Evolution Just Got Harder to Defend

Prior to discovering the Higgs particle The Standard Model predicted it should be found somewhere within a comparatively broad range. It was discovered at the lower end of that range.
Quantum calculations still require a mass greatly higher than the range in which it was discovered.

It is untrue to say "the extreme fine tuning of the standard model of physics was proven"



Nevertheless, there maybe some hope for your "Creator" yet.
A recent Sighting at CERN's Large Hadron Collider shows The Standard Model of the Flying Spaghetti Monster in His Holy Raw Form (Pasta Be Upon Him) noodling with the Universe at particle level.

iu
 
so it as found in the range it was predicted and you bring in a technical point about quantum calculations and then make up some bullshit about it no confirming the fine tunings.

your going to have to link to some real scientists to prove that point.


Prior to discovering the Higgs particle The Standard Model predicted it should be found somewhere within a comparatively broad range. It was discovered at the lower end of that range.
Quantum calculations still require a mass greatly higher than the range in which it was discovered.

It is untrue to say "the extreme fine tuning of the standard model of physics was proven"



Nevertheless, there maybe some hope for your "Creator" yet.
A recent Sighting at CERN's Large Hadron Collider shows The Standard Model of the Flying Spaghetti Monster in His Holy Raw Form (Pasta Be Upon Him) noodling with the Universe at particle level.

iu
 
I don't have the time today to find it in simple language you will understand... but here is proof of what I have been saying. There are myraid articles explaining this is more detail.


https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160809-what-no-new-particles-means-for-physics/

New Hope

Many particle theorists now acknowledge a long-looming possibility: that the mass of the Higgs boson is simply unnatural — its small value resulting from an accidental, fine-tuned cancellation in a cosmic game of tug-of-war — and that we observe such a peculiar property because our lives depend on it. In this scenario, there are many, many universes, each shaped by different chance combinations of effects. Out of all these universes, only the ones with accidentally lightweight Higgs bosons will allow atoms to form and thus give rise to living beings. But this “anthropic” argument is widely disliked for being seemingly untestable.
 
The Standard Model predicts a field now known as the Higgs field.
The Standard Model did not and does not predict a mass for the Higgs particle.
So your comment that "the extreme fine tuning of the standard model of physics was proven"....is completely untrue.

The mass region or search area was not predicted. CERN ran numerous trials over many years over a wide range.
So your comment "Most recently the extreme fine tuning of the standard model of physics was proven at CERN" is completely untrue.

The article is not proof of anything much except that the author favors multiverse, so he's talking that book. As he says, there are many physicists who would disagree.

Non of it makes your statements any the less untrue.

The so called 'fine tuning' you mean is anthropocentric thinking and there is no science to validate it.
 
why are you bullshitting about science. I already showed this too you.. Plane as day. It was predicted by the standard model and they found it.
the standard model is extermely finely tuned. I have proven that already.

so I don't know what the hell you are trying to be here... other than a troll clown.


https://home.cern/topics/higgs-boson

On 4 July 2012, the ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN's Large Hadron Collider announced they had each observed a new particle in the mass region around 126 GeV. This particle is consistent with the Higgs boson predicted by the Standard Model.
 
Last edited:
vaseontable_v3.png




Well, the answer is #3. There it was, just hanging there.

Somehow I suspect you don’t believe me. Or at least, if you do believe me, you probably are assuming there must be some complicated explanation that I’m about to give you as to how this happened. It can’t possibly be that two young kids were playing wildly in the room and somehow managed to get the vase into this extremely precarious position just by accident, can it? For the vase to end up just so — not firmly on the table, not falling off the table, but just in between — that’s … that’s not natural!

There must (mustn’t there?) be an explanation.

Maybe there was glue on the side of the table and the vase stuck to it before falling off? Maybe one of the kids was hiding behind the table and holding the vase there as a practical joke on his mom? Maybe her husband had somehow tied a string around the vase and attached it to the table, or to the ceiling, so that the vase couldn’t fall off? Maybe the table and vase are both magnetized somehow…?

Something so unnatural as that can’t just end up that way on its own… especially not in a room with two young children playing rough and throwing things around.

The Unnatural Nature of the Standard Model

Well. Now let’s turn to the Standard Model, combined with Einstein’s theory of gravity.


Fig. 2: Imagine a lot of different possible universes, each one described by equations similar to our own universe, but with small adjustments.

I want you to imagine a universe much like our own, described by a complete set of equations — a “theory”, in theoretical-physics speak — much like the Standard Model (plus gravity). To keep things simple, let’s say this universe even has all the same elementary particles and forces as our own. The only difference is that the strengths of the forces, and the strengths with which the Higgs field interacts with other known particles and with itself (which in the end determines how much mass the known particles have) are a little bit different, say by 1%, or 5%, or maybe even up to 50%. In fact, let’s imagine ALL such universes… all universes described by Standard Model-like equations in which the strengths with which all the fields and particles interact with each other are changed by up to 50%. What will the worlds described by these slightly different equations (shown in a nice big pile in Figure 2) be like?

