# Is the Higgs Boson the 'God' Particle?



## Sebastian Michael (Jun 18, 2012)

I'm immensely fascinated by this, not in a small measure excited about it and wholly inexpert, and also a little surprised nobody else has mentioned it here yet (at least as far as I can tell): at CERN, near Geneva, Switzerland, yesterday, the scientists working at the Large Hadron Collider announced, with some caution, that they had indeed found a particle that may well be - some would say is likely to be - the one predicted by Professor Peter Higgs, after whom it is named (and, to be fair, a group of others), as far back as 1964. So far so good. Its discovery will explain, it is hoped, to some extent how everything in our universe obtains its mass, without which it wouldn't be there, and therefore would not exist.

But is this the 'God' particle? When the Greeks first talked about the atom they did so because in their language 'atomos' meant 'indivisible'. We've long since established (and put to devastating as well as awe-inspiring effect) the fact that it is no such thing. Up until now, and that in itself is perhaps predictable, whenever we've said we've found the fundamental building block of our universe, we've learnt to realise that it, too, is in fact made up of infinitely smaller building blocks. Will it turn out that the smallest building block is also the largest and will there be a point at which dimension and mass simply become meaningless and we have in effect an entity that is beyond matter altogether, and if so is that then the last word, or is it the first word, and will we ever understand what it actually is?...

Just a few light musings to start my Thursday morning...


----------



## Amy Corwin (Jan 3, 2011)

I saw that on the news, as well, and like you, I keep wondering what we will now discover. It seems that no matter how much you learn, what you really learn is how much you don't know. At least that's what I've experienced. In fact, the more I learn about any particular subject, the more I realize I know very little about it.

Only generalists think they know everything. 

Perhaps this particle, too, will be comprised of other particles, ad infinitum.


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

Higgs dislikes that term intensely. He's an atheist by personal belief, but has no wish to offend people who are religious. To my mind, that makes him a nice guy as well as a genius.


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

Tony Richards said:


> Higgs dislikes that term intensely. He's an atheist by personal belief, but has no wish to offend people who are religious.


Actually, I think the "God Particle" is the short name for the "God damn it, this particle is hard to find!"

And it's way past cool that CERN can find evidence that it exists.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

By the way, Leon Lederman's book _The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?_ (not enKindled, unfortunately) is a good read and very accessible to lay readers (such as myself). While some of the physics is undoubtedly a bit dated now (published in 1992, I believe), it provides a fascinating look into experimental physics (versus the many books out there by theoretical physiscists).


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

PS: I think the "God Particle" term came into being not because it is meant to actually say that the Higgs boson is somehow holier than the other particles, but because the Higgs can be used to explain why all the other particles have masses and inertia (except for the photon, which has no mass). Thus, at least in that respect, the Higgs is the "one particle to rule them all."


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

I am fascinated by this. Reading a lot of this, but I can't fit it all in my brain  . 

I can't recall now what show it was, but someone had one of those smart people on that explained this in such terms that it made sense to me. I love people like that. They can break it down to the non science/physics educated person. 

I mean I got tought some of the basics, but this stuff when they use their big words, goes right over my head  

The Higgs particle? That's what its called right? 

Pretty cool stuff.


----------



## Sebastian Michael (Jun 18, 2012)

since posting i've discovered this (on another forum, as it happens) - it doesn't actually quite explain the higgs boson, but it's possibly the most informative and also entertaining explanation i've yet seen of what they're doing at CERN:

http://vimeo.com/41038445


----------



## metal134 (Sep 2, 2010)

Considering what the implications would be if they did indeed find it, I remain wary until they know conclusively that what they found was indeed the Higgs Boson.


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

NogDog said:


> PS: I think the "God Particle" term came into being not because it is meant to actually say that the Higgs boson is somehow holier than the other particles, but because the Higgs can be used to explain why all the other particles have masses and inertia (except for the photon, which has no mass). Thus, at least in that respect, the Higgs is the "one particle to rule them all."


Then shouldn't it be called the Precious particle?


----------



## JacksonJones (Feb 20, 2012)

Besides Mr. Higgs not liking the term, it's seem like calling the thing the "God particle" is another example of science kicking the universal explanation can down the road. While the term's inference might provide a poetic explanation for all other (bigger) materials, it neatly sidesteps the question about what makes up the boson (as Amy pointed out).


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

JacksonJones said:


> Besides Mr. Higgs not liking the term, it's seem like calling the thing the "God particle" is another example of science kicking the universal explanation can down the road. While the term's inference might provide a poetic explanation for all other (bigger) materials, it neatly sidesteps the question about what makes up the boson (as Amy pointed out).


Yes, since nobody actually *knows* the origin of "life, the universe, and everything" -- there are just lots of different beliefs, theories, and speculations at this point. But IMHO, that does not mean we should stop asking such questions and looking for their answers merely because they are very, very difficult. Instead, I marvel at how much we have been able to learn and how incredibly close we *may* be to finding some of those very difficult answers -- though I am in no way sure we will ever have anything close to a final, consensus answer for them, nor that many people will continue to accept whichever answers they simply *like* the best. (That last part is not directed at your reply or anyone else's, just a general opinion of mine about many people's reaction to scientific research.)

PS: As to what the Higgs is "made" of, String theory would have us believe it's a one-dimensional "something" vibrating in a particular manner, much of it within numerous spatial dimensions we humans cannot perceive.


----------



## Sebastian Michael (Jun 18, 2012)

NogDog said:


> many people will continue to accept whichever answers they simply *like* the best.


This is possibly part of the question that interests me most: can science (especially at quantum physics level and when talking about the origins of the universe, and what, if anything, lies outwith the 'bounds' of what we understand to be our universe) or religion (especially in the face of science) find a way to communicate itself in such a way that some, any or many of us can - or have to - see our existence in a radically new light.

Though I struggle to grasp it, I also like the inherent elegance of superstring theory, but when you are looking at a model that relies on multiple dimensions for the possibility of which we have as yet scant evidence, if any, science comes perilously close to religion in postulating assumptions or interpretations as 'fact'...


----------



## drenfrow (Jan 27, 2010)

Sebastian Michael said:


> since posting i've discovered this (on another forum, as it happens) - it doesn't actually quite explain the higgs boson, but it's possibly the most informative and also entertaining explanation i've yet seen of what they're doing at CERN:
> 
> http://vimeo.com/41038445


Great video. Thanks for posting that.

In my looking around trying to find something to explain what was going on, these helped me:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/12/13/mass-effect-maybe-higgs-maybe-not/
It's from Dec 11, 2011 and gives a good background on how they look for the Higgs boson.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/07/04/higgs/
This one is from July 4, 2012 and explains Wednesday's announcement.

Sean Carroll, a physicist who live blogged the event for Discover Magazine (live blogging at a scientific announcement...warms the cockles of my heart and makes me crack up laughing at the same time!), tweeted this: Can't believe I haven't yet heard "We'll have to stop calling it the God particle now that there's evidence it exists." Love it.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Sebastian Michael said:


> ...
> Though I struggle to grasp it, I also like the inherent elegance of superstring theory, but when you are looking at a model that relies on multiple dimensions for the possibility of which we have as yet scant evidence, if any, science comes perilously close to religion in postulating assumptions or interpretations as 'fact'...


My slight quibble with that is that there _is_ some rigorous mathematics behind it. Unfortunately, I (and approximately 99.99% or so of the rest of us) cannot really grasp most of it (even though I did win a prize in a regional math contest about 40 years ago  ). It's certainly not yet considered a "fact", and for that matter will never be more than a theory -- but the "theory of gravity" works pretty darned well for us (and only needs replacement by the general theory of relativity in extreme situations, which works even better). That's part of the difference between the scientific meaning of "theory" and the looser, everyday definition: a scientific theory is not just a guess, but a guess supported by some combination of observation, experiment, rigorous mathematics, and peer review.

