Science

False Messiah: Scientists Contend Recently Discovered ‘God Particle’ Is an ‘Impostor’

Scientists at the Argonne National Laboratory Review CERN Data on Higgs Boson and Discuss Potential for an Impostor

(Image: Wikimedia)

Less than a week ago, the scientific community was celebrating the 99.9999 percent certain findings of a particle thought to be the Higgs boson. Scientists at the European Center for Nuclear Research (CERN) were cautious to step right out and say they officially found the subatomic particle with the nickname the “God particle,” stating the results were preliminary but hinting at it being the particle consistent with the theoretical one thought to help explain some fundamental questions of matter in our universe.

(Related: ‘Very, Very Preliminary Result’: CERN Scientists Tentatively ‘Find’ Infamous God Particle)

Now, a set of other scientists at the Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois reviewing data from the large hadron collider in Geneva are saying the particle physicists think could be the Higgs boson could actually be an impostor. They write:

Assuming an unbroken custodial invariance as suggested by precision electroweak measurements, only four possibilities are allowed if the scalar decays to pairs of gauge bosons, as exemplified by a dilaton/radion, a non-dilatonic electroweak singlet scalar, an electroweak doublet scalar, and electroweak triplet scalars. We show that current LHC data already strongly disfavor both the dilatonic and non-dilatonic singlet imposters. On the other hand, a generic Higgs doublet and a triplet imposter give equally good fits to the measured event rates of the newly observed scalar resonance, although a Standard Model Higgs boson gives a slightly better overall fit. [...] We emphasize that more precise measurements of the ratio of event rates in the WW over ZZ channels, as well as the event rates in bb and tau tau channels, are needed to distinguish the Higgs doublet from the triplet imposter.

Gizmodo explains more on the “controlled enthusiasm” regarding the potential finding exhibited by CERN scientists — and much of the scientific community — and the Argonne researchers who have called up the possibility of an impostor:

The reason for his controlled optimism is the elusive nature of this particles. Since we can only create them for a very limited time before they decay into other particles, it’s very difficult to trace their signature. It’s even more difficult when, looking at the the data so far collected by CERN, the signature can be attributed to other particles.

This just further confirms that the actual presence of the Higgs boson cannot be unequivocally cited just yet.

(Related: Video Pop Quiz: Do Hipsters in Brooklyn Know What the God Particle Is? Their Answers Will Have You Laughing)

Read more from the Argonne scientists here.

Comments (108)

1 2 3
  • Twinspeedr
    Posted on July 10, 2012 at 7:04pm

    Cue the Sad Trombone… http://www.sadtrombone.com/

    BTW, as many have said here; it’s called the Higgs-Boson, only non-believers call it something idiotic like “the God particle”. There is only one God, his name is YHVH, and he made everything you see. You best not try to marginalize him into a sub-atomic particle, it never turns out well for those who play that kind of game, ask Nebuchadnezzar…

    Report Post » Twinspeedr  
    • stage9
      Posted on July 10, 2012 at 7:08pm

      I’m 100% certain there’s a God…and that’s something I NEVER have to retract.

      Report Post » stage9  
    • Cyprien09
      Posted on July 10, 2012 at 8:06pm

      that is an ignorant comment. you believe in a story that was written years after the fact about a man who could bring the dead to life, heal the sick with a touch or a prayer, walk on water etc. and said to be the son of god, whatever that means. the funny part is if someone today claimed all of that you would call him crazy and lock him up. science deals in facts and people like you deal in fantasy. dont be so closed minded. are you afraid that if the “god particle” does exist that it would destroy your theory of the earth being only a few thousand years old and turn your moral book upside down? religious nuts rely on “faith” to defend their points while science relies on facts and evidence. you say there is only one god than who is it? yahweh? allah? god? every religion has their own god so who is right and what makes them right?

      Report Post »  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on July 10, 2012 at 8:20pm

      @ CYPR…why is it that you do not believe in God? Do you know there is no God, or do you not see sufficient evidence for God? Also, you did not accurately define faith. Faith is a reasonable confidence in something or someone based on a reasonable amount of evidence to draw that conclusion. It is not blind as you implied. Neither is science based on facts necessarily because science seeks to explain observations in what is known as theory. Theories can change and do often when a better explanation comes along that fits the evidence. So you exercise faith in the sense that you have confidence in theories of explanations. Thank you ahead of time.

