Is “God Particle” the right term for massive mystery in physics?

April 9, 2008

Peter Higgs at CERN, 7 April 2008/poolOne of the most brilliant simplifications I’ve ever come across is the term “the God Particle.” Physicists think this subatomic speck of matter, if it is ever found, could explain the mysterious code at the origin of the physical world. To know this would be to “know the mind of God,” as Einstein wanted to do. The Nobel Prize winning physicist Leon Lederman wrote a book with that name 15 years ago that was so interesting that even a physics klutz like myself (I almost failed it in high school…) read and enjoyed it.

It turns out, though, that the physicist who launched the hunt for this elusive particle doesn’t like its nickname. “It embarrasses me,” Peter Higgs said in Geneva this week at a news conference our correspondent Robert Evans attended. “Although I am not a believer myself, it’s a misuse of terminology that might offend some people.”

Higgs, now 78, first proposed a theory of the particle officially knows as the Higgs boson 40 years ago. CERN, the giant nuclear research centre at the French-Swiss border near Geneva, is building a vast underground particle collider to try to find it. “The likelihood is that the particle will show up pretty quickly … I’m more than 90 percent certain that it will,” Higgs said after visiting the collider due to start working early next year.

Visitors inspect the new 27km long underground particle collider at CERN, 16 Oct 2004/Denis BalibouseSo the term “the God particle” may be coming to the religion blogosphere pretty soon. Instead of doing the homework and writing the essay, I’ll let others explain what it is — here are some good examples at National Geographic and Wired and a cartoon here.

Lederman, by the way, also seemed of two minds about calling the Higgs boson the “God particle.”

As he put it in his book:

“This boson is so central to the state of physics today, so crucial to our final understanding of the structure of matter, yet so elusive, that I have given it a nickname: the God Particle. Why God Particle? Two reasons. One, the publisher wouldn’t let us call it the Goddam Particle, though that might be a more appropriate title, given its villainous nature and the expense it is causing. And two, there is a connection, of sorts, to another book, a much older one…

The God Particle, by Leon LedermanLederman then goes on to quote Genesis 11:1-9 , the Tower of Babel story about mankind dispersing. Finding the God Particle, he says, would be like undoing the confusion that followed.

Even if the physicists have qualms, I think the term “God Particle” is so expressive that I’m glad Higgs didn’t get his way. I know there are those out there who don’t agree, who do and who don’t say. There are also deep implications for science and religion. Still, some things are just so awesome that a reasonable comparison with the divine seems to me like a good way to put something so hard to understand into perspective.

Do you think it’s offensive?

143 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

The GOD “PARTICLE”.Scientists have been smashing particles into smaller entities for the last 20 years!!!

Posted by Donald Rose | Report as abusive

Right, but they still haven’t found the Higgs Boson. That’s why they’re building this gigantic particle collider in the first place.

Posted by Tom Heneghan | Report as abusive

The GOD “PARTICLE”.Scientists have been smashing particles into smaller entities for the last 20 years!!!But most can’t accept the reality that GOD is the non particle.Even a vacume needs space and time!But there is a universe of static nothingness!The spiritual universe is everywhere and knowhere simotaneously.One day GOD took a look at “himself”…and was in denial of the exact creation.This set off a “SPIRITUAL BIG BANG” OF SORTS.Can’t explain all here…But GOD is NOT a particle…PERIOD?

Posted by Donald Rose | Report as abusive

Of course God is not a particle. What the term means is that this particle is so basic to our understanding of the universe (more specifically, how matter acquired mass after the Big Bang and made our universe possible) that understanding it would be like understanding what Einstein was talking about when he spoke of “the mind of God.” Humans cannot literally know the mind of God, but the idea that we can has fascinated theologians, philosophers and physicists for a long time. Calling the Higgs boson the “God particle” just means it might bring humans as close as they can get to it.

Posted by Tom Heneghan | Report as abusive

Let’s say there is a “God Particle” and physicists somehow make this particle, wouldn’t this particle destroy the world and the universe? Because what they’re saying is that this particle has a “magnetic” field that attracted all other particles to create the universe (according to the cartoon referred to in this blog). Therefore, the entire universe will be shifted to fit around this new “God Particle.” Why do people want to be God so badly? There is proof that something bad happened to the people trying to reach God in the Tower of Babel. Since God can’t give different languages again, don’t you think something worse will happen?

