"God Particle" Further Confirmed to Have Been Found

[elvor0]

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.

Well really, "God Particle" religious connection or not, paints it as some sort of all powerful particle. When in reality it isn't that, rather a missing piece of a physics puzzle(or from my limited understanding, I'm sure someone more clued in will scoff at that simplification). The science community don't call it the "God" particle, because like Queen Michael said, it pains a disorted picture of what it actually is to the rest of the world.

Yes something that gets called the "god particle" has been discovered, but that isn't what it is, like Stonehenge isn't a Henge(granted we're not going to change the name of that, but it's early enough for the Higgs Boson for perception to change). "God" particle isn't technically even it's proper nickname, the dude who theorized it wanted to reference it as the "Goddamn Particle" but they wouldn't let him. Which of course has entirely different connotations. As in "where the hell is it?"

 

[QuadFish]

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.

As an explanation of the concept it's not that good, no, but that's not the point. If we want to justify using these buzz terms there has to be a useful effect of doing so. "Global warming" is at worst an imprecise summary of the idea, and anyone completely unfamiliar with climate change can google it to get a decent idea of the concept and consequences off wikipedia or whatever. As a general term in headlines it's bad but for complete laypeople it might be useful.

So where does that leave "God particle"? It's a particle that has nothing to do with God and needs a solid knowledge of particle physics (bosons and gravity fields in particular) to understand. The phrase does nothing to introduce people to the idea and only annoys knowledgeable people.

If someone reads "Higgs Boson" and wants to go on a learning adventure they're free to. But "God particle" is setting them on the wrong foot from the get-go. At least "global warming" is a good start to an easier concept.

EDIT: And upon re-reading some of these comments, that's exactly what's happened. Quite a few are asking why it's called that and the googlers aren't any better off for looking into it. Let's just call it the Higgs Boson so people know what they're getting into.

 

[geizr]

It's not just scientists that need to loosen-up. Some Escapists need to, as well, in my opinion. As far as I know, the term "god particle" is one that was coined by Leon Lederman, a Noble Prize physicist, to describe the Higgs boson. He coined this termed as just a catchy term to signify the importance of the particle in that it is the fundamental mechanism by which mass is made manifest. The existence, or non-existence, of the Higgs boson has absolutely no bearing on the existence or non-existence of God. You're still free to believe however you wish regarding the existence or non-existence of God; just be mature enough to allow others the same freedom. I think if God were composed of some discernible material particle, He would probably lose a lot of the degree in terms of omnipotence and eternal existence that people normally assign when thinking of God; in other words, God may suddenly develop calculable limits, something we don't normally think of God as having.

it was originally called the "God-Damned Particle" because of the difficulty of observing it.

Of course, mainstream media cant say "God-Damned". so they shortened it to "God".

And now we have one of the most annoying common names for a particle ever.

From what I can observe, it's only annoying to the fanatically religious or the fanatically atheistic, both groups, in my opinion, need to take a chill-pill and get over themselves.

EDIT: changed to be a bit more logically precise on my last assertion before the quote.

 

[QuadFish]

it was originally called the "God-Damned Particle" because of the difficulty of observing it.

Of course, mainstream media cant say "God-Damned". so they shortened it to "God".

And now we have one of the most annoying common names for a particle ever.

From what I can observe, it's only annoying to the fanatically religious or the fanatically atheistic, both groups, in my opinion, need to take a chill-pill and get over themselves.

Maybe it's better to think of how every particle physicist (and almost every other physicist) in the industry has some negative opinion on the name by now, not just commenting Escapists. It's less a matter of religion and more that a useless and misleading term is being spread for no reason. It was invented by a savvy publisher and has no real source in the physics industry. Why keep using a term when at best it doesn't educate anyone, and at worst it gives them the wrong introduction completely?

 

[Slegiar Dryke]

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

Well, everything but the Higgs Boson...

*applauds* bravo good sir XD had not thought of that when I posted last night XD

 

[Slegiar Dryke]

it was originally called the "God-Damned Particle" because of the difficulty of observing it.

Of course, mainstream media cant say "God-Damned". so they shortened it to "God".

And now we have one of the most annoying common names for a particle ever.

don't say that, if there's one thing we know about science its that the area of study loves to come up with annoying names, either odd to remember or a paragraph long XD

 

[rutger5000]

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]

Honestly I think you're right. The USA made themselves the best at nuclear physics during the cold war, that was not without reason. Had the sovjets continued to pose a military treat to the USA it's technology could very well have been further developed.

 

[Clankenbeard]

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.

To all of those who may be offended by the "God particle" moniker and have lambasted you for its use in the title of your article, I say the following...

Well done Rhykker. Modern Physics was my nemesis in college. (I could never properly wrap my head around frame of reference for time/space dilation.) And I certainly never ventured upward into particle physics. I would not have clicked on the link to your article had it been titled with "Higgs Boson". Your deliberate choice of wording proved effective at least once. Now this layperson knows a bit more thanks to you. Well played, sir.

 

[Bakuryukun]

Maybe one day we'll stop calling it the God Particle, what a stupid layman's name.

 

[Queen Michael]

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]

Honestly I think you're right. The USA made themselves the best at nuclear physics during the cold war, that was not without reason. Had the sovjets continued to pose a military treat to the USA it's technology could very well have been further developed.

I didn't say that, comrade. Not me.

 

[Something Amyss]

"Global warming" is at worst an imprecise summary of the idea, and anyone completely unfamiliar with climate change can google it to get a decent idea of the concept and consequences off wikipedia or whatever.

Considering the term itself becomes superfluous here I'm not sure what the problem is. I mean, I could see your argument with something like "Climate change," where the brief synopsis offered meshes both with observable evidence and with the term, but people don't see a warming trend, they see upheaval at best. And then it snows, and they see "lolalgore."

So where does that leave "God particle"?

I suppose I could make a glib remark about how in the absence of evidence, people tend to insert God, but the one elusive particle that not only grants mass, but is described as the key to validating and explaining the standard model of reality?

I can see several parallels to God there. And I don't even believe in God.

I mean, does it literally have anything to do with God? Not really. Is it a completely out there comparison? Not really.

 

[sorsa]

Can it make me a sandvich or fetch me a beer from the fridge? No? Well paint me unimpressed.

 

[Rozalia1]

Spoiler

Good to see further confirmation of the Wrestling God Particle

http://www.kayfabenews.com/cern-scientists-discover-elusive-wrestling-god-particle/

What I'd like to see is what they can use all this research to do. There is a time where you have to put these things to practical use.

 

[Cerebrawl]

Firstly on topic, awesome news that it has further been confirmed as being the true deal. what this means, I dunno. I'm an IT guy, not physics.

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!

It was caused by newspaper censorship. The physicist pet name for it was the "Goddamn Particle", because it was so hard to find.

Newspapers censored out the damn.

 

[-Dragmire-]

E.G. Why do they call it "god" particle?

Why does mainstream media refer to it as the "God" particle. I'm not seeing the connection.

The term was started in the title of a 1993 book by physicist Leon Lederman, because his publisher wouldnt let him call it "the goddamn particle". He wanted to call it that due to the trouble and expense it was causing physicists to track it down.

Really? That actually sounds like a joke.


Strange how things turn out sometimes.

 

[Crimsonmonkeywar]

I like the term God particle, i think it's a pretty badass name and will continue to use it in normal speech, and no I'm not religious.

 

[Crimsonmonkeywar]

it was originally called the "God-Damned Particle" because of the difficulty of observing it.

Of course, mainstream media cant say "God-Damned". so they shortened it to "God".

And now we have one of the most annoying common names for a particle ever.

From what I can observe, it's only annoying to the fanatically religious or the fanatically atheistic, both groups, in my opinion, need to take a chill-pill and get over themselves.

Maybe it's better to think of how every particle physicist (and almost every other physicist) in the industry has some negative opinion on the name by now, not just commenting Escapists. It's less a matter of religion and more that a useless and misleading term is being spread for no reason. It was invented by a savvy publisher and has no real source in the physics industry. Why keep using a term when at best it doesn't educate anyone, and at worst it gives them the wrong introduction completely?

I don't see how its misleading. A name is a name, its what you do with it that matters. Not my fault if people find a girl named beautiful to be ugly. If you rely on a name to be informed then honestly I'd rather you stay away from academia. Worse then the people who click on an article and comment without reading it's contents, or scroll directly to a the score on a review

but what the hell....maybe(according to the 'annoyed') it'll get some religious bait-click zealots to pick up a book that wasn't written in the desert some 2000+ years ago

 

[JarinArenos]

I thought the reference "God Particle" was that it basically defines mass, which was one of the last missing pieces of the model, and one that "creation scientists" loved to point out, claiming that it was really just God holding everything together.

 

[Jacco]

Firstly on topic, awesome news that it has further been confirmed as being the true deal. what this means, I dunno. I'm an IT guy, not physics.

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!

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.

I thought the reference "God Particle" was that it basically defines mass, which was one of the last missing pieces of the model, and one that "creation scientists" loved to point out, claiming that it was really just God holding everything together.

I read an interview once with the guy who came up with the theory and he said that the term "God Particle" came from his saying "the goddamned particle" and because they couldn't say that in the literature, it became simply the "God Particle."

 

[Jacco]

Can it make me a sandvich or fetch me a beer from the fridge? No? Well paint me unimpressed.

There's a chance it could lead to someone being able to do that from across the galaxy. Does that count?