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
    • Cyprien09
      Posted on July 10, 2012 at 8:28pm

      sleazy, i am far from an athesit. was raised byzantine catholic. am an agnostic now. i believe in a higher power that we cannot comprehend nor explain yet. the monotheistic religions, in fact all religions, seem to think that they have it right and everyone else is wrong. is the god of the new testament the same as the god of the old testament? is the god of the koran different from these first two examples? faith means nothing to me to be honest. people throw that word out in religious arguments like it is supposed to mean something. there is no proof whatsoever of god yet people believe that this being exists and immediately attack anyone who does not share their belief. i base things on physical evidence and facts. there is nothing to suggest that god exists therefore why do billions follow, blindly, something that there is no proof of? show me evidence and i will eat my words and admit i am wrong

      Report Post »  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on July 10, 2012 at 8:55pm

      @ CYPR…..there is no proof whatsoever of god…..I would assert that you are very wrong. Let me ask you what evidence you have examined? Besides your statement that no evidence exists is a logical fallacy because you cannot prove a negative existential assertion. You cannot know that evidence does not exist unless you have examined all evidence in existence, which of course you have not. Now if you say I have not seen any convicning evidence yet then that is acceptable. The other logical fallacy you have made is you lay claim that, “science deals in facts and people like you deal in fantasy.” However, you go on to state, “i believe in a higher power that we cannot comprehend nor explain yet.” You then state, “i base things on physical evidence and facts”. What evidence do you possess to support this statement or is it simply based in a blind faith? You seem to have a contradictory illogical position my friend. One thing I will assure is that I will never attack anyone that disagrees with me I might challenge their premise but never attack them. I used to be an atheist so I know the position many are in. What reasonable evidence would you accept in reguard to God as revealed in the bible? What broad categories of literary evidence accepted by scholars do you ascribe to in order to evaluate these religious books? Hint, there are 3 broad categoreis. Thank you ahead of time.

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
    • Cyprien09
      Posted on July 10, 2012 at 9:22pm

      sleazy, i most definitely did contradict myself. it probably is due to the fact that i want to believe in a higher power but lack the evidence for it. there is no evidence, in my opinion to support god. if you say the bible, i would respond by saying it was written by man, not god, and man is fallible. there is absolutely no physical proof of god. there is no evidence of god period. there in lies the problem. people want to believe in something that there is no proof of. i used the word faith earlier on because people seem to only have that argument to fall back when defending god. there is more proof to disprove god than support god.yet billions of people blindly follow this course. why is that? i would never tell someone that they are wrong and not to believe. i just pose questions to either reinforce someones faith or to open their eyes. i just dont understand how if someone today came forward and said i have raised the dead, walked on water, turned water into wine and am the son of god that they would be vilified and locked away as crazy. yet we believe that exact same story which supposedly took place 2,000 years ago and follow it blindly. why is that? and how is christianity different from the other monotheistic religions? who is right and who is wrong? monotheistic religions are so contradictory from what they say they are. therein lies the problem because there are no true answers with religion

      Report Post »  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on July 10, 2012 at 9:41pm

      @ CYPR….thank you for your intellectual honesty in conceding the contradiction. You state again the following, “there is absolutely no physical proof of god. there is no evidence of god period. there in lies the problem.” I assert there is a great deal of evidence to make a very reaosnable and logical conclusion about the existence of God as described in the bible. The 3 areas of evidence we msut examine are bibliographical evidence, internal evidence, and external evidence. If you would like we can take each area one at a time? I would suggest again that it is not a blind faith at all but quite reasonable. The easiest way to answer your question about the difference without just showing you the evidence exists is one word…GRACE….no other religion speaks of God forgiving man and loving him despite his sinful rebellion. Not by the works of man, which is every other religion, but rather by God’s grace. He is reaching down to us, not us reaching up to Him. ….. Continue……

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
    • stage9
      Posted on July 10, 2012 at 9:52pm

      “For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are CLEARLY SEEN, being understood by the things that are MADE, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse…” Romans 1:20

      It’s clearly seen to millions upon millions of people, it‘s strange why a minority of atheists can’t see it.