Posted by Nate Rogers | Report as abusive

I’ve read reports like that, including one about the law suit brought against CERN (which CERN dismissed as “complete nonsense”). It is a bit difficult to believe that the physicists at CERN are Dr. Strangeloves who would conduct an experiment that would destroy the universe if it succeeds. The New Scientist has an interesting article on this at http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13 555-particle-smasher-not-a-threat-to-the -earth.html

Posted by Tom Heneghan | Report as abusive

God is not a partical! Thats because he doesnt exist. Are peoples lives so empty that have to fill the space with an illogical fairy tale? If there was any sort of god he/she would have destroyed us long ago for what we’ve become. Also I dont want to hear any free will crap, Do not try to explain something illogical with another abstract idea. =) Anyways, I hope they find the boson so people can open their eyes!! Ciao guys.

Posted by Andrij | Report as abusive

I don’t find the term offensive. I think it accurately expresses the deep mystery behind these as yet to be understood processes.

Posted by Myles | Report as abusive

I can see the term “God Particle” is more confusing than offensive. It’s just the Higgs Boson, and if it exists, they exist all around us. Creating a few more won’t cause any harm. It has nothing to do with God as in Christianity. It’s just a poorly chosen nickname.

As for the first poster who claims we’ve been smashing “particles” into smaller pieces, that’s not what these high-energy colliders are doing. They are converting energy into mass (new particles) according to E=mc^2. The higher the energies involved, the more massive the particles they can create.

Posted by Steve Chapel | Report as abusive

“Physicists hope to resolve long-standing questions, such as why particles have mass and whether space has hidden extra dimensions.”
conciseness or being allows particles to have mass – why? – maybe expression.
conciseness itself can not be conventionally detected by the human-beings trying to detect it because they Are the conciseness they are trying to detect. a different perspective is required – i’m not sure we’re ready yet.

Posted by brian | Report as abusive

The Higgs Boson will simply fill in a missing component of a mathematical template that describes the physics of our universe. It is no more a “God Particle” that the number zero was a “God number” because it filled in a necessary component that enabled mathematics to work.

It is simply not a matter for theological discussion. Get a life, get a secular life, get a copy of Scientific American.

Posted by Boyd | Report as abusive

nothing new really, Walter Russell identified the ‘God Particle’s position in his periodic chart. It truly is the begining and the end.

Tom, how can you possibly hope to understand God when you seem unable to understand a simple article on physics?

Alot of expense for nothing, could have used the money to develop Tesla’s Magnifying Transmitter and Schauberger’s Separation of Charges in Conducting Fluids

Posted by Jed Clampett | Report as abusive

… donald rose, did you even read the article?

Posted by xlniggerlx | Report as abusive

It is very disrespectful to the Creator to use this term. Why not say something like “the most fundamental particle in nature” or something like that? Exodus 20:7 (God speaking to Moses) says that we shall not use His name in vain (casually, in a shallow manner), and that those who do so are already proclaiming themselves guilty before God. How audacious for this scientist to create and use such a term. It’s defamatory. To me it’s akin to putting Jesus’ image (although no one know what Jesus looked like; all we know is that He wasn’t particularly handsome . . . that’s in the Scriptures) on a bottle of ketchup. There is a proper place for everything, and attaching God’s holy name to a particle which may or may not exist is just another example of contempt for the Almighty.

Posted by Susan | Report as abusive

Yes I did read this article.And I respect all of the points of the blogers here.I am not a scientist.Is the atomic structure around us in it’s unaltered state a part of GAYA…google this…and thus are there limits or dangers in science reaching too far?I don’t have that answer.But I am trying to just point out that Eastern Philosophies tend to bring forth the static state into the overall picture.Maybe finding this “GOD PARTICLE” will also lead to a better understanding of creation from it’s beginings.Is not every particle of GOD??The “MASSIVE MYSTERY”LOL…

Posted by Donald Rose | Report as abusive

I’m a fervent believer in the separation of church and quantum state.

Posted by A student | Report as abusive

Tom: good article! The term “God Particle” is mildly offensive. The implication of “God Particle” is not primarily that we will unlock great mysteries–then they’d call it the Rosetta Particle or something. Instead, the term is an assertion that what Theists ascribe to God, ya only really need a fancy particle for. Gibbs is right and honorable to be embarrassed about the term, to depict it as a category error, and to suspect it may be offensive without cause. But it certainly makes for attention-grabbing headlines! In any case, it’s VERY exciting we’re on the verge of getting a peek at the elusive Higgs Boson!

Posted by Danthrax | Report as abusive

To the average person it seems strange to be building all these huge machines at great cost in order to find some sort of particles with a funny names.

Has anyone seen the film Contact (1997)?

Posted by zaf | Report as abusive

Not exactly. They have been something like 30 years without finding new particles (except the top quark, in ’95). Most particles in the standard model were found some 40 years ago.

