JohnLesser

You are not teachers, why do you all presume your explanations are correct? Thread closed again for no reason but your lack of teaching skills. Nowhere else on the internet do I observe such arrogance as this forum....You get my worse forum vote , so you might as well ban me again for about the 30 time. You all think you know it because you explain wiki , in reality can not think for yourselves or even understand your own science. In short not many of you know what you are actually talking about. Bye cya next time around when I might be a teenager or a single mum or some other type sock. Ban my IP so I can just float it and return with my multiplex persona.

Physically observed.

I have asked for an easy explanation, they are not giving an easy explanation or providing any basic easy to understand evidence. How do you expect anyone to accept something to be true if the replies keep talking to people as if everyone is a qualified scientist? To me a particle has physicality, things with physicality reflect light and can be seen no matter how small. So please define particle to me because obviously if they are not providing observation they do not mean a real particle, their definition is of something else. P.s I am not trolling, they are failing to learn me correctly. They are not teachers although some members may be.

Ok, so if it is a real particle, you should have a picture of it? Define real?

I have asked you several times now for evidence, I fyou can not convince an average person like myself with easy explanation, then surely there is something amiss?

Provide this observation of affects?

Yes I am not considering virtual particles, I consider genuine particles.

Data? That means very little. I will look at the data later and no doubt like most do in science, they don't even understand the reality of their own findings.

No, but I can observe gravity and there is plenty of proof of the existence of gravity. However I already know you can not offer no concrete proof of the Higgs Boson, to split a Proton into fragments and try to call each fragment a Boson, is going beyond 0 dimensions into a realm of fantasy theory instead of factual theory, at the very best Higgs is supposition unless you can offer the observation of the existence .

Can you show me a picture of what the Boson looks like?

You miss the point, I discover America , I have not discovered America, I have discovered a land mass and named it America. I discover an Unknown particle, I call it a Boson, I could of called it Africa and then there would be no boson. It would still be an Unknown particle,

I still observe no evidence, let me tell you why, suppose I had discovered a ''Photon'' but called it a boson, how do you know the Boson is not a ''Photon''? Giving something a particular name does not necessarily mean you have discovered the thing you were aiming to discover. ( I am not saying the Photon is a boson).

I do not feel that you have just offered any sort of evidence, can you please provide evidence of an Higgs field or likewise? Words alone do not mean evidence.

Thank you for your thoughts and insight, However the student wants to know if you have any proof of Quantum fields such as the Higgs field, the student feels you are offering subjective thinking with no actual evident proof?

Thank you for the insight, What do you mean exactly by they both must be taken in to account simultaneously?