      “The heavens DECLARE His glory.”

      What evidence would we expect to find if there really was an infinite God who created all things as the Bible claims? How would we even recognize the hand of such an omnipotent Creator?

      No one would ever conclude after visiting Mount Rushmore in South Dakota that the faces etched into the side of the mountain were the product of millions of years of erosion. We can recognize design as the work of intelligence. Yet, today there are many, including leading scientists who believe that all plants and creatures were the product of an evolutionary process— not a Creator God.

      But even some atheists such as Dawkins concedes: “We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully ‘designed’ to have come into existence by chance.” (The Blind Watchmaker). However, evolutionists like Dawkins, who admit the design in living things, reject the idea of any kind of a Designer/God.

      Design implies a designer. To a Christian, the design we see all around us is totally consistent with the Bible. In the beginning, God created…

      Report Post » stage9  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on July 10, 2012 at 9:54pm

      @ CYPR….If we look at bibliographical evidence (which seeks to answer the question, do we have accurate copies of what the original manuscripts contain?) the bible has over 24,000 manuscript copies, by comparison the Iliad which is second only has 643. This is far more than all other works of anitquity combined. Then if we look at the accuracy of what is contained therein, it is oustoundingly greater than 99% with only 40 lines (764 lines are in question in the Iliad) being in question as to whether they were in the original. This is mostly the story of the woman caught in adultery and the ending of Mark, which are clearly marked as possibly not being in the original in almost all bibles. Now I will tell you that if you discredit the bible along this line of evidence then you must to remain logically consistent disavow every other work of antiquity due to the overwhelming evidence that exists in favor of the bible being accurate and a true reflection of the original. I will tell you that most scholars do not even address this area of evidence due to its overwhelming nature. If you have any questions or challenges to this area of evidence please state your arument. Thank you.

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
    • stage9
      Posted on July 10, 2012 at 9:57pm

      Molecular biologist Dr Michael Denton, writing as an agnostic, concluded:

      ‘Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced [twentieth century technology appears] clumsy . . . . It would be an illusion to think that what we are aware of at present is any more than a fraction of the full extent of biological design. In practically every field of fundamental biological research ever-increasing levels of design and complexity are being revealed at an ever-accelerating rate.’ (M. Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Adler and Adler, Maryland, p. 342, 1986.)

      Mutations, the evolutionist’s holy grail:

      ‘All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to REDUCE THE GENETIC INFORMATION AND NOT INCREASE IT. (emphasis mine)

      ‘The NDT [neo-Darwinian theory] is supposed to explain how the information of life has been built up by evolution. The essential biological difference between a human and a bacterium is in the information they contain. All other biological differences follow from that. The human genome has much more information than does the bacterial genome. Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it. A business can’t make money by losing it a little at a time.’ (L. Spetner, Not by Chance, The Judaica Press Inc, Brooklyn, New York, pp. 131–2.)

      Report Post » stage9  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on July 10, 2012 at 10:24pm

      @ CYPR…If we are to objectively examine the claim that a book has come from an all-powerful God, a book must meet certain requirements. First, it must be transmitted to us accurately from the time it was originally written so that we have an exact representation of what God said and did ( I believe I have already addressed this issue although I await your rebuttal or concession). It must also be correct when it deals with historical personages and events, times and dates. It must also contain no scientific absurdities. Do you agree with these conditions as we set out to examine the claims of the bible, Namely that it is the authentic word of God and has reasonable evidence to suggest that conclusion?

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
    • Kenszen
      Posted on July 11, 2012 at 1:18am

      @Twinspeedr Thanks for the Sad Trombone link. It‘s hilarious and I’m sure I will get much use out of it.