Among those imaginary worlds, we will find three general classes, with the following properties.

  1. In one class, the Higgs field’s average value will be zero; in other words, the Higgs field is OFF. In these worlds, the Higgs particle will have a mass as much as ten thousand trillion (10,000,000,000,000,000) times larger than it does in our world. All the other known elementary particles will be massless (up to small caveats I’ll explain elsewhere). In particular, the electron will be massless, and there will be no atoms in these worlds.
  2. In a second class, the Higgs field is FULL ON. The Higgs field’s average value, and the Higgs particle’s mass, and the mass of all known particles, will be as much as ten thousand trillion (10,000,000,000,000,000) times larger than they are in our universe. In such a world, there will again be nothing like the atoms or the large objects we’re used to. For instance, nothing large like a star or planet can form without collapsing and forming a black hole.
  3. In a third class, the Higgs field is JUST BARELY ON. It’s average value is roughly as small as in our world — maybe a few times larger or smaller, but comparable. The masses of the known particles, while somewhat different from what they are in our world, at least won’t be wildly different. And none of the types of particles that have mass in our own world will be massless. In some of those worlds there can even be atoms and planets and other types of structure. In others, there may be exotic things we’re not used to. But at least a few basic features of such worlds will be recognizable to us.
Now: what fraction of these worlds are in class 3? Among all the Standard Model-like theories that we’re considering, what fraction will resemble ours at least a little bit?

The answer? A ridiculously, absurdly tiny fraction of them (Figure 3). If you chose a universe at random from among our set of Standard Model-like worlds, the chance that it would look vaguely like our universe would be spectacularly smaller than the chance that you would put a vase down carelessly on a table and end up putting it right on the edge of disaster, just by accident.

much more at the link...


https://profmattstrassler.com/artic...ics-basics/the-hierarchy-problem/naturalness/
 
For goodness sake.

What are you trying to not understand now.

and didn't you notice, he's building up to possible (scientific!) solutions to the currently unknown?
"Solutions to the Naturalness Problem
On purely logical grounds, a couple of qualitatively different types of solutions to this problem come to mind. [To be continued…
]"

Honestly your problem must be your irrational desire to misinterpret everything you see toward a "Creator".

So Riddle me this...
If you've just read that an "unnatural" universe "can’t just end up that way on its own…"
....how can an unnatural "Creator" just end up that way on its own...
to "fine tune" it!?
 
Last edited:
why are you bullshitting about science. I already showed this too you.. Plane as day. It was predicted by the standard model and they found it.
the standard model is extermely finely tuned. I have proven that already.

No you haven't. An analogy would be The Standard Model predicted salt in the sea. It did not predict how much or exactly where salt would be found.
Cern did a wide beam search for Higgss or whatever particle would fit the bill. They found it around a particular area by sweeping the sea , in the analogy. There may be more similar particles or even more new ones yet.
The Standard Model remains incomplete and does not give measurements in critical areas which are the big problems physicists work to explain.

That is nothing like "the standard model is extremely finely tuned". It's absurd and completely untrue to say it is.

I
 
no one ever stated the standard model is complete. that is irrelevant to the discussion of whether the standard model of physics is extremely fine tuned and whether the higgs boson predicted by the standard model was found by CERN.

by the way your analogy is way off. we have learned there is no point in getting into an argument about semantics. So I won't let you hide your lies behind wide beam or tight beam... that is irrelevant. The point is the standard model predicted the Higgs. It was found and it confirmed the extreme fine tuning of the constants of our universe.


No you haven't. An analogy would be The Standard Model predicted salt in the sea. It did not predict how much or exactly where salt would be found.
Cern did a wide beam search for Higgss or whatever particle would fit the bill. They found it around a particular area by sweeping the sea , in the analogy. There may be more similar particles or even more new ones yet.
The Standard Model remains incomplete and does not give measurements in critical areas which are the big problems physicists work to explain.

That is nothing like "the standard model is extremely finely tuned". It's absurd and completely untrue to say it is.

I
 
the standard model of physics is extremely fine tuned
the higgs boson predicted by the standard model was found by CERN

Both wrong. Both untrue.

The Standard Model explains how the basic components of matter interact with the four fundamental forces. It does not explain how the fundamental particles of the universe came to have mass.

The Standard Model does not and did not predict the Higgs field, nor did it predict its whereabouts or any values of it.
Higgs Field Theory has always been treated as an adjunct to the Standard Model.

No one had any knowledge of mass or how much energy would be needed to find or confirm Higgs. The Standard Model says nothing about it.

Higgs was found because Brout-Englert-Higgs had an extremely convincing widely accepted theory since the 1960's and then only because the LHC was built were their brilliant proposals substantiated.

You are wrong. And you're an idiot the way you go about being wrong.
 
Back
Top