Scoentists confirm Higgs Boson within 5 sigma of certainty

[bortmackie]

Originally Posted by Issue313

Don't you just love that they give a margin of error, expressed in standard deviations? Of course I'll bet their methodology for calculating the error is fundamentally flawed or irrelevant, you can't assign error to such a one off event, and if your result is negligable, it should be discarded anyway.

Anyone notice that the whole neutrinos faster than light thing turned out to be human error in experimental procedure? Didn't they post a negligable standard deviation error for their shitty result too?

What is the probability you're too dumb to calculate the probability right?

Yea, but they definitely have piles and piles of evidence from hundreds and thousands of collisions. Even before the LHC, the tevatron at fermilab by where i live was working on this stuff for thirty years. They could have discovered it with an upgrade but the federal government decided they'd rather try to build an entirely new one in fucking texas, and obviously that didn't work so they just wasted billions of dollars.

and yea i remember the incident about neutrinos traveling faster than light, but that's such a ludicrous conclusion that i think most people were skeptical about that even being possible.

[southernsun]

Originally Posted by moron

From what I've read on this concept you're speaking of, I think you may have left a few things out.

The mercury plasma rotating in the toroid (donut) must be a ferro-fluid (magnetized) to create the necessary gravitational field. It also must be a super-fluid (a frictionless fluid, akin to a super-conductor) that can flow without significant resistance. Obviously, sustaining a pressurized mercury plasma with ferro-fluid properties in a super-fluid state AIN'T FUCKIN EASY.

I remember reading them mentioning somewhere that the big "black triangle" craft with 3 lights (1 on each corner) are the black projects' re-engineering of alien tech, while all or most of the disc craft are true extra-terrestrials. Kind of makes sense given that a triangle shape allows ample room for payload with excellent stability. I imagine it's much more difficult to engineer a smooth disc shape...

yeah, I can imagine its been done though, with unlimited funds.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Issue313

Don't you just love that they give a margin of error, expressed in standard deviations? Of course I'll bet their methodology for calculating the error is fundamentally flawed or irrelevant, you can't assign error to such a one off event, and if your result is negligable, it should be discarded anyway.

Yes, I do live it that they report it that way...? That's pretty standard way of judging statistical significance and making inferences. The analysis isn't flawed (at least not in a way that would invalidate the inference) or irrelevant. You don't know what you're talking about.

[Issue313]

Originally Posted by Rust

Yes, I do live it that they report it that way...? That's pretty standard way of judging statistical significance and making inferences.

Tell me, without looking it up, what a standard deviation is.

The analysis isn't flawed (at least not in a way that would invalidate the inference) or irrelevant.

How do you know?

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Issue313

Tell me, without looking it up, what a standard deviation is.

Square root of the variance, which is a measure of how spread out the data is.

In a Gaussian distribution, if you look in a window that's +- 2 x sigma, you'll have roughly 95% of the data.

How do you know?

Because it's a standard analysis. That's essentially how you calculate p-values in order to make inferences. By judging the variance of a distribution, you judge how spread-out the data/variables is/are, and then can make inferences about how likely it is that you would observe a data-point so far away. Being 5 times the standard deviation is extremely unlikely by chance, therefore the rational inference is that the data-point wasn't produced by chance, but by something else.

[Issue313]

Originally Posted by Rust

the rational inference is that the data-point wasn't produced by chance, but by something else.

OK, you know your stuff, but why bother reporting the error is its 5 sd? If it turns out their result is wrong, isn't it more likely a result of error than probability providing such an unlikely reading?

[Issue313]

Actually don't even bother answering, I just remembered Rust has to "win" every conversation he has.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Issue313

OK, you know your stuff, but why bother reporting the error is its 5 sd? If it turns out their result is wrong, isn't it more likely a result of error than probability providing such an unlikely reading?

I don't understand your question. When they are saying 5-sigma, they are letting other scientists know the confidence they have in their results. The 5-sigma represents how far away this data-point is (more than 5 times the standard deviation), which is increadibly low probability of being produced by chance.

Computer/mechanical error is not really plausible explanation because these were independently verified and are the results of many such experiments. You'd have to propose that all the experiments suffered from the exact same error, of the exact same magnitude and producing results that are exactly aligned with the energy predicted by the Standard Model.

Originally Posted by Issue313

Actually don't even bother answering, I just remembered Rust has to "win" every conversation he has.