      Report Post »  
    • John655
      Posted on July 11, 2012 at 2:27am

      @CYPR
      ” i just dont understand how if someone today came forward and said i have raised the dead, walked on water, turned water into wine and am the son of god that they would be vilified and locked away as crazy.” You underestimate the evil in this world. I believe if someone came today and did all these things he would be tortured and nailed to a tree as an example to all of us to get in-line.

      Report Post » John655  
    • nelbert
      Posted on July 11, 2012 at 9:31am

      I sometimes think it‘s a shame that people focus so much more on the particle’s nickname rather than its implications, but that may be a blessing in disguise. Subatomic particle physics is wildly complex: such a flippant name ensures the public will hear about and remember it (much more so than a Higgs Boson), and they’ll leave the scientists in relative peace because, as here, people will direct their energy to the superficial topic of colorful nomenclature.

      @TWINSPEEDR
      While I can’t say for certain what are the theological beliefs of Leon Lederman, who coined the name God Particle, I am fairly certain he was not trying “to marginalize him [God] into a sub-atomic particle.” He was merely referring to the particle’s central role in the current particle theory.

      @STAGE9 wrote “I’m 100% certain there’s a God…and that’s something I NEVER have to retract.”
      Hopefully not. Crises of faith tend to be brutal.
      But you seem to be mistaking scientific research as a belief system. Experimental failures are often more instructive than successes (RE: theory of relativity, wave-particle duality, even Post-It notes). Science’s best quality is its ability to question and change as the facts require. Science is descriptive, not prescriptive.

      Report Post » nelbert  
    • battles
      Posted on July 11, 2012 at 11:02am

      It looks like the scientist attempt to replace God with a particle has failed. As to those who don’t or refuse to believe that God exist, in the end they will have no doubt. It is only a matter of time for them to realize this fact. Unfortunately for them, it will be a hard and final lesson.

      Excuse me, but I am off to get a glass of water.

      Report Post » battles  
  • RightScientist
    Posted on July 10, 2012 at 7:01pm

    So why are folks upset about this? Just for clarification, I am a staunch conservative, favoring not only the fiscal policies of the right, but many of the social ones as well. Given a choice between having a religious president or a secular, science-oriented president, I would be far more concerned about the latter (eugenics, forced sterilization, etc.) I believe in the scientific method, and am a strong advocate of humans being able to populate other planets, moons and man-made space facilities.

    I favor research like this because it will help us journey off this planet. I love the earth, but it is a finite, essentially closed system. As our population grows, we will run out of resources. I am no eco-friendly nut, or a believer in man-made global warming. I’m just looking at the math. And since I am not in favor of any kind of population control, seeking other places to live is of vital importance to me.

    Add to that, the threat of asteroids and other natural disasters that could destroy life on earth. It pays not to have all our human eggs in one basket (earth).

    To make this possible, research that helps us understand our universe is essential for us to branch out and explore the worlds around us, and even terraform them so we can thrive elsewhere.

    Cut spending on entitlements. Lower taxes. And provide incentives to companies that do this kind of R&D here in the U.S. of A, not Europe. American exceptionalism!

    Report Post »  
  • Wyatt's Torch
    Posted on July 10, 2012 at 6:57pm

    Silly scientists, there can only be one Obama-essiah…

    Report Post » Wyatt's Torch  
  • aChameleon
    Posted on July 10, 2012 at 6:49pm

    Instead of trying to baffle everyone with all that bullsnit, why not just ASK for the money? It’s like inventing a magic trick. The more complex it is, the more ooh‘s and aah’s you’ll get, but you have still orchestrated everything to achieve the desired result. When you are getting paid to find evidence to support a theory, I‘m pretty sure you’ll find that evidence if your job depends on it.

    Report Post » aChameleon  
    • SLOWBIDEN
      Posted on July 10, 2012 at 6:53pm

      If Obama had a particle it would look like that one.

      Report Post »  
  • John 3:16
    Posted on July 10, 2012 at 6:43pm

    Most Scientists are full of Bull crap.Maybe they need to get a real job instead of sucking off the tax payers. Maybe they should go to the White House and congress and search for a functional brain, that will keep these ninnies busy for at least 5-6 months.