The new Large Hadron Collider may just start to find a new generation of particles which would help a lot in the understanding of elementary physics, the universe and its origin (and perhaps fate).

Posted by Alex | Report as abusive

Susan, your entire statement is based upon the belief (yours, not mine) that there IS a god. In other words, it’s only relevant to humans that believe what you believe.

Posted by Jack Dorsey | Report as abusive

I know..its not matter…its a void…path to..nothing
its really nothing…really simple….pressure

Posted by Harry Barrett | Report as abusive

The people most opposed to the “God Particle” term here don’t seem to understand what the Higg’s Boson is. It is not the “smallest particle that exists,” it is the particle that gives *mass* to all other particles. In that sense it is the thing that causes everything else to exist at all.

To me, naming a particle after some cheesy religious legend is tacky anyway, so I don’t like the name. In terms of a match up between what God is supposed to have done versus what the Higgs Boson does however, it’s a fairly close match.

Posted by Jeremy | Report as abusive

Disrespectful to the Creator – says who? Based on what? Who are you to judge what your creator finds respectful or not? This is typical of believers who proclaim to ‘know’ what is in the mind of their creator. It’s OK to have opinions, but to make proclamations like this is about as demonstrably factual as the existence of their creator, i.e. not demonstrable at all.

There is no, zero, nada, zilch, verifiable evidence of a Creator. Creationists try to generate circumstantial evidence, but none of it would hold up to the same rigor that scientists use in their quest for gaining knowledge in how things work, or that any court would require in the way of evidence to show a persons innocence or guilt. The more scientific knowledge is uncovered, the more the creationists try to pick holes in it, rather than researching the foundations of their own beliefs. Digging into their own beliefs would soon uncover the lack of anything other than folklore.

Creationists, show us some pork. Provide some evidence that is not circumstantial, and has more substance than fantasy.

So IMO the God particle is probably something the creationists will undoubtedly spin as evidence that science is finally acknowledging that God exists. For this reason I agree with a previous post in that it may cause more confusion and spin than it might otherwise.

Posted by No_Creator | Report as abusive

Einstein was an atheist. He did not believe in a personal god. Neither does Higgs or very many eminent scientists. Its an unfortunate nickname because it leads to the kind of idiotic misconception indulged and encouraged by this reporter.

Posted by Albrecht | Report as abusive

Do you think people would buy Jesus Ketchup?

Posted by Jason | Report as abusive

They are not “creating” Higgs bosons. Rather, they are exposing them in high-energy subatomic collisions, thereby breaking them free of their bonds and allowing them to be “seen”.

And as far as people taking offense at calling it the “God particle” — get a grip. I believe that God is far above such pettiness; you should be too.

Posted by Slash | Report as abusive

A new more powerful collider is exciting stuff. In the generations of colliders though the Higgs has always been just beyond the energy of the collider according to those who claim its existence, and while they seem certain it will be found with this collider, if it is not it will again be somewhere just beyond the energy currently attainable.

Posted by tesjo | Report as abusive

Might as well call it “the primordial particle” and try to flash religion using the other term. That is all.

Posted by Alfredo | Report as abusive

Susan, don’t make me laugh. You think god’s name is “God”??? Gee, others thought it was Abracadabra, while still others thought it was Jehovah (skip the vowels). I guess if “God” wanted us to live a law like Exodus 20:7 he/she/it would have been just a tad bit clearer as to the correct term.

P.S. I apologize to all the members of Islamic belief for not using the name of Allah, but I’m an infidel anyway.

Posted by John | Report as abusive

This is nowhere near the same as putting Jesus on a ketchup bottle, which would indeed be inappropriate for a variety of reasons. Jesus has nothing to do with ketchup, while “god” has everything to do with what we do not understand.

The word “god” is a human word that is used to explain things that we do not understand. As we come to understand how things work, we tend to remove the “god” from them. This useage is not the same as using the word “God” to refer to the being that many people believe created our world and watches over us even now.

The term “god particle” here is no less appropriate than saying “it is raining cats and dogs” to describe a bad rainstorm. We don’t expect that the particle they are searching for is actually God himself anymore than we believe it is literally raining furry animals. Nor are we insulting God in this manner anymore than we are insulting cats and dogs by use of these terms.

In fact if you believe in God, this useage would be complimentary in that not only are we attributing what we believe is the heart of all matter to him, but we are acknowledging how complex his creation actually is.

Posted by Jessy | Report as abusive

Bravo to Danthrax for “the Rosetta Particle”!!! OK, we journalists sometimes flirt with category error to get a good headline — but the attention-getting aspect usually lets us get away with it. And the suggestions for replacements are usually not as sexy. But “Rosetta Particle” — I like that. Higgs probably would too.