[Issue313]

Originally Posted by Rust

Computer/mechanical error is not really plausible explanation because these were independently verified and are the results of many such experiments. You'd have to propose that all the experiments suffered from the exact same error, of the exact same magnitude and producing results that are exactly aligned with the energy predicted by the Standard Model.

Yeah LOL what are the odds of that, like one in a million????

[bobapanbeers]

Originally Posted by Captain Falcon

Yeah, because all the peoople at CERN must be fucking retarded and some asshole sitting on Zoklet could do their job better, right?

some of the greatest discoveries were made by assholes. Just because they work at CERN doesn't make them better than U or I. It's their fucking job that's it

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Issue313

Yeah LOL what are the odds of that, like one in a million????

Very, very low. Yes. That's why it's not a good explanation...

[crazzyass]

Originally Posted by _southernsun

I suspect now they know what causes mass, surely they can figure out a way to counter that and manipulate gravity and use that in aircraft?

Theoretically, maybe. But we have decades to go before the theoretics of that could be worked out, much less an actual prototype.

It isn't as simple as countering the effects of the Higgs. Without HB, particles would zip around at the speed of light. Not exactly what we need for flight.

[Issue313]

Originally Posted by Rust

Very, very low. Yes. That's why it's not a good explanation...

One in a million chance?

Particle physics uses a standard of "5 sigma" for the declaration of a discovery. At five-sigma there is only one chance in nearly two million that the result is wrong, i.e. the measurement seen is a random fluctuation

-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation#Particle_Physics

So, if there is no HB, its more likely that....actually wait.

Rather than continue to explain, I'll concede and just say that you "win" this conversation, just like you "win" every conversation. Do you feel better? How does that personality you have work with the opposite sex? Do you have many friends?

[southernsun]

What if its a conspiracy and the boson doesn't exist? the whole history books would have to be rewritten, and they don't want that.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Issue313

One in a million chance?

Particle physics uses a standard of "5 sigma" for the declaration of a discovery. At five-sigma there is only one chance in nearly two million that the result is wrong, i.e. the measurement seen is a random fluctuation

-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation#Particle_Physics

So, if there is no HB, its more likely that....actually wait.

What's your point? The "5 sigma" threshold means that it's very unlikely the result of chance. The low probability of it being an error means it's also unlikely that it's the result of error... Hence why the most likely, reasonable explanation is the discovery of a fundamental particle! By the way, you don't know the actual probability of mechanical error (you just said a number), and a lower sigma threshold (e.g. 4 sigma) is still incredibly stringent.

I have absolutely no idea why your panties are in a bunch over nothing, but it's quite amusing. Keep it up. If it makes you feel better to accuse me of having to "win" just because I dared correct something you said, then that's okay.

[Issue313]

Originally Posted by Rust

"5 sigma" threshold means that it's very unlikely the result of chance. The low probability of it being an error means it's also unlikely that it's the result of error... Hence why the most likely, reasonable explanation is the discovery of a fundamental particle!

Thanks for breaking it down for us mere humans.

My original point was that if it turns out that the result is in error, due to the complexity of the experiment its far more likely an error of experimental design than one of random natural fluctuation in the apparatus, and thus the "5 sigma" bit is pointless.

I note in passing that the neutrino faster than light experiment was also reported to be within 5 sigma.

But you win this conversation.

I note my question:

If it turns out their result is wrong, isn't it more likely a result of error than probability providing such an unlikely reading?

WAS NOT ANSWERED

But you win. Seriously, you're better than me, you can have your pick of females to mate with:







....

[psychomanthis]

Originally Posted by DiStOrTiOn

Does this mean string theory/M theory is incorrect?

No but it does give super symmetry the advantage.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Issue313

My original point was that if it turns out that the result is in error, due to the complexity of the experiment its far more likely an error of experimental design than one of random natural fluctuation in the apparatus, and thus the "5 sigma" bit is pointless.

How is it pointless when it's essential to their conclusions? They need to establish the confidence they have in their conclusions in a statistically rigorous manner. They achieve that with a 5-sigma threshold.

The fact that there could also be error in the experiment/mechanisms itself doesn't change that. It means it's something else to consider. It has been considered.

I note in passing that the neutrino faster than light experiment was also reported to be within 5 sigma.