    Report Post » John 3:16  
    • ScienceIsNotEvil
      Posted on July 10, 2012 at 7:04pm

      Something tells me you use computes, the Internet, cell phones, cable TV, sat radio, GPS and a whole lot of other devices which would not be possible if it wasn’t for these scientists you are trashing.

      It amazes me how so many people on this site use technology every waking moment then turn around and trash it simply because they don’t understand it.

      Report Post »  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on July 10, 2012 at 7:41pm

      @ SCIENCE…..on this site???? That sounds like a denigratng stereotype if I din’t know any better.

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
    • db321
      Posted on July 10, 2012 at 7:45pm

      Science – take it easy big boy. Scientist are getting slammed just like Atheist are. That‘s because Scientist and Atheist spend every waking moment trying to prove something that they don’t believe in doesn’t exist.

      You guys need to invent a drug of insanity because I believe you both are eaten up with it. God Particle!.

      Report Post » db321  
    • antitheist
      Posted on July 10, 2012 at 7:51pm

      Science was pointing out his hypocrisy of deriding scientists for using tax payer money when it was scientists using taxpayer money that helped create technology like the internet and gps, which at least one of which, he is using right now.

      Report Post » antitheist  
    • ScienceIsNotEvil
      Posted on July 10, 2012 at 7:58pm

      db321,

      Can you tell me why so many posters on this site type as if they are in a middle school playground? For people who claim to be adults a lot of you act like kids.

      Report Post »  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on July 10, 2012 at 9:15pm

      @ SCIENCE…. the next logical question would be, if you feel that way about people on this site, then why do you engage in this site? Be careful of stereotyping, it is typically guilty of the fallacy of exaggeration.

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
    • mrkeys1962
      Posted on July 11, 2012 at 1:41am

      The problem I have with scientists are 1. They usually receive most of their funding from government grants and the like which creates an environment of whoredom and taints the whole process of unbiased observation. 2. Many scientists or those who profess to base their outlook of human kind on science usually lean toward the leftist theology ( I say theology because they create their own man gods to perpetuate their feeling of self defined moral superiority ) and reject freedom and/or capitalism as being evil. So my question to the previous poster in this thread is…how can the elite, intellectual left reject the fruits of capitalism and yet engulf themselves in the use of these fruits such as computers, the internet, cell phones etc. You criticize those who point out the shortcoming of the scientific field and yet I challenge you to explain how the scientific field, in many instances, can reject capitalism and yet engulf themselves in the tremendous successes of this system.

      Report Post »  
    • themachinist239
      Posted on July 11, 2012 at 11:53am

      “The problem I have with scientists are 1. They usually receive most of their funding from government grants and the like which creates an environment of whoredom and taints the whole process of unbiased observation. ”

      We live in a country with a capitalist economic system. Corporations have an incentive to fund R&D for financial gain, but the fact is that they don‘t provide enough funding to sustain the country’s need for scientific research in all areas. The free market allows companies to specifically fund projects that benefit the company, which absolutely adds to our collective scientific body of knowledge. However, the free market‘s ability to accomplish this does not fulfill the nation’s need for scientific research, which is made up by the government and/or foundations. The free market can only do so much, as unfortunately there is not a profit incentive to fund every field of science, despite the great need.

      You seem to ignore the reality, which is that the R&D, be it funded by the government or by private entities, is essential to our country’s economic future as it always has been. As a capitalist country, it is in our government’s interest to fill gaps in scientific research in order to stay competitive, and to facilitate innovation. There is a fundamental misunderstanding among people who ignore this fact. NASA is a perfect example, being responsible for hundreds if not thousands of new applicable technologies since it began.

      Report Post »  
    • themachinist239
      Posted on July 11, 2012 at 1:03pm

      “2. Many scientists or those who profess to base their outlook of human kind on science usually lean toward the leftist theology ( I say theology because they create their own man gods to perpetuate their feeling of self defined moral superiority ) and reject freedom and/or capitalism as being evil.”