In the near term, at any rate, my best guess is that string theory may prove a valuable tool, just as the quantum theory -- which has been tested to great rigor and never yet failed -- is a great tool for things such as designing transistors, _even though nobody yet really understands the "why" behind it_. We may be waiting for the next Einstein to come along with the gift and vision to look at quantum theory, string theory, relativity, the standard model, and so forth and see the missing link no one else has yet seen, creating a new, better theory that explains why things are the way they are.

Of course, then we'll have to wait for a third Einstein, which by that time will likely be a computer intelligence, to explain to all the other computers what is _really_ going on in the universe.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

All I know, I keep reading Higgs Bosom in the thread title and now I can't read it any other way.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Atunah said:


> All I know, I keep reading Higgs Bosom in the thread title and now I can't read it any other way.


I suspect Mr. Higgs might find that about as annoying as "God Particle".


----------



## Nick Steckel (Sep 2, 2010)

A Higgs Boson walks into a Catholic church, but the priest stops him in the vestibule and says 'you really shouldn't come in here. They call you the God particle, and that's sacreligious'. The Higgs Boson says to the priest 'don't be ridiculous, without me, you wouldn't be able to have Mass.


----------



## drenfrow (Jan 27, 2010)

Nick Steckel said:


> A Higgs Boson walks into a Catholic church, but the priest stops him in the vestibule and says 'you really shouldn't come in here. They call you the God particle, and that's sacreligious'. The Higgs Boson says to the priest 'don't be ridiculous, without me, you wouldn't be able to have Mass.


----------



## Sebastian Michael (Jun 18, 2012)

NogDog said:


> Of course, then we'll have to wait for a third Einstein, which by that time will likely be a computer intelligence, to explain to all the other computers what is _really_ going on in the universe.


Yes, very much with you on the distinction you make about a 'theory' in our everyday use of language and scientific theory. And this prediction here is by no means far-fetched, I don't think. In fact the opposite: I think that's exactly what's most likely, that it will be through artificial or computer intelligence that we will get to understand a whole lot more than we already have learnt by its use about what is _really_ going on the universe. (The only problem with this kind of assertion, is, I suppose, that it presumes a valid or applicable notion of reality...)


----------



## Sebastian Michael (Jun 18, 2012)

drenfrow said:


> Great video. Thanks for posting that.
> 
> In my looking around trying to find something to explain what was going on, these helped me:
> 
> ...


These are most interesting, thanks! And I love the Sean Carroll quote: that's priceless!


----------



## JimC1946 (Aug 6, 2009)

Another opinion on the findings:

http://gizmodo.com/5924644/scientists-say-god-particle-may-be-an-impostor


----------



## Aaron Scott (May 27, 2012)

I wouldn't exactly find God particle offensive, since the idea always was that God is in everything...but anyway there are more mysteries that await...I just wonder if anything ever actually does get "indivisible"...I mean the idea of something that is truly solid, not consisting of solid parts, is as mindblowing as the idea the division goes on forever; kind of like how the existence of extraterrestrials is fascinating but it's just as weird and haunting to contemplate a gigantic universe in which we are the _only_ planet with life.


----------



## *DrDLN* (dr.s.dhillon) (Jan 19, 2011)

Sebastian Michael said:


> ..... Will it turn out that the smallest building block is also the largest and will there be a point at which dimension and mass simply become meaningless and we have in effect an entity that is beyond matter altogether, and if so is that then the last word, or is it the first word, and will we ever understand what it actually is?...
> Just a few light musings to start my Thursday morning...


Our ability to explore galaxies and stars is limited even if we travel at the speed of light. So it should not be surprising that our ability to go in the other direction to what we call the smallest building block is also limited....


----------



## hamerfan (Apr 24, 2011)

metal134 said:


> Considering what the implications would be if they did indeed find it, I remain wary until they know conclusively that what they found was indeed the Higgs Boson.


This!


----------