It was? I don't remember them claiming any specific level of significance in those results, though I may be wrong. I remember them reporting findings and asking the scientific community for feedback precisely because they acknowledge the probability of error in the equipment, though didn't know where it could be.

I note my question:

If it turns out their result is wrong, isn't it more likely a result of error than probability providing such an unlikely reading?

WAS NOT ANSWERED

Yeah... because I can't answer that. Unlike you, I'm not going to pretend to know what the probability is an pull a number out of my ass. I don't know which one is really more likely. The fact that it was verified in independent experiments with independent detectors and the energy "bump" observed was consistent with what's predicted by the Standard Model, means it's very unlikely. How unlikely, and whether it's more likely than chance in the probability distribution, I don't know.

But you win this conversation.
...
But you win. Seriously, you're better than me, you can have your pick of females to mate with:

....

You are getting visibly upset for absolutely no reason.

[Issue313]

You've won. You win. Just say "yeah nigga', I win, I take dominion over this thread and all the females within it" and be done with it. You're now the alpha male, you've proven your superiority over all us beta males. We'll leave you be. You won this conversation, and beat all of us other posters/competitors.

[Rust]

No, actually, I lost. I would have "won" if I had learned something here. I didn't. Well aside from the fact that we can build sand-castles in your vagina.

[Issue313]

While forever-alone-Rust is waxing his carrot using his tears for lubrication, those who are genuinely interested in science and the nature of reality would do well to read this article about the results and what the 5-sigma bit actually means.

http://www.physicscentral.com/buzz/b...58123737529836

Its worth noting that the confirmation of their theoretical predictions is a huge anti-climax for scientists, leaving them feeling like one of Rust's girlfriends.
What scientists and mathematicians really want is the big black cock of unexpected observations, which causes them to reevaluate their initial hypothesis and move in new and unpredicted directions.

[Rust]

[broseph]

PM me when i can pick up my god damn flying car.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Issue313

Its worth noting that the confirmation of their theoretical predictions is a huge anti-climax for scientists, leaving them feeling like one of Rust's girlfriends.
What scientists and mathematicians really want is the big black cock of unexpected observations, which causes them to reevaluate their initial hypothesis and move in new and unpredicted directions.

Actually, it's not really an anti-climax. While scientists really love it when long-standing theories are overturned (like how relativity did with classical physics), finding the Higgs Boson could have such dramatic consequences for science and everyday life that it's just as exciting in and of itself.

[Issue313]

Originally Posted by Rust

Actually, it's not really an anti-climax. While scientists really love it when long-standing theories are overturned (like how relativity did with classical physics), finding the Higgs Boson could have such dramatic consequences for science and everyday life that it's just as exciting in and of itself.

Particle physics has no real life applications.

[Rust]

Well, now you're just being silly.

[Issue313]

Originally Posted by Rust

Well, now you're just being silly.

Serious. That's why I was shocked when I heard how much they were spending on the LHC. Never before in human endeavour has so much been spent by so many on so few for so little.

Excepting possibly bankers.

[Rust]

Nah.

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/science/benefits/

[bortmackie]

Originally Posted by Issue313

Serious. That's why I was shocked when I heard how much they were spending on the LHC. Never before in human endeavour has so much been spent by so many on so few for so little.

Excepting possibly bankers.

Would you rather they continue spending all the money on killing people and defrauding our fair citizens? It's an established fact that money spent on scientific research will pay for itself many times over. Perhaps not right away, but you gots to think in bigger terms than that. And i think it's a damn shame that more people don't know what the fuck this discovery even means. I find it difficult to identify with anyone who doesn't have an inherent desire to learn about how the world/universe works, it's fucking interesting as hell.

Oh yea, i forgot that they used fermilab to treat cancer patients, that's pretty cool. I went on a tour there a few years back because i live really close, and that place is cool as hell.

[Issue313]

Originally Posted by Rust

Nah.

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/science/benefits/

Each generation of particle accelerators and detectors builds on the previous one, raising the potential for discovery and pushing the level of technology ever higher

Let me translate:

Each generation of particle accelerators and detectors builds on the previous one, raising the complexity and pushing the cost ever higher

Back in the 50s you could build a respectable particle accelerator in your back yard. Nowadays they're billion dollar projects.

