"God Particle" Further Confirmed to Have Been Found

[iseko]

nit-pickingly though, if they dislike it being called quote "God Particle", than WHY use that in the freaking title!? *throws a rolled up newspaper* bad escapist! no on the click-baiting!

Because if they just called it the higgs-boson particle then nobody would care. Except for scientists ofcourse. Most people still don't know what it does. And Im not talking specifics. Just a general idea.

OT: nice. I wonder if it will translate into real world applications.

I dunno, Higgs Boson is a widely enough known name for it. God Particle is the one I barely hear. And on this site I say it was safe enough to assume most people have /heard/ of the Higgs Boson, with a lot of us likley excited. Granted I don't really know much of the physics about it, beyond it being important in the Standard Model of physics in regards to certain mass, but I don't actually understand what knockon effect it'll have in the world of physics.

I rarely take what people on the escapist know as a basis for what the general population knows. I shit you not, 9/10 of my friends don't know the lightest atom. Let alone the higgs boson particle (they know the name but thats about it).

 

[Rhykker]

nit-pickingly though, if they dislike it being called quote "God Particle", than WHY use that in the freaking title!? *throws a rolled up newspaper* bad escapist! no on the click-baiting!

nit-pickingly though, if they dislike it being called quote "God Particle", than WHY use that in the freaking title!? *throws a rolled up newspaper* bad escapist! no on the click-baiting!

Because if they just called it the higgs-boson particle then nobody would care. Except for scientists ofcourse. Most people still don't know what it does. And Im not talking specifics. Just a general idea.

I used the term God Particle in the title (and note that the term was only in the title, and subsequently at the end of the article as an explanation) because either:

1. You've heard of the Higgs Boson, and know that it's been referred to as the God Particle
2. You have no idea what the Higgs Boson or God particle is

In the later case, someone reading "Higgs Boson" isn't going to click on the link to learn about something important happening in the world physics. I'm being neither misleading nor deceptive - I'm choosing the use the commonly-accepted term that will draw more attention to an important issue. Physicists can hate it all they want, but at the end of the day, I'm helping their bottom line by helping spread awareness.

Something we often discuss on the sci-tech podcast is that, in general, scientists are just bad at marketing themselves (which is normal, since they're busy learning more important things). There are so many interesting things going on in their world, but not enough people pay attention to them because these discoveries are buried under jargon and technical terminology that is all very "correct," but sounds terribly dull to the layperson.

OT: nice. I wonder if it will translate into real world applications.

There will be real world applications... eventually. Maybe in a couple of decades. But certainly nothing immediate, unfortunately.

 

[FalloutJack]

Scientists should learn to relax and let things go a little. I mean, if god exists, it doesn't magically negate science. It just means he's the best at science, on Arthur C. Clarke levels. It shouldn't bother people so much.

OT: So...now that you've found it, what're you gonna do with it?

 

[MrFalconfly]

I wish the article would focus more on things that actually mean something to the layman. E.G. Why do they call it "god" particle? What is the significance of having no spin? What the fuck is a fermions? Why is "Establishing a property of the Standard Model is big news itself."?

"Why do they call it "god" particle?"

Particle physicists don't. Sensationalist Journalists do.

"What is the significance of having no spin?"

Spin is what characterizes particles. If the Spin is whole numbers (1,2,3...) then it's a Boson, or a force-carrying particle (Gravity, Strong Nuclear Force, Weak Nuclear Force, Electromagnetism). If the Spin is some kind of fraction (1/2, 1/3, 1/5) then it's a fermion. So the Higgs-Boson having "no spin" is quite significant since it distinguishes it from all other particles.

"What the fuck is a fermions?"

A fermion is an elementary particle. Electrons, Electron-neutrinos, Up-Quarks, and Down-Quarks are all fermions. They're the basic building blocks of everything.

"Why is "Establishing a property of the Standard Model is big news itself."?"

It is one more step towards a GUT (Grand Unified Theory) which is, sort of, the "Holy Grale" of theoretical physicists.

 

[wizzy555]

"Why do they call it "god" particle?"

Leon M. Lederman wrote a book called the "The God particle" about it. He wanted to call the book "That god-damn particle" - because it was difficult to find, but his publisher insisted on the "The God Particle".

I have worked at CERN, it doesn't get called this except when speaking to the media and even then most don't like it.

"Why is "Establishing a property of the Standard Model is big news itself."?"

For every day human society it isn't important, but modern physics is a massive set of interconnecting equations where understanding of one area can affect the understanding of another. So determining key elements of the standard model can have implications on say - understanding how the universe began.

 

[iseko]

I used the term God Particle in the title (and note that the term was only in the title, and subsequently at the end of the article as an explanation) because either:

1. You've heard of the Higgs Boson, and know that it's been referred to as the God Particle
2. You have no idea what the Higgs Boson or God particle is

In the later case, someone reading "Higgs Boson" isn't going to click on the link to learn about something important happening in the world physics. I'm being neither misleading nor deceptive - I'm choosing the use the commonly-accepted term that will draw more attention to an important issue. Physicists can hate it all they want, but at the end of the day, I'm helping their bottom line by helping spread awareness.