      You’re entitled to your opinion (blanket generalizations) about scientists and how they view the world, but I refrain from claiming to know what all those scientists are thinking. I know why you say “theology”, there’s no need to explain because I understand the circular logic you used to get there. To come to your conclusion, one must make some pretty large judgments about a large group of people. Not only do you make the assertion that most scientists are atheists (which is false*), but you go on to say that (despite their best efforts) they need a god to believe in, and substitute it with nothing but selfishness and self-glorification. These are baseless and ignorant things to say, and they expose the twisted logic that many people use to justify their outright contempt for people who lack a religious identity.

      *http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx

      Report Post »  
  • mikefromaltoona
    Posted on July 10, 2012 at 5:59pm

    These sound like the same guys who work on my car!

    Report Post » mikefromaltoona  
  • Rayblue
    Posted on July 10, 2012 at 5:52pm

    They found the “payroll” particle.

    Report Post » Rayblue  
  • ronin_6
    Posted on July 10, 2012 at 5:33pm

    Sounds like cold fusion all over again

    Report Post » ronin_6  
  • DeltaHawk
    Posted on July 10, 2012 at 5:17pm

    Lookin’ for lil tiny specks of BullCrap What a wasye of taxpayer mony, hell pay down the national dept! if them particles exist God made them in the first place.. I could build a new world if I knew how to make m yown dirt and rocks
    People who don’t believe in God will believe everything else!

    Report Post »  
    • korbin
      Posted on July 10, 2012 at 5:37pm

      Good call brother, OATHKEEPERS.ORG

      Report Post »  
    • KBARRANCH
      Posted on July 10, 2012 at 6:33pm

      I couldnt agree more! They need to solve Global Warming; oh $hit, I mean “Climate Change” first. Funny how everyone forgets about those starving Africans…

      Report Post »  
  • welloddyfriggindah
    Posted on July 10, 2012 at 5:02pm

    Jeepers…never weren’t no good at my gozintas. You know, like 2 gozinta 4 two times and such.

    Report Post » welloddyfriggindah  
  • biffo
    Posted on July 10, 2012 at 4:54pm

    The grant thieves have to shoot up a flare now and then to keep the idiots in charge clapping and ahhh’ing. They are way behind the climate thieves but seem to be catching up. After all, we taxpaying idiots could not begin to understand the complexity and someday relevance of these miracle scientist’s work. So please give them more money and shut up.

    Report Post »  
  • Epic Fail
    Posted on July 10, 2012 at 4:51pm

    Yea. What those guys said. I was gonna say that too.

    Report Post » Epic Fail  
  • elosogrande
    Posted on July 10, 2012 at 4:49pm

    The scientists working on this project would have no where to go, if they weren’t working on this crap.

    They get paid extraordinary sums of money to build these machines that break down particles into smaller and smaller parts. They continue to build bigger machines to find smaller particles. The money they spend and the money they are paid comes, for the most part, from government grants. These grants are funded with money confiscated from you and from me to give to people who spend outrageous sums of money for not much in the way of valuable results.

    Maybe someone in Congress will have the balls to bring back The golden Fleece Award.

    Report Post »  
  • The-Monk
    Posted on July 10, 2012 at 4:48pm

    Me thinks these “scientists” spend too much time in bars drinking.

    Perhaps they should rename it the Higgs booze’n…..

    Report Post » The-Monk  
  • Dismayed Veteran
    Posted on July 10, 2012 at 4:47pm

    The reason for his controlled optimism is the elusive nature of Barry Obama. Since we can only see him for a very limited time before he decays into other particles, it’s very difficult to trace his heritage. It’s even more difficult when, looking at the the data so far collected by CERN, the signature can be attributed to other particles.

    Report Post » Dismayed Veteran  
  • ASUDave
    Posted on July 10, 2012 at 4:44pm

    Its Bush’s fault!

    Report Post »  
  • USACommoner
    Posted on July 10, 2012 at 4:43pm

    “This just further confirms that the actual presence of the Higgs boson cannot be unequivocally cited just yet.”
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Hmm, neither can evolution but that doesn’t stop them…

    Report Post » USACommoner  
  • netmail
    Posted on July 10, 2012 at 4:38pm

    No problem. In our culture, we EMBRACE impostors.

    Report Post »  
    • Gonzo
      Posted on July 10, 2012 at 4:49pm

      Tha majority of us certainly vote for them.