Although I do admit that PET scans have relied on developments in accelerators. I've had a couple of these done:
http://gemininotcancer.wordpress.com...4/pet-the-cat/
I've never seen the actual accelerator, that's in the basement and AFAIK off limits (I never actually asked).

I think the money could be used to breed and raise from infancy a breed of super mathematicians who could ... never mind, we all know that that's not going to happen (you NAZI bastard you Issue313)

[Rust]

Yeah costs and complexity increase as you try to tackle more difficult problems. Tackling those problems still contributes, as the link demonstrates.

[Danger]

The Higgs field has been proposed as the energy of the vacuum from which all else came. In the first instant of time, it had the featureless symmetry of an undifferentiated energy that was all the universe was. In successive symmetry breakings at phase transitions occurring at discrete, lowering temperatures and densities, it gave rise to the universe. The last was the breaking of the electroweak force that liberated the weak and electromagnetic forces, and is now in reach of experiment. Well out of reach is the phase transition that separated the electroweak from the strong force. But the Higgs field, the proposed origin of all rest mass, is as central to investigation of the strong force as the weak.[8] The Higgs field has been postulated as a cause for inflation.[9] This is not part of the standard inflationary model, where the cause of inflation is left open. The name "generic" inflation has been suggested. The Higgs field is a "nonthermal" field, a field whose energy does not decrease as the universe expands. The higher the energy density, the faster the universe expands. So the large Higgs field is postulated as the cause of inflation.

Above unification temperatures it is suggested that there was a single electronuclear force, and the bosons of the electroweak and strong forces were indistinguishable. As the universe's temperature dropped, it is thought the Higgs field caused the electroweakstrong force to fragment into the electroweak and strong forces and give separate identities to the electroweak bosons (photons, W and Z bosons) and the strong-force bosons (gluons).

Eventually, even the energy of the Higgs field dropped to zero, marking the end of inflation.

Dark energy is postulated as an energy of the vacuum welling from the Higgs field.[10]

-Wikipedia

[Fox News]

Just covered this on my network.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by Danger

The Higgs field has been proposed as the energy of the vacuum from which all else came. In the first instant of time, it had the featureless symmetry of an undifferentiated energy that was all the universe was. In successive symmetry breakings at phase transitions occurring at discrete, lowering temperatures and densities, it gave rise to the universe. The last was the breaking of the electroweak force that liberated the weak and electromagnetic forces, and is now in reach of experiment. Well out of reach is the phase transition that separated the electroweak from the strong force. But the Higgs field, the proposed origin of all rest mass, is as central to investigation of the strong force as the weak.[8] The Higgs field has been postulated as a cause for inflation.[9] This is not part of the standard inflationary model, where the cause of inflation is left open. The name "generic" inflation has been suggested. The Higgs field is a "nonthermal" field, a field whose energy does not decrease as the universe expands. The higher the energy density, the faster the universe expands. So the large Higgs field is postulated as the cause of inflation.

Above unification temperatures it is suggested that there was a single electronuclear force, and the bosons of the electroweak and strong forces were indistinguishable. As the universe's temperature dropped, it is thought the Higgs field caused the electroweakstrong force to fragment into the electroweak and strong forces and give separate identities to the electroweak bosons (photons, W and Z bosons) and the strong-force bosons (gluons).

Eventually, even the energy of the Higgs field dropped to zero, marking the end of inflation.

Dark energy is postulated as an energy of the vacuum welling from the Higgs field.[10]

-Wikipedia

The Higgs Field will then be found to be conscious and God will be proven.

[Danger]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

The Higgs Field will then be found to be conscious and God will be proven.

The Higgs boson ‘God Particle’ discovery explained in the context of conscious cosmology
http://www.infowars.com/the-higgs-bo...ous-cosmology/

"Consciousness. Without consciousness, the universe cannot be fully explained, as consciousness is increasingly emerging as a fundamental force impacting the very fabric of reality."

[Rust]

The media-adopted name for the Higgs Boson, believed to be discovered this week, couldn’t be more misleading. Lawrence M. Krauss explains how the particle could finally dispense with the idea of a supernatural creator. Plus, cosmologist Sean Carroll on how the discovery will revolutionize physics.