Something we often discuss on the sci-tech podcast is that, in general, scientists are just bad at marketing themselves (which is normal, since they're busy learning more important things). There are so many interesting things going on in their world, but not enough people pay attention to them because these discoveries are buried under jargon and technical terminology that is all very "correct," but sounds terribly dull to the layperson.

Kind of my point but much more eloquently explained by you. And yes marketing is not a scientists strong suit because there are two ways of saying something:
1) the right way
2) saying something semi-right (but understandable)

Most scientists just prefer saying it right. Marketings'/media's job of making it understandable/interesting for the common man (e.g. god particle).

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

It's awesome that scientists are still making progress on this. Every little step they make is building to amazing stuff in the future. I hope some of it comes to fruition in my lifetime.

Also, this "god particle" buzz word has got to go.

 

[Something Amyss]

nit-pickingly though, if they dislike it being called quote "God Particle", than WHY use that in the freaking title!? *throws a rolled up newspaper* bad escapist! no on the click-baiting!

Because, accurate or not this is how people identify and understand the particle. It's become the mainstream term.

So I know three people have already said it, but it is kind of a big deal that a site like this (that does a pretty respectable job of reporting science findings compared to most) has to resort to using that phrase. It's an unhelpful buzz term invented by a book publisher that doesn't actually make the topic easier to understand by the layperson. By all means give the snappy terms to important simpler concepts. "Global warming" is a lot easier to digest at first glance than "enhanced greenhouse effect", but no one's going to google "god particle" and suddenly have a good understanding of bosons and gravity fields. It benefits no one.

"Global Warming" is a terrible way of relating the concept to the public, because people look around and say "but it's cold here. Where I live. At the moment." Compared to that, "The God Particle" seems more or less like a lateral move.

Cool, so what's next? What's the next big ass awesome project?

They'll search for the Satan particle, the hypothised particle which carries with it Original Sin.

No, but seriously, I doubt they're exactly done with this yet.

Confirmation bias is typically when you perceive what you want to perceive because it meets with your pre-existing ideas.

The higgs boson is not identified by human perception, it is mechanically and mathematically identified - mostly by computers.

Confirmation bias is not limited to that which we directly perceive. Virtually anything can be subject to the concept of confirmation bias. The human mind is really good at picking up patterns, even if they aren't really there. This is one of the reasons we don't just take the Higgs Boson or any other concept on faith, but test and retest.

 

[Slegiar Dryke]

Something we often discuss on the sci-tech podcast is that, in general, scientists are just bad at marketing themselves (which is normal, since they're busy learning more important things). There are so many interesting things going on in their world, but not enough people pay attention to them because these discoveries are buried under jargon and technical terminology that is all very "correct," but sounds terribly dull to the layperson.

OT: nice. I wonder if it will translate into real world applications.

There will be real world applications... eventually. Maybe in a couple of decades. But certainly nothing immediate, unfortunately.

I guess that has always been an issue...everything nowadays needs some sort of spin, or twist, or marketing guru behind it, which takes away from the process of actually discovering.

 

[Rhykker]

...everything nowadays needs some sort of spin...

Well, everything but the Higgs Boson...

 

[wizzy555]

Oh and for the record, the higgs analysis was "blinded", this means the data is distorted in such a way that the physicists working on it can't "fake" a result. Once everything is working properly they unblind it to see the answer.

 

[ColaWarVeteran]

Something we often discuss on the sci-tech podcast is that, in general, scientists are just bad at marketing themselves (which is normal, since they're busy learning more important things). There are so many interesting things going on in their world, but not enough people pay attention to them because these discoveries are buried under jargon and technical terminology that is all very "correct," but sounds terribly dull to the layperson.

OT: nice. I wonder if it will translate into real world applications.

There will be real world applications... eventually. Maybe in a couple of decades. But certainly nothing immediate, unfortunately.

I guess that has always been an issue...everything nowadays needs some sort of spin, or twist, or marketing guru behind it, which takes away from the process of actually discovering.

The key point that is being missed here is that buzz words in science help people outside the field of study get a grasp of the concept being discussed. This hopefully then leads to interest then research and then the actual scientific answer. I've never heard anyone complain about the term "Building Blocks of Life" but it's pretty much a "spin", too.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

They call it the God Particle because scientists are bad at PR. A similar Large Hadron Collider project was rejected in the 90s (in America) because they just said "oh, we are looking for the Higgs Boson". Another sub-atomic particle did not justify the cost of the project, so that's why the US doesn't have a collider, and why scientists may resort to more sensationalist names.

Back on topic: This is pretty great, I can't wait to hear what they will say about it when I actually go to the accelerator this July ^_^

 

[wizzy555]

They call it the God Particle because scientists are bad at PR. A similar Large Hadron Collider project was rejected in the 90s (in America) because they just said "oh, we are looking for the Higgs Boson". Another sub-atomic particle did not justify the cost of the project, so that's why the US doesn't have a collider, and why scientists may resort to more sensationalist names.