Posted by Tom Heneghan | Report as abusive

Anything: Any particle,any philosophy. Anything but but accept the overwhelming evidence(study the reciprocals of “chance” in biochemistry) of a Creator, and the responsibility of obeying his moral laws;Doing that as well as Nature obeys God’s physical laws. Man wants, in his free moral agency, the right to chose for himself “everything.” History is rife with examples of his deviance from moral law and his sucesses. It is foolish to think discovering the ultimate and smallest particle will give man the “Mind of God.” Discovering God, is discovering his perfect Personality and his Perfect morality- first. No knowledge of a physical particle will help that.

Posted by Larry Wolford | Report as abusive

1. I wish scientist could learn to keep superstition and religion separate.

2. Come on, it’s just a word

3. It doesn’t really matter if we call it a God particle or a Flymsiwig Particle, since there obviously is no God anyway (Well except for the Spaghetti Monster of course, praise upon his holy noodly appendages).

Posted by Andy | Report as abusive

Yeah, but God’s “holy name” isn’t “God.” Thankfully, the True Name of God has been lost to man for thousands of years – ask any Hebrew. The full form had no less than 72 syllables – shorter version’s of God;s True Name also had syllables in multiples of 12, a divine number. It is said then when you uttered the True Name of God, you could bend nature to your will….see what I mean when I say thankfully, it’s no longer known to man?

Posted by Kara | Report as abusive

Actually Susan, the word “God” is not God’s “holy name”.

Posted by B | Report as abusive

C’mon, people. There’s no need to be antagonistic or offensive towards those who happen to believe in a higher power/Creator/God/Allah. Doing so puts you in the same category. I see very little distinction between those who are expressing offense at the term “God particle” and those who insult and antagonize them for it.

Posted by Slash | Report as abusive

It is very disrespectful to the Spaghetti Monster to use the term ‘noodly appendages’. The FSM says that we shall not use His name in vain (casually, in a shallow manner), and that those who do so are already proclaiming themselves guilty before the FSM. How audacious for you to create and use such a term. It’s defamatory. To me it’s akin to putting FSM image on a bottle of ketchup. There is a proper place for everything, and attaching the FSM’s holy name to a particle which may or may not exist is just another example of contempt for the Almighty

Posted by No_Creator | Report as abusive

The seperation of church and quantum state.I love it!In Metaphysics there is a maxum that if a being duplicates the exact time and place of a created particle…the wave/particle will cease to exist.That particle once again is one with the non phisical universe.I like the term GOD PARTICLE as our Scientist are seeking the truth around us;and god as a state or all being comes into play here.Infinity of dimension?The finite particle.Sentients might work.The “SENTIENT PARTICLE”…

Posted by Donald Rose | Report as abusive

Just wanted to add that I think it’s a GOOD IDEA to call this thing the God Particle because look at all the comments it generated! It’s sad, though, that we have to give science a flashy name to get people to pay attention.

Posted by Kara | Report as abusive

The problem with “God Particle”, at least in my limited understanding of the concept, is not that it is mildly blasphemous so much as it seems fairly inaccurate. To assign a moniker like “God” to the Higgs boson implies that it has a generative power. Again, I may be totally wrong here, but the way I read it isn’t the Higgs boson really a “symptom” that alludes to the presence of the Higgs field? The boson doesn’t impart mass itself, it just supports the case for Higgs’ original hypothesis.

Posted by ablackstormy | Report as abusive

No_Creator,
if creationists are so wrong for believing what they do, how do you think the universe was created. Do you believe in the Big Bang Theory? If so, just look at its name…THEORY. You are blatantly attacking Christianity, and you don’t even have solid proof on your own beliefs (if you have any).

Posted by Nate | Report as abusive

God is partile, wave and every possible impulse that anyone can ever imagine. The discussion can go on for ever. God can be defined only by somene who has direct experience of god. Such person will sadly not participate in such converstaion as this one. The questions asked about god and the variuos answers perceived itself is god. It is god creating itself again and again. “Curving back within myself, I create again and again.”

Posted by J | Report as abusive

Ditto on: “Bravo to Danthrax for “the Rosetta Particle”!!!”. A bit more sexier name than the “Higgs particle” – no offense to Mr. Peter Higgs. :) I am also another fervent believer in the separation of church and science. The best to everyone in regards to their own particular beliefs, be it religion, science, or some combination there of.

Posted by Gerald Knauss | Report as abusive

Let’s call it the Allah Particle. We know that won’t make anyone mad.