There has been a lot of hoopla since the July 4 announcement by the European Center for Nuclear Research (CERN) that the two largest experiments at the Large Hadron Collider had uncovered evidence for a new elementary particle. The particle in question appears to be the Higgs particle, which scientists have been seeking for almost 50 years and is at the heart of our current best theory of nature. But the real excitement seems to stem from the fact that this long-sought discovery is frequently called, in colloquial circles, “the God particle.” This term appeared first in the unfortunate title of a book written by physicist Leon Lederman two decades ago, and while to my knowledge it was never used by any scientist (including Lederman) before or since, it has captured the media’s imagination.

What makes this term particularly unfortunate is that nothing could be further from the truth. Assuming the particle in question is indeed the Higgs, it validates an unprecedented revolution in our understanding of fundamental physics and brings science closer to dispensing with the need for any supernatural shenanigans all the way back to the beginning of the universe—and perhaps even before the beginning, if there was a before. The brash notion predicts an invisible field (the Higgs field) that permeates all of space and suggests that the properties of matter, and the forces that govern our existence, derive from their interaction with what otherwise seems like empty space. Had the magnitude or nature of the Higgs field been different, the properties of the universe would have been different, and we wouldn’t be here to wonder why. Moreover, a Higgs field validates the notion that seemingly empty space may contain the seeds of our existence. This idea is at the heart of one of the boldest predictions of cosmology, called inflation. This posits that a similar type of background field was established in the earliest moments of the big bang, causing a microscopic region to expand by more than 85 orders of magnitude in a fraction of a second, after which the energy contained in otherwise empty space was converted into all the matter and radiation we see today! Alan Guth, the originator of the theory, called it “the ultimate free lunch.”

If these bold, some would say arrogant, notions derive support from the remarkable results at the Large Hadron Collider, they may reinforce two potentially uncomfortable possibilities: first, that many features of our universe, including our existence, may be accidental consequences of conditions associated with the universe’s birth; and second, that creating “stuff” from “no stuff” seems to be no problem at all—everything we see could have emerged as a purposeless quantum burp in space or perhaps a quantum burp of space itself. Humans, with their remarkable tools and their remarkable brains, may have just taken a giant step toward replacing metaphysical speculation with empirically verifiable knowledge. The Higgs particle is now arguably more relevant than God.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...-creation.html

[DiStOrTiOn]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

The Higgs Field will then be found and I will then misinterpret and misrepresent those results in an attempt to substantiate ancient mythological concepts of magical god-entities.

k u do that.

[Danger]

An “independent” measurement, in classical physics, describes a measurement being conducted by a mechanism that has no ties to any conscious observer. Yet in order to become aware of the measurements, a conscious being must, one way or another, interact with the results of the experiment. This interaction, as quantum theorists are increasingly realizing, is itself part of the experiment and may alter its outcomes even after the fact. The Observer cannot be isolated from the events observed.

This also means that all of today’s science is, in fact, biased toward consciousness. All the evidence that makes up the entire history of known science suffers from a glaring “selection bias” because it was all observed and selected by conscious beings. Even this recent Higgs boson discovery may have been brought into existence solely because so many conscious beings were focused on bringing into reality what they imagined to be real. I know this almost starts to sound New-Agey, but such is the nature of things in a conscious universe: All science being conducted today is carried out under the influence of “consciousness bias.” And so we need to understand what this means and how it impacts our understanding of reality.

Gaining a deep understanding of this may be exceedingly difficult for human beings to achieve. It may, in fact, be beyond the capabilities of biological beings with limited neurological capacity. Nevertheless, I believe that the more modern science understands about the Higgs boson, quantum theory, particle physics and cosmology, the closer science will be to initiating a scientific study of consciousness.

We’ve got to get the hard sciences out of the way first, in other words, before the interaction between mind and matter can even be approached.

Consciousness, parallel worlds and more

Consciousness, you see, isn’t made of particles. Thus, you can’t smash consciousness in a particle accelerator and hope to see the tiny bits of what it’s made of. (You can crush free will, of course, but that takes a government.) Yet there is increasingly compelling evidence that consciousness interacts with the physical world and may even create parallel physical worlds when it is exercised. Hints of this are emerging from the study of quantum physics, which immediately leads to the possibility of “multiple worlds” and parallel realities.

