Seriously, stop calling it the "God Particle"

[thejackyl]

Hmmm... Whats worse? Someone referring to it as the "God Particle", or someone actually thinking that this will disprove the existence of God.

He was actually bragging to me that "Soon I will be able to go around and laugh in everyone's face because we proved God doesn't exist."
"No, we didn't."
"Not yet."
"It's still not going to prove anything."
"How so?"
"Do you even know what they're researching?"
"..."
"Besides, it's pretty much impossible to disprove God."
"Oh really?" (typed out o rly)
"The only people who will ever know are already dead."
"That's not my point."

Why am I friends with this guy again?

 

[OmniscientOstrich]

I've only heard it being referred to as Higgs Boson not 'The God particle.' And that name in itself is so vague, I wonder why people read so deeply into it and automatically assume that a scientific study pertaining to the inception of the Universe is trying to disprove religion and the existence of a deity. Sure, Fundamentalists who think the world is only thousands of years old will undoubtedly have a problem with it, but then again, they're mental. Still I don't understand why non-fundamentalist religious people would feel threatened by this. The Big Bang theory does not disprove God in itself and you could still argue that a deity(s) was responsible for it. Science is irrelevant to religion unless a theory directly contradicts something in that religions philosophy and the scientific community is made up of people with a wide variety of various religious/spiritual beliefs. They're not out to get you, so stop being so paranoid.

 

[jamesbrown]

The "god" part of that phrase is only to explain its signifigance; that is it.

I don't have time to read every single post. But I am sure there is a debate about chirstianity on here. (There are more than one religon people) and as far as I can tell religon and science are adressing two completely differnet promblems and to associate themis like mixing oil and water then proclaiming that you can't drink your water, when you were the one to mix them in the first place. science says how and religon says why and the christian holy text "gensis" is simply suppelemental to say that god created the universe. seriously if your going to focus on somthing in christianity focus on the thing that makes it CHRISTIAN; not some lego in death star that is christianity http://images.amazon.com/images/G/01/toys/detail-page/B000FTXNRI-1-lg.jpg.

 

[Charli]

Mmm nope never heard it called that...

It's always been the Higgs Boson particle. Naming something "The God-" anything is just asking for it.

 

[Tratchet]

I'm kind of torn on the subject. On the one hand, the God Particle is much more catchy than the Higgs Boson, and will attract many more people. The guy on that bus would not have been interested in CERN at all if the Higgs Boson had never been called the God Particle, and even though he was arguably interested for the wrong reasons he is still someone who is a little more informed who would otherwise not be. I'll admit the first time that I read about the Higgs Boson the thing that grabbed me was that it was called the God Particle, and I have a degree in physics (if just a bachelor).

On the other hand the name is extremely inaccurate, and I can see why that bugs a lot of physicists. Basically the question is, do the pros of increased public awareness outweigh the cons of inaccuracy and confusion over what the Higgs Boson actually is? I think... probably.

 

[Valkyrie101]

Fairly sure it's because, in giving mass to particles, it is an essential component of existence and underpins absolutely everything in physics, which in turn underpins absolutely everything else. It's pivotal for the world as we know it, hence 'God particle'. It has nothing to do with God or religion whatsoever, though, and will have no bearing on religious belief or lack thereof.

 

[health-bar]

Kill the unbeliever!

He dares to mock the god of science!

 

[Agow95]

I think that "God Particle" is an ok name, if you understand that it's not about religion but the scientific impact it could have, if it turns out to be non-existant then a few laws of physics that partially rely on it's existance will have to re-written, but that's still isn't bad because then we can focus on new stuff

 

[ShindoL Shill]

ive heard it called the god particle once. in angels and demons i believe...

 

[Wintermoot]

the only place where somebody called something "The God Particle" was in Retromancer (a Fantasy/Sci-fi novel) I never heard anybody refer to the Higgs Bosson particle as God Particle.
I think it sounds stupid to call it that way.

 

[FalloutJack]

Well, I never did. The so-called god particle should somehow endow godhood upon a person, which I don't believe will ever happen.

 

[tthor]

oh dear god...
ya, you're right, change the name..

 

[DracoSuave]

Rational individuals do not get butthurt over metaphors spoken with poetic license.

Any questions?

 

[Possibly]

I also agree with the OP... it's just misleading.

But I would like to point out that when a famous physicist was asked by a journalist why he had referred to it as the "God particle," he replied "because I can't call it the Goddamn particle".

(It may have been Leon Lederman, I don't have the source on hand right now)

 

[Altorin]

so you just had some random god bully on the bus who happened to be taking the bus right near a CERN building? That's pretty crazy.

 

[KirbyKrackle]

Rational individuals do not get butthurt over metaphors spoken with poetic license.

Any questions?

Yes, what led you to believe this person was in any way "hurt" or offended by the use of term "god particle", as opposed to simply mildly exasperated? I'm curious.

 

[Mad World]

And Genesis was a damn poem, as in, not to be taken literally. For crying out loud, how many times do I need to say this to damn creationists (I'm not shouting at you, OP, or anyone else, but expressing my annoyance at this ignorance).

Even if you're right (about Genesis being a poem), that doesn't mean that it's automatically false.

Anyway, it seems more narrative to me.

 

[Marik2]

Wait, it's actually called that outside of Angels and Demons? What the hell?! :S

And Genesis was a damn poem, as in, not to be taken literally. For crying out loud, how many times do I need to say this to damn creationists (I'm not shouting at you, OP, or anyone else, but expressing my annoyance at this ignorance).

Anyway, kudos on where you work, seriously good stuff man!

Genesis is a poem?

Ive never heard of that.

 

[Laser Priest]

Trying to fight ignorance is harder than trying to fight a god.

People are going to call it that, whether it is accurate or not.

I've never referred to it as such, but I don't often find myself in conversation about the particle.

 

[DracoSuave]

Rational individuals do not get butthurt over metaphors spoken with poetic license.

Any questions?

Yes, what led you to believe this person was in any way "hurt" or offended by the use of term "god particle", as opposed to simply mildly exasperated? I'm curious.

I'll try to explain the point to you, so you understand before you get overly defensive over the part of the statement that actually doesn't matter at all.

Particle physics often names things with whimsy rather than with 'technical terms.'

Units of measure like the 'barn' and 'outhouse', quarks that are 'strange' or 'charmed', 'spin', 'strong', 'weak', etc. 'God particle' is just yet another aspect of poetic license that is commonly used by this particular facet of the scientific community, one that is unique.

It's one of the things that is beautiful about that science.

Loosen up, yo.