Posted by Chris | Report as abusive

anyone ever notice that when a dialog references religion, even as an anecdotal footnote for an otherwise non-religious moment, the most extreme and stupid come forth to bring a bad perception to their views and anyone who claims a similar belief (both theist and atheist)?

how about calling the Higgs Boson the Pasta Particle from now on? Those familiar with the Flying Spaghetti Monster will no doubt acknowledge its equally potent reference for the atheist crowd, and the theist crowds don’t have to worry about the particle being offensive, either for mocking their God or for failing to reference their imaginary friend.

Let the rabbits wear glasses.

Posted by Jared Eldredge | Report as abusive

One thing all the smartest Science professor’s and Doctors or whatever they have hanging on there wall that they call each other, is that nobody not even Einstein could explain Blank Nothing—-to Matter or particle. !!! Thats God’s Work, not Science. Peter Higgs at 78 yrs old doesn’t believe and thats fine and his right, but when he leaves this earth, he better be right !! period.

-Man of Faith and Science.

and to nate: even gravity is called a theory. a theory is not the same as a hypothesis, which you must be thinking of here.

gravity is a theory.
relativity is a theory.
quantum electro-dynamics is a theory.

Belief in God is a belief.
the soul is a belief.
all religious concepts are beliefs.

the bible was written by man. that humans wrote the bible, asserting their beliefs so colorfully, does not make believing the same anything exceptionally likely to be correct.

no more so than kids doing drugs because, “everyone’s doing it man”.

i hope you enjoy your god-pipe, but i for one don’t care to have your hallucinations compared equally to the observations of the intellectual world. no more so than you must enjoy our observations being imposed on your colorful palace of angels, demons and a giant finger that zapped the earth into existence, complete with mock-dino bones.

*sigh* i fear the world is full of loons.

Posted by Jared Eldredge | Report as abusive

Many people did not read the article at all. I happen to believe in a creator and find no fault with this name after you see why it is named so, though I can see how it could confuse people.
For those attacking God and Christianity and saying there is no scientific evidence you should google
apologetics press. Just know no matter what you believe you have to believe this: Something has always been. If you don’t then you must ask yourself what created this, and this, and this…. The difference is some believe it is a creator, and some believe it is matter. I believe it is a creator because I don’t believe the order of the universe could happen so randomly. I also believe in Christianity because there are accounts outside the bible of Jesus, and no written accounts of his miracles being fake. Neither atheism or religion can be entirely proved.
But I will leave atheists with one last thought. If you are right, it doesn’t matter. If you are wrong you’ll go to hell. If a religion is right, they’ll go to heaven. IF they are wrong, nothing will happen. Just showing you logic…

Posted by Matt | Report as abusive

All this discussion about what to call something…
You’ve forgotten that God and Allah are the same…
Obviously the use of this term is for the sake of eluding to the unknown forces of our universe, like Eisntein’s “God does not play dice.”

I think we need to just put this term to bed.
Let the religious people have it to themselves if they need it.
We don’t need to use the same term for natural and supernatural forces – it just confuses the two.

Posted by Nareg | Report as abusive

To Nate, and probably others…

Theory has a definite meaning in science… And it is NOT what you appear to believe the word means (what you seem to think it means is called a HYPOTHESIS).

An hypothesis is on the order of: “I think (believe) this is how XYZ happened”; a proposal with no backing. In science, a hypothesis will be followed up by the attempt to define experiments or observations which could prove or disprove it.

A theory, in science, is what a hypothesis get promoted to AFTER such experiments and observations are found to fit the hypothesis, and none of said experiments has failed to support it. So far, observations of the universe (microwave background radiation, red shifts, etc.) have been greatly supportive of the big bang theory (yes, there are some competing theories in cosmology which can be supported by much of what has been seen too — and for all of them scientists are devising new experiments, the failure of which would cause its theory to either be discarded, or the experiment to be heavily studied for flaws).

Creationism is a hypothesis: the only “evidence” given are words written by humans in some ancient texts. Any attempt to devise an experiment to prove or disprove it is considered to be heretical. What’s the latest thing I’ve read — to explain away that we are detecting light that has traveled millions of light years when “genesis” was only about 5000 years ago — the speed of light was much faster near the time of said creation and has slowed down over the years? Given the effects of e=mc^2, that faster sun light would have burnt away anything living; guess the slow down was sudden, just before life was created… Gee… that sure sounds like the inflationary period of the big bang theory

Posted by Wulfraed | Report as abusive

@Nate

There is more evidence in support of the big bang theory than there is of a creator. If you can point to positive evidence supporting the existence of a creator then let’s have it. The argument that ‘I don’t believe in the big bang, and everything is so complex that it must have been designed by a creator’ is laughably naive. If you believe in a designer/creator, then where did they come from? Did something create them too?