      Report Post » Gonzo  
  • RRFlyer
    Posted on July 10, 2012 at 4:36pm

    so are we supposed to know what this is talking about?

    Report Post »  
    • scuba13
      Posted on July 10, 2012 at 5:31pm

      They are mad because once again they can‘t prove that God doesn’t exist.

      Report Post » scuba13  
    • ScienceIsNotEvil
      Posted on July 10, 2012 at 7:05pm

      They aren’t trying to prove/disprove the existence of your deity. I can’t believe how many of you are scared to death about us learning more about how the universe works. I can’t understand that way of thinking.

      Report Post »  
  • WakingSheep
    Posted on July 10, 2012 at 4:35pm

    HA!
    NO COMMENTS!

    That’s because nobody understands what the F they are talking about in the article……

    I’m not the brightest light or the dimnest light on the tree but…………. GEEZ…….
    The only part that made any sense was the name of the particle itself. Get back to me when you find the darn thing….. until then….. leave the details to yourselves….

    my head is still spinning trying to grasp what was said….. Lol

    Report Post »  
    • WakingSheep
      Posted on July 10, 2012 at 4:45pm

      Guess I didn’t check the time of the article before I post…..

      Still confused as Sh**t though……

      Report Post »  
  • Conservative-Atheist
    Posted on July 10, 2012 at 4:35pm

    I created one of these particles myself in my discombobulating fragmentizer. :o)

    Report Post » Conservative-Atheist  
  • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
    Posted on July 10, 2012 at 4:32pm

    Sounds like they will sing the song of:

    “Oops! I blew it again…’

    Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
  • THX-1138
    Posted on July 10, 2012 at 4:32pm

    They never should have called it the God particle; everyone knows that you can never prove God exists.

    Report Post » THX-1138  
    • Conservative-Atheist
      Posted on July 10, 2012 at 4:38pm

      If they didn’t call it the god particle the story would never have made it to The Blaze.

      Report Post » Conservative-Atheist  
    • Gonzo
      Posted on July 10, 2012 at 4:38pm

      I think the intent of that was to prove He didn’t exist. Which is just as impossible.

      Report Post » Gonzo  
    • Conservative-Atheist
      Posted on July 10, 2012 at 4:46pm

      Of course you’re right Gonzo. Love the handle, big Nugent fan here!

      Report Post » Conservative-Atheist  
    • Angel
      Posted on July 10, 2012 at 4:48pm

      I don’t trust anything that comes out of Chicago or Illinois , of course God says you can look at a tree and know it has a maker, and man certainly is the maker, also he said only a fool says in his heart there is no God, you can see God throughout the whole universe,

      Report Post » Angel  
    • Cesium
      Posted on July 10, 2012 at 5:14pm

      @At Angel .. Ha ha “god says” (in a book written by people)

      Report Post »  
    • JACKTHETOAD
      Posted on July 10, 2012 at 5:16pm

      As far as the ‘God particle’ itself exists, I don’t think these yintas even picked up a scrap of paper off of the ground. Such power should never belong in man’s hands as we are now. Why? Because, you guessed it, everybody on three now…1,2,3…MAKE A WEAPON!

      Report Post » JACKTHETOAD  
  • lukerw
    Posted on July 10, 2012 at 4:29pm

    I’ve heard these arguements before… a long time ago… about the Christian Religion!

    Report Post » lukerw  
  • Gonzo
    Posted on July 10, 2012 at 4:27pm

    “Higgs doublet and a triplet imposter give equally good fits to the measured event rates of the newly observed scalar resonance”
    Yes, I noticed that right away myself.

    Report Post » Gonzo  
    • BigAl78
      Posted on July 10, 2012 at 7:43pm

      I‘m glad I’m not the only one! Once I understood that “only four possibilities are allowed if the scalar decays to pairs of gauge bosons, as exemplified by a dilaton/radion, a non-dilatonic electroweak singlet scalar, an electroweak doublet scalar, and electroweak triplet scalars” everything became so clear!

      Report Post » BigAl78  
1 2 3

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love