plain creation irrelevance of the “god particle” i.e. “physics beyond the standard model” – 40min

Posted: July 11, 2012 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

How the media insists & thrives on hype vs. truth:

GENEVA — “We don’t call it the “God particle,” it’s just the media that do that,” a senior U.S. scientist politely told an interviewer on a major European radio station on Tuesday.

“Well, I am the from the media and I’m going to continue calling it that,” said the journalist — and continued to do so. Source

You would see many articles like this one “How the Higgs Boson Posits a New Story of our Creation“, which has no substance in empirical science – it merely does some “naturalist world view cheer-leading”, and at best illustrates the euphoria in the physicist scientific community after decades of trying to prove this – and actually well deserved for those that did this work i.e. the authentic empirical science involved here & don’t try to make this discovery more than it really is – i.e. confirmation of the standard model, and not anything else.
Making the implications of this discovery plain :

  1. The Higgs Boson or “god particle” is only applicable to the standard model of physics. Before the Higgs Boson particle was proven, the standard model of physics was not in doubt, it was trusted already and nobody tried to use it to “disprove religion” or endow this ‘potential particle’ with other massive significance.
  2. It is well known that the standard module of physics does not apply to the time when the “big bang” occurred (hence the subject of this post). Two other physics models apply then, except that they do not exist yet – the early versions of these potential models are called the Grand Unified Theory & Quantum Gravity Theory (during the Planck era or phase). See also “Physics beyond the Standard Model” & listen to the audio in this post further explains where these models fit in.
  3. Do you know why this particle even got the name “the god particle” in a book on this topic? You may be surprised to know (mentioned in audio).

Be sure to listen to the audio segments – you can download them here: segment one, and segment two or over at the Reasonable Faith site.

Also note that I’m not really dogmatic over young or old earth creation, even in the “old earth creation” model (i.e. a less literal reading of Genesis) can be very well supported through very detailed & authentic cosmological argumentation & reasoning – as in the book Reasonable Faith. See also the Kalam Cosmological Argument & responses to critiques thereof. I do lean towards literal interpretation, however.

Want to add your perspective?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s