To ignore scientific evidence and prefer instead to believe in the supernatural is mired in the dark ages when people used to believe the earth was flat, and the Sun orbited the Earth.

Posted by No_Creator | Report as abusive

How self-indulgent it is of believers to claim a patent on morality! Humanity knew good from evil well before The Commandments and The Book.

Posted by denka | Report as abusive

Albrecht !

Einstein an “atheist” ??!!! – read Issacson’s book ‘Einstein’ (chapter 17, ‘Einstein’s God’. Albert is quoted as refuting the atheist label and stated that he believed in a God of the universe as a spirit.

(Don’t you just hate it when the facts ruin your uninformed suppositions)

There is another book, ‘My Conversations with Albert Einstein’ (author’s name escapes me)where Albert also states his firm belief in a creator God but finds Jesus as something less than God. (I think that is a understandable position for a Jew)

By the way many prominent scientists believe that God did create the universe and life.

Harold Urey (Nobel prize winner) ” the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to evolve anywhere.”

The rants are sure to follow; ‘science & religion do not mix’ … ad nauseam.

don’t get mad at me – Einstein spoke his belief’s quite fluently.

Well mankind tried to understand “god” since big bang. Some said there is no god, some said there is.

After this novel-like entry i want make a point, nowdays science and religion are shown as to different things,even opposite things,just like black and white.

But why people should choose only one…?

personally i believe god and i trust science, but i dont think we are that improved in science to say that there is no god.

my belief is pretty different than others ..i believe the solution of these questions are fusion of science and religion.

what we should do is , we should look for religion in science and look for science in religion. i believe if we “can” find a way to accept both it will be more easy to understand things.

I always believed that the holy books, all of them, are the answer to all these but in a simple way. we do we keep looking for more complicated equations , what if its so simple that we cant see it.

To support this idea i want to give an example. we only have rules in physics for things we know or we have faced before. What if something changes, imagine that there is a machine ivented which basically teleports things.. now please tell me what happened to the rules we have which are based on force and distance,acceleration and stuff. its all gone.

i believe in science only in our world. maybe the holy books are the science books of all universe, written from the 1st person… “GOD”

i just tried to express my ideas a little bit. there is no need to offend people because of their beliefs but the most important thing is not to become a sheep. mankind is created to think!!!

Posted by osman | Report as abusive

No Creator

Einstein said that the big bang was proof of God’s existence.

He called God a superior reasononing intellect that operated outside the bounds of the 3 space and 1 time dimensions.

Hawking acknowledged a “supernatural” plan to the cosmos.

The anthropic principle points to a designed universe and life.

A lot of non religous rants – w/ little substance on this and most boards. When the anthropic principle is mentioned a lot of ranters immediately scurry to wiki or google – such is the basis of their expertise.

Slash said, “They are not “creating” Higgs bosons. Rather, they are exposing them in high-energy subatomic collisions, thereby breaking them free of their bonds and allowing them to be “seen”.”

That’s probably a common misconception about how particle colliders work. When high-energy particles collide, the energy is converted into mass, creating particles that were not there. When an electron and positron are smashed into each other, the collision does not release muons, neutrinos, and quarks that were inside the electron and positron. Rather, they are newly created particles made by the energy in the collision. That’s why higher energy colliders are needed to produce particles of more mass. The more energy there is in the collision, the more massive the particles the collision could create. That’s why it took until the 90s to create the top quark and we’re just now starting to be able to create Higgs bosons, as they are very massive. They’re not “inside” the particles smashed together, waiting to be released.

Posted by Steve Chapel | Report as abusive

@Matt

Quoting your last paragraph – “But I will leave atheists with one last thought. If you are right, it doesn’t matter. If you are wrong you’ll go to hell. If a religion is right, they’ll go to heaven. IF they are wrong, nothing will happen”.

Do you have a shred of evidence to back up your assertion that atheists go to hell and believers go to heaven? Once again I believe we have statements being presented as fact with no evidence to back them up.

I also consider anybody hedging their bets with this logic is being hypocritical.

Posted by No_Creator | Report as abusive

You know, I find it disingenuous when the religious say things like “God has always been there” or “things can’t have just showed up out of no where”. I think it would be fair of those people to also appreciate and acknowledge that if there is a God, he had to come from somewhere… right?