The search for Higgs boson, ultimately, is an important one, but the approach is incomplete if our civilization seeks to uncover the fundamental forces that unify our observable universe. Those forces do not exist in a vacuum absent the minds of the conscious inhabitants of the universe. Where there is life, there appears to be consciousness, and if there’s one thing most physicists and cosmologists agree on, it’s that life is ridiculously abundant across the cosmos. Not in terms of units of life per square meter, of course, since most of the universe is, physically speaking, just empty space. The average density of the known universe (roughly 28 billion light years across) has been estimated at 6 hydrogen atoms per cubic meter. That’s a lot of empty space, but it’s filled with literally trillions of stars, each of which may harbor life and therefore consciousness.
To achieve a fundamental understanding of the origins and mechanisms of our known universe without factoring in the impact of consciousness and the conscious observer is, to put it bluntly, a blind approach to ultimate understanding. It’s like trying to bake a cake but leaving out the flour. The recipe of reality from which our universe has sprung must take into account consciousness. If it does not, no unification of fundamental forces will ever be complete, I believe.

[Danger]

Originally Posted by Rust

The media-adopted name for the Higgs Boson, believed to be discovered this week, couldn’t be more misleading. Lawrence M. Krauss explains how the particle could finally dispense with the idea of a supernatural creator. Plus, cosmologist Sean Carroll on how the discovery will revolutionize physics.


There has been a lot of hoopla since the July 4 announcement by the European Center for Nuclear Research (CERN) that the two largest experiments at the Large Hadron Collider had uncovered evidence for a new elementary particle. The particle in question appears to be the Higgs particle, which scientists have been seeking for almost 50 years and is at the heart of our current best theory of nature. But the real excitement seems to stem from the fact that this long-sought discovery is frequently called, in colloquial circles, “the God particle.” This term appeared first in the unfortunate title of a book written by physicist Leon Lederman two decades ago, and while to my knowledge it was never used by any scientist (including Lederman) before or since, it has captured the media’s imagination.

What makes this term particularly unfortunate is that nothing could be further from the truth. Assuming the particle in question is indeed the Higgs, it validates an unprecedented revolution in our understanding of fundamental physics and brings science closer to dispensing with the need for any supernatural shenanigans all the way back to the beginning of the universe—and perhaps even before the beginning, if there was a before. The brash notion predicts an invisible field (the Higgs field) that permeates all of space and suggests that the properties of matter, and the forces that govern our existence, derive from their interaction with what otherwise seems like empty space. Had the magnitude or nature of the Higgs field been different, the properties of the universe would have been different, and we wouldn’t be here to wonder why. Moreover, a Higgs field validates the notion that seemingly empty space may contain the seeds of our existence. This idea is at the heart of one of the boldest predictions of cosmology, called inflation. This posits that a similar type of background field was established in the earliest moments of the big bang, causing a microscopic region to expand by more than 85 orders of magnitude in a fraction of a second, after which the energy contained in otherwise empty space was converted into all the matter and radiation we see today! Alan Guth, the originator of the theory, called it “the ultimate free lunch.”

If these bold, some would say arrogant, notions derive support from the remarkable results at the Large Hadron Collider, they may reinforce two potentially uncomfortable possibilities: first, that many features of our universe, including our existence, may be accidental consequences of conditions associated with the universe’s birth; and second, that creating “stuff” from “no stuff” seems to be no problem at all—everything we see could have emerged as a purposeless quantum burp in space or perhaps a quantum burp of space itself. Humans, with their remarkable tools and their remarkable brains, may have just taken a giant step toward replacing metaphysical speculation with empirically verifiable knowledge. The Higgs particle is now arguably more relevant than God.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...-creation.html

Then there is the question of the Architect of this reality. Even if humankind manages to decode the fundamental laws which govern the physical universe, there’s not only the question of “Who or what created the universe in the first place” but the even more difficult question, “Who or what created the laws of physics that govern the universe?”

Because on that question, even a particle accelerator the size of the entire planet can’t shed a single photon of light on the question. The consensus view in physics circles today — which is dominated, remember, by people who don’t believe in consciousness or free will — is that our universe created itself out of nothing, without any intelligent intervention. This is a strange argument of “effect without a cause,” and it simply doesn’t add up.

[DiStOrTiOn]

Originally Posted by Danger

The consensus view in physics circles today — which is dominated, remember, by people who don’t believe in consciousness or free will — is that our universe created itself out of nothing, without any intelligent intervention.

can you show me one physicist who believes the universe came from nothing rather than a singularity, brane collision, or something of that like which is definitely not "nothing"