Back on topic: This is pretty great, I can't wait to hear what they will say about it when I actually go to the accelerator this July ^_^

Well there were numerous issues. Personally I blame the collapse of the soviet union, since there were no communists to shoot death rays at any more the republicans lost the urge to fund the giant death ray machine.

[/joke]

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

They call it the God Particle because scientists are bad at PR. A similar Large Hadron Collider project was rejected in the 90s (in America) because they just said "oh, we are looking for the Higgs Boson". Another sub-atomic particle did not justify the cost of the project, so that's why the US doesn't have a collider, and why scientists may resort to more sensationalist names.

Back on topic: This is pretty great, I can't wait to hear what they will say about it when I actually go to the accelerator this July ^_^

Well there were numerous issues. Personally I blame the collapse of the soviet union, since there were no communists to shoot death rays at any more the republicans lost the urge to fund the giant death ray machine.

[/joke]

Hehe.

I don't find it impossible to believe that scientist's aren't good at PR:


It is Michio Kaku though, who I know can be polarising.

 

[geldonyetich]

Confirmation bias is typically when you perceive what you want to perceive because it meets with your pre-existing ideas.

The higgs boson is not identified by human perception, it is mechanically and mathematically identified - mostly by computers.

Exactly. The math tells them it should be there, and some "mechanical" experiments seem to suggest it should be there, so they embarked upon this whole project under the premise that they want to confirm it's there. Ergo, unavoidable confirmation bias on the Hadron Collider experimentation.

It doesn't help that the apparatus was so overwhelmingly expensive, either. As I recall, originally we were hearing that they couldn't find the particle they expected to find. All of a sudden, they're singing a different tune.

This is actually a poor outcome for physicists as if your ideas are always confirmed to be correct there is the likelihood they will declare your field complete and shut down funding and you are now an expert in nothing at all useful.

I've yet to hear one complain that's the case. Science just builds; they'll come up with another hypothesis and their participation in previous successful projects makes it more likely they'll be hired for the job of testing it. They're not like a drug company that won't sell the cure because they can make more money from treating the symptoms.

It's not confirmation bias. It's the scientific method.

That's not a refutation. It's a blanket statement.

Are you seriously accusing these scientists on just saying, "This idea sounds about right. Let's pour a ton of money and time into a project we have no strong belief in the potential results of."

Are you seriously saying that never happens in science? Because I'm pretty sure I've heard of quite a few experiments that were started under those premises and only lead to disappointed scientists when the results did not match what they wanted.

And, for the record, I'm not technically accusing them of falsifying their evidence deliberately out of confirmation bias. I'm just saying it would be an exceptional challenge to keep confirmation bias out of it.

 

[elvor0]

nit-pickingly though, if they dislike it being called quote "God Particle", than WHY use that in the freaking title!? *throws a rolled up newspaper* bad escapist! no on the click-baiting!

Because if they just called it the higgs-boson particle then nobody would care. Except for scientists ofcourse. Most people still don't know what it does. And Im not talking specifics. Just a general idea.

OT: nice. I wonder if it will translate into real world applications.

I dunno, Higgs Boson is a widely enough known name for it. God Particle is the one I barely hear. And on this site I say it was safe enough to assume most people have /heard/ of the Higgs Boson, with a lot of us likley excited. Granted I don't really know much of the physics about it, beyond it being important in the Standard Model of physics in regards to certain mass, but I don't actually understand what knockon effect it'll have in the world of physics.

I rarely take what people on the escapist know as a basis for what the general population knows. I shit you not, 9/10 of my friends don't know the lightest atom. Let alone the higgs boson particle (they know the name but thats about it).

Oh I know, I was't saying the escapist is a good representation of the general populace, just that it's safe to use Higgs Boson on this site without confusing people, and if they don't know, they likely don't care in the first place.

Although in British news, I'm /pretty/ sure they tend to use Higgs Boson rather than "God Particle", and if they do it's in passing, not in headlines. Most people in the UK know it as the "Higgs Boson", if they know about it.

EDIT: In hindsight I realise I've missunderstood your inital point. Yes of course, /general/ populace would be interested in Gods, over higgs boson. How silly of me.

 

[happyninja42]

There is no such thing as a "God particle." That's the distorted version for people who want to understand this without actually understanding it.

Clarify what you mean. Because in the practical sense, the particle that has been dubbed the "God Particle" has apparently been found and proven to actually exist. So, there is such a thing as a God Particle in that sense.


If you mean "some particle that is God, related to God, or some such thing about the religious concept of a diety", then I would agree, but your statement was kind of vague.

 

[BoogieManFL]

Why would you intentionally continue using disliked title at all, let alone when it's disliked by the experts who are the ones who understand what it is? Call it what they call it, they should know. You're just promoting ignorance on the subject.

They don't like it called this, but hey, I'll call it that in my title!

Sigh..