Things don’t just show up. How did God come to be? Does God have a God? If so, did that God have a God? You can’t truncate logic at the point where you are satisfied with the results – that’s absolutely absurd and foolish. If anyone else attempted to do that in any other subject matter aside from religion would be ridiculed and criticized into oblivion. Is that fair? People often use the word “race card” for the notion that race ends the argument and is the end all be all… for the same reason, we should also use the word “God card”. Well if there is no explanation then I play the God card, gosh darnit.

Back to the article – it was probably a bad decision, if not in bad taste, to call it the “God Particle”. From Higgs’ own commentary, it sounds like it was something the publisher came up with as a grand marketing tool. The same way organized religion has come up with the concept of “God” as a grand marketing tool.

Perhaps something like “absolute particle” or something along those lines would probably be better.

Posted by C. Thomas | Report as abusive

To disprove his impuisance with denial and tricks,
he’ll make a better man of self
with a fresh cast of tyrranies, whole dock-loads of quips
any distance traveled will un-arm the bliss,
but to it he must
for the good of the race, said;
as mouthfuls of poison pass many parched lips.

Naive? Those who believe in a Creator are just as naive as Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Da Vinci, Galileo, Decartes, Pascal, Newton, Faraday, Mendel, Mersenne, Kelvin, Planck, and yes, even Einstein (who did not believe in a personal God, but he did believe in a non-created Creator). Me, I’d prefer to be just as “naive” as these august scientists, all of whom believed in the existence of a supernatural Creator. So count me in as one of your “naive” ones.

The comment “So who created God?” is a meaningless strawman. No one is claiming that God was created by some yet more powerful Creator. The mere claim is that “All things which begin to exist require a cause.” That’s not an easy premise to dismiss. From nothing comes nothing. No one here is claiming that the Creator of the universe began to exist at some distant point of time.

Scientists used to think the universe was eternal, having always existed. If that were true, then it would be uncaused, and not need a first causer. We know now that it began a very short time ago – a mere 13.73 billion years ago. That’s just yesterday, when compared with an infinite age. Since it (time, space, matter, and energy) came into existence, then it requires a cause. Since that cause existed before time, space, matter, and energy, that cause must be something beyond the time, space, matter, and energy in the universe itself.

This train of thought is hardly naive, and deserves careful consideration by thoughtful men and women.

It is a very interesting experiment – what so ever. God is a ‘word’ that came out of a confused mid. Claritiy can be achieved through many spiritual practices like Meditation, Avatarepc.com etc. It is possible to experience God!!

Posted by Nagaraja | Report as abusive

I often find it sad that those who claim to love God so much refuse to marvel at His creation with the fullest ability granted to us by science and reasoning. If God created us all in His own image, then wouldn’t it be a waste of God’s creation not to use our intellect to understand this universe He is said to have created for us?

It would seem that the best, and therefore only way to truly know God would be through extensive study of the universe He created, since it is only that creation which we have to learn from.

Posted by H. Sapien | Report as abusive

The “God Particle” will turn out to be as elusive as God itself (or was it Himself?).

Posted by George Schneider | Report as abusive

It seems, one thing that everyone may be overlooking is “scale” – macroscopic or microscopic. What is being discussed is at entirely different scales, and that will affect the “truth” of what is being discussed. How we observe things will always be affected by the scale at which it is observed, and will make a lot of difference in the “results”.

Posted by Don | Report as abusive

What nonsense. The problem is 15 billion years? Who calculated this figure? Why not 10 billion, 2 billion, 10,000 years, etc? None of the figures a comprehensible in any event. We found the atom, nuclei, quarck, ions, and always statting that the smallest. But there always will b smaller. Science is trying to exlain infinity!!! There is NO explanatio–like trying to find the ends of the universe–there is none. So it becomes easier to to believe either science and God for which there is no explanation nor touch nor feel, and, it follows that there is no such thing as an aethiest beause there has to be belief to jusity our existence because we will NEVER prove not learn why, how, when, from whence all this creation statred from–this fact is our limitation for wathever reason. Big bang/boson where did they come from–even the smallest particle will need a new explanation,. It is encumbent all talentse the brains to creat an utopian existence for all mankind instead of chasing whimsy and the unexplainable. ‘We are because we are.”

Posted by ANDY POPOVC | Report as abusive

Should not be called God or Higgs particle. Maybe Grulnik, Hagen, Kibble particle.

Posted by Chris | Report as abusive

The Vedics of ancient india were very scientific for 4000 years ago.There was a basic understanding of smaller units of life.Not all studies of the supreme being are belief oriented.I would say that ADMIRATION and LOVE are GOD particles.Are emotions particles? My whole point is that NOTHINGNESS is part of the equation!Blair has it right.Can science find the nothingness?

