places. Insert different values and the upshot is nonsensical predictions, like phenomena occurring with a likelihood of more than 100%. Nature could, of course, turn out to be this fastidious. But physicists have learned to take the need for such fine-tuning, as the precision fiddling is known in the argot, as a sign that something important is missing from their picture of the world." [/QUOTE]
I saw this in a comment on daily kos... So the Higgs Boson says to the priest: "Of course you can let me in, without me, you can't have mass."
Stu could you be more childish or more troll like? using 20 constants tuned to 32 decimals... allowed scientists to predict that if they spent billions on a collider they could find the higgs boson - providing the standard model was correct. Do you realize how fricken stupid you are to say that is like saying 2 plus 2 equals 3.
Mere assertion. There is nothing scientific whatsoever to confirm or even suggest anything is so called 'tuned' to any decimal places. Quite obviously, non scientific mere assertion would not do that. The Standard Model is incomplete, always has been, still is. In terms of The Scientific Model, incomplete has never been considered the same thing as correct. It provides for Higgs but does not confirm it. Finding Higgs extends TSM. It does not prove the existing model as it stands correct. The nature of Higgs, when it is known, may well not fit with The Standard Model as it stands. Trolls keep repeating the same thing while ignoring everything that's wrong with it. Just like you do. Childish is like claiming 2 plus 2 equals 3. Just like you do.
is all your science based on the 60s thought... "extends the model" extends it to what.? it was "extended" by professor higgs in the 60s. We all know it is incomplete... otherwise we might have a TOE.
jem, for the record, you are fukked up, you know that, right? Stu was resting quietly in his lair.....but noooooo.....you had to bring up Higgs Boson.... Why, jem, why??
regarding the fine tunings... you are arguing with the economist... and the dozens and dozens of top scientist who acknowledge the fine tuning of our constants. if you had half a science brain you would understand that when you take 20 constants to 32 decimal places and use those constants to predict the higgs boson. that is pretty impressive precision or tuning. http://www.economist.com/node/21558248 "The constant gardener One problem is that, as it stands, the model requires its 20 or so constants to be exactly what they are to an uncomfortable 32 decimal places. Insert different values and the upshot is nonsensical predictions, like phenomena occurring with a likelihood of more than 100%. Nature could, of course, turn out to be this fastidious. But physicists have learned to take the need for such fine-tuning, as the precision fiddling is known in the argot, as a sign that something important is missing from their picture of the world."
that is a very good question. I do not know if I love the argument, am procrastinating some very difficult marketing and hiring decisions or if I just love the subject matter.