Seriously, stop calling it the "God Particle"

Torrasque

New member
Aug 6, 2010
3,441
0
0
I don't think I have ever heard it called that, and I know I would never call it that myself.
Apparently it was in Da Vinci Code, but I don't recall /shrug

Silly people being silly aside, it must be really really cool to work at CERN :D
My grade 11/12 physics teacher explained what was going on there, and I only barely understood it, lol.
Whatever it is you're doing there, or trying to discover, I am sure it is very cool =)
 

NinjaDuckie

Senior Member
Sep 9, 2009
160
0
21
I only heard it referred to as the God Particle by Bill Bailey during a sketch on the whole strangelets and miniature black hole scenario. But I agree that it's a stupid name and implies we're working on altering the very fabric of reality or whatever.
 

Esotera

New member
May 5, 2011
3,400
0
0
I think the journalists who popularised the name are definitely to blame; scientific communication to the public is still nowhere near good enough. My friend used to believe that the only way to modify an organism's DNA was with really small scissors; she actually told me to practise getting a steady hand before going into the lab. The public's understanding of science is bad enough, they really don't need confusing or misleading terminology.
 

5t3v0

New member
Jan 15, 2011
317
0
0
I guess you all have been "Dan Browned" Or something at least similar. Its amazing how much attention this guy gets.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DanBrowned (For those who don't know what this crazy New Zealander/Australian is talking about)
 

Saltyk

Sane among the insane.
Sep 12, 2010
16,755
0
0
I've it refereed to as the God Particle in almost every article I have read on the LHC, but never thought it was an attempt to disprove God. Those articles also called it the Higgs Boson, too. I always thought of it as an odd name for it, though.

Wouldn't a "God Particle" be one that is somehow responsible for the creation of life? At least, that's my opinion.

Ghengis John said:
I've thought it was a stupid name myself, and I'm no physicist. Yes it's important right now, and finding it would help cement a few theories, but surely once it's found something else will become just as pressing to know. That's the nature of science at any rate.
Well, next will be the "Jesus Particle". Then, the "Buddha Particle". Then, the "Muhammad Particle". Then, the, um... "Satan Particle"?
 

longboardfan

New member
Jul 27, 2011
166
0
0
You can't stop people from being crazy or stupid, or both. I suggest alerting security that a crazy person is interested in exploring the effects of shooting people and asking how to access a CERN site. You might want to be alert for this.
 

kittii-chan 300

New member
Feb 27, 2011
704
0
0
I think your research project should just explain stuff to people with this

in all seriousness though, good work getting such a good job.
and yes, if it ever comes up in one of my conversations i will call it what you want me to call it...
 

chuketek

New member
Sep 28, 2009
70
0
0
savandicus said:
Its a name that kind of fits abit in the fact that if it exsists it will explain everything, ideally anyway.
Noooo. Don't get me wrong, it's important. But we've still got a hell of a lot ahead of us.

savandicus said:
But there are all sorts of connotations that people will have when you talk about nearly any subject, knowing what they are is always incredibly useful when having conversations. In future you will now know that some point will not be properly informed about the higgs boson and you can start any conversation with the fact that it has nothing to do with religion.
True, but I doubt there are many nicknames quite so misleading in image. However I did learn my lesson about explaining to people who ask questions about the "God Particle" rather than "The Higgs".

EonEire said:
I'm afraid science can never untangle itself from Religion until one of them "wins out". That may be a bit flame inducing but that's not my intention. Science doesn't care about religion, but religion really care about science. Religion as a concept sees science as an enemy its about proving and looking for things outside of the answer "god did it".
I disagree in a fairly semantic way. Monotheism certainly fits your post, Polytheism does to an extent. However less confrontational religions which seek to explain and influence the nature of man's psyche (or soul, if you believe in them), rather than force a literal explanation for life, the universe and everything on everyone are quite compatible with Science. (i.e. Buddhism).

I'm very decidedly atheist by the way, but believe that the idea of spirituality of some sort is important enough to the human psyche that religion will not disappear entirely for an extremely long time. Rather than a religious apologist I suppose it would be more accurate to think of me as a scientist who watched way too much Babylon 5.
 

Whateveralot

New member
Oct 25, 2010
953
0
0
I always thought it was funny how only religious people are trying to make science look as if it's "fighting" religion. I realise science is not there to take religion down, it just managed to disprove a lot of the assumptions religion held on to over the years. In return, religion tries it's best to disprove science. So far, religion isn't really holding up against science. Wrongly accusing science of directly attacking religion (by calling it the "God particle", amongst other things) is just one of the last resorts they have. It indicates how threatened religion actually feels by science.


Just my point of view though, I might be having a horrible perspective on this whole situation.
 

thethingthatlurks

New member
Feb 16, 2010
2,102
0
0
Congratulations, you've witnessed the stupidity that is creationism. Welcome to the club! Sadly, we do not have any official meeting place, but feel free to take some aspirin and one or seven shots of whiskey. Don't worry, the burning left by the stupid will subside soon :)

As for the media's gross oversimplification of science, try the bloody medical establishment! Have you ever heard of a guy named Dr. Ben Goldacre? He does some pretty entertaining work on criticizing the media for what he calls their attempts at categorizing every inanimate object on earth as either a cause of, or cure for cancer. Here's his website: http://www.badscience.net/
Why not start something like that for particle physics? With that whole CERN=destroyer of worlds, and that "God's particle" malarkey, you should have plenty of starting material.

Say, since you have one of those amazing jobs that aspiring scientists like myself (sadly I'm no physicist) would kill to have, would you be interested in doing an IAMA here? Although only a handful of us have science degrees, the rest tend to not ask too many stupid questions.
 

Stilkon

New member
Feb 19, 2011
304
0
0
You work at CERN?

Coolest.
Job.
Ever.

And I use the moniker "Higgs-Boson". Seems silly to equate a particle with a generic deity. As for the guy you encountered on the bus, ignore him. He's just some creationist idiot trying to prove he's worth something.
 

JochemDude

New member
Nov 23, 2010
1,242
0
0
I've never heard anyone call it that.
You know what's actually thw sad part is? As soon as it's proven/discovered they'll just say god created that too...
 

EonEire

New member
Feb 7, 2008
142
0
0
chuketek said:
"I disagree in a fairly semantic way. Monotheism certainly fits your post, Polytheism does to an extent. However less confrontational religions which seek to explain and influence the nature of man's psyche (or soul, if you believe in them), rather than force a literal explanation for life, the universe and everything on everyone are quite compatible with Science. (i.e. Buddhism).

I'm very decidedly atheist by the way, but believe that the idea of spirituality of some sort is important enough to the human psyche that religion will not disappear entirely for an extremely long time. Rather than a religious apologist I suppose it would be more accurate to think of me as a scientist who watched way too much Babylon 5"
Yes I was overly broad with the blanket of "religion", I guess that usually when talking about this with friends it just gets called religion and is taken as a "those ones that freak out whenever they activate the particle accelerator", but yes I take what you said on board I didn't quite expand as much as I should have.
 

The Diabolical Biz

New member
Jun 25, 2009
1,620
0
0
I visited CERN earlier this summer! Go me!

I mean, err...well, I don't refer to it as the God particle unless I'm being...
...ironic.
 

Macgyvercas

Spice & Wolf Restored!
Feb 19, 2009
6,103
0
0
chuketek said:
I work on the ATLAS project at the LHC and probably the most famous objective for the project is to find evidence for the existence of the "Higgs Boson". It also gets called the "God Particle" a lot and I really wish people would stop. I had an experience a couple of days ago which reminded me of just how much I hate this nickname and why, so I thought I'd share.

I'm not going to go into a detailed explanation of what the Higgs Boson actually is, but suffice to say that it would prove the leading theory regarding why things have mass, which would more or less validate our current understanding of the universe up to a certain point. If we don't find it, then it's back to the drawing board for a whole heap of theories.

So anyway, the experience.
I was waiting for a bus to CERN from the airport and someone (clearly not Swiss or French) asked me how to get to an area which has one of the CERN sites. I showed him and asked whether he was heading to CERN as usually foreigners heading to these areas are CERN scientists. He wasn't, but expressed an interest in what exactly we were doing and asked me to explain what the "God Particle" was.

I'd been travelling for the best part of 16 hours and reading a book by Feynmann, so rather than just giving a version of this post's second paragraph, I rambled on for a bit about how photons mediate the Electromagnetic force and how other forces are carried out through particles called Bosons.
I explained that although ideas like inertia are very intuitive, explaining them on a fundamental level is actually very difficult and finding the Higgs would help explain how it happens.

He seemed confused and asked whether we were investigating space with this research or how people function. I took a step back and tried to explain that nearly all of biology and chemistry is essentially Electromagnetic in nature, with some changes due to things having mass and being affected by Gravity. EM is very well understood, Inertia is what we're trying to explain now and Gravity is still very much a work in progress.
I also said that the Higgs would only have existed naturally in a very short window after the big bang and would help explain how matter developed during that window. Which is one of the reasons why you hear about space a lot in discussions about the Higgs.

This is only a summary of the conversation, he asked me at some point whether spending money one this sort of research is justified and to explain how EM can account for everything including (and I swear this was the example he gave) what happens when someone gets shot. Generally he seemed pretty interested in hearing me out although I doubt I could have explained all of the finer points satisfactorily.

Finally, I was asked whether we were doing this to try and explain how the Big Bang happened and how time started, so to speak. I replied that we're just trying to understand the Big Bang as early as possible, but going past the initial point is impossible, at least for now.
He said "So, the idea isn't to disprove the idea of God or anything like that then?"
Me: "No, nothing like that at all"
Him:"So then why is it called the God Particle"
Me: "Because some journalist though it was a cool name"
Him:"Ah, right, I see....... So, I guess not many people working at CERN believe in Creation"
Me: "err ......No, I guess not"
Him:"hmmn, I do, Genesis 1-1, you should really read it some time"
Me: "maybe I will"
(I do actually intend to read the bible at some point, just because I don't think hardly any of it's true doesn't mean I don't think it's important)

At which point my tram arrived (he'd clearly had one eye on the announcement board), we shook hands and I headed off.


After thinking about it for a minute on the tram I realised that the entire conversation had been sabotaged from the beginning by the idea that the Higgs Boson would somehow disprove the notion of God or had anything to do with religion. For anyone who doesn't know anything about particle physics "God Particle" is much easier to draw an image of than "Higgs Boson" (which is why I suppose the name stuck...), the problem is that this image is completely wrong. And whilst my neighbor at the bus station had been more inquisitive than confrontational (one odd example aside), others may have a different approach to trying to get scientists to "explain themselves".

So please, can we stop calling it the "God Particle", it gives a great number of people completely the wrong idea. Please?
Very interesting story. I'm curious to learn more. I've heard about the Higgs Boson before, and never knew that much about. Would you mind going into greater detail about (in a PM if that works), or point me to some reliable article where I could learn more? Science is one of the three things I talk about with my friends at work (the others being philosophy and general nerd stuff).
 

Sigilis

New member
Nov 11, 2010
11
0
0
The problem with this situation is that the average person has no idea how modern physics work, many of them lack even the understanding of classical physics, not to mention the specific language that physicist have developed in order to describe the things that they study. All they know is that the news calls it the god particle, and they have no possibility of comprehending it on any other level than 'this does important things'. Without more information, is it any wonder that they come to the conclusion that the 'God Particle' has something to do with religion?

Usually, when people are unable to contextualize information that they receive, they make up stories to tell themselves and with a name like 'God Particle', it is not too difficult to imagine where they could get an idea like that. I would almost call it a conspiracy on the part of the media to turn people against CERN... if it weren't for the fact that there may be no better way to communicate to the general populace the importance of this sort of fundamental research. Like all linguistic constructs this one seeks to strike a balance between accuracy and simplicity.

Count your lucky Solenoids that they did not name it the Satan Particle.
 

DEAD34345

New member
Aug 18, 2010
1,929
0
0
I've never heard the Higgs Boson referred to as the "God Particle" before in my life, so it really can't be all that common. The way I see it, if this name is getting people interested enough to look into the actual science behind it then I would say it's a good thing, even if it causes some misconceptions.
 

Ghengis John

New member
Dec 16, 2007
2,209
0
0
theonecookie said:
I am sure any answer that wasn't the one he was looking for would have gone over "well"

Creationists are like that
True true. But face to face with most people I'm going to employ a little tact. Saying "god hasn't been the answer to anything." to a creationist, no matter how you imply the meaning just strikes me as... uniquely unwise?

Saltyk said:
Well, next will be the "Jesus Particle". Then, the "Buddha Particle". Then, the "Muhammad Particle". Then, the, um... "Satan Particle"?
I can just imagine the firestorm right now: "Don't research the Satan particle!".

chuketek said:
I was wondering if I might be able to ask you a question about the higgs field myself via PM. If you could relate them to a layman I'd appreciate it.