Posted by Donald Rose | Report as abusive

The ultimate unknown is why does anything exist instead of nothing at all? William of Occam,a 14th century Dominican who also taught at Oxford, originally defined Occam’s Razor as ‘Unknown entities cannot be introduced to explain other unknown entities.” Of course, the Pope excommunicated him, but over the centuries Occam’s Razor has come to mean “The simplest explanation is the likeliest explanation and has been the basis of Science since the Enlightenment. Introducing God,an Unknown Entity(and which one, we have many Gods, are they all the same God?)to explain the Ultimate Unknown Entity, why anything exists, has been a known no-no for seven hundred years. Erwin Shrodinger, who brought us Shrodinger’s Cat, said, “Consciousness is a singular for which there is no plural” and Sir James Jeans,”The Universe looks more like a great thought than a great machine”. Perhaps, then, Consciousness may itself be numinous and anthropomorphic enough to serve as a valid, tangible, necessaary and sufficient target for worship.

Posted by Bruce | Report as abusive

I responded to The Times yesterday on the Higgs particle at http://georgeshollenberger.blogspot.com/ . The term ‘God particle’ does not fit to Higgs or atheistic physicists.

Matt, your logic is inaccurate, if a religion is wrong most other religions also will go to hell. If atheist is wrong he/she may not go to hell. In fact god once told me that everyone except atheists will go to hell for insincerity.

Nate, I agree big-bang is just a theory supported by some evidence, but god concept is NOT EVEN A THEORY.

Posted by Kpk | Report as abusive

TO NO_CREATOR

how do you know God did not use a big bang to start everything?

think about the atom. such a small thing and yet so devistating. What could God do?

hmmm. I wonder.

Self righteous mofo’s, if you don’t believe in God don’t believe in HIM, but leave the believers alone. I get so tired of reading through your self righteous non-believing garbage to get to the points that are trying to be made by everybody else. If you want to make a point about how the only real religion is no religion, go to athiest.com or something. PHAGS all of you.

Posted by eddieferrell | Report as abusive

There is validity to the big bang theory.There is alot of science and mathmatics behind these things.Maybe there have been a quadrillion big bangs.The theory goes that particles exist through the indecision and non resposability of beings.The swirl of the proton may be indecision as to where it should be.But the left over manifestations of creation become subject to agreed apon realities of motion and gravity,etc.These are just conjectures.If mankind can make it through it’s madness…I would hope that all of this great science can lead us to a new world.Man keeps making great strides forward as everything is falling into chaos!I know for sure that chaos exists.

Posted by Donald Rose | Report as abusive

Exactly when was the last time god or the word “God” explained or clarified anything? Is it the future of the “God particle” to be just a meaningless simplification?

Posted by blesstheloud | Report as abusive

eddieferrell

Your comment is a nice advertisement for you religion, now what religion would that be?

Posted by Kpk | Report as abusive

To cash

How do you know Santa Claus (or Flying Sphagetti Monster) did not use a big bang to create everything?

think about the atom. such a small thing and yet so devistating. What could Santa (FSM) do?

hmmm. I wonder.

Posted by Kpk | Report as abusive

If your entire religious belief is shaken by a simple “book title”… what does that tell you about *YOUR* faith?

You can name your Book anything you want… and it won’t change me 1 bit.

Posted by Everyone | Report as abusive

There will be no Higgs boson found. Ever.

It’s very simple. It’s far too simple. That’s why it will never be found. You simply cannot explain so very much with so very little.

Posted by Matt | Report as abusive

The term doesn’t make sense to me. Lederman’s first stated reason is a silly joke. The second reason is kind of a non-sequitur. Even if the Higgs boson is a key to unlocking all sorts of mysteries, the connection to the tower of Babel is pretty weak, as is the connection from ‘reversing the Babel curse’ to ‘God’. If the intended meaning is a fundamental key to unlocking mysteries, it would communicate a lot better to call it a “Rosetta particle” or something. The “God particle” comes off as just another example of scientists trying to reach beyond their domain of competence with blustery boasts.
Yes, the name of God adds an impressive air to any term. But that doesn’t justify using it as a brand of dishwasher detergent. Tossing the name of God around *is* offensive because according to Christianity and Judaism, the 3rd commandment is “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.” That’s why for centuries, the most observant Jews have avoided saying the Name at all, substituting euphemisms instead. For a non-believer (as I assume Lederman is) to co-opt God’s name for dramatic effect is unnecessarily irreverent, and possibly foolhardy. Higgs is wise to avoid it.

Posted by Lars | Report as abusive

I don’t think it is inappropriate at all. I believe he made this comment just because it seemed like the ultimately elusive particle that no one could find- or discover. I don’t believe he meant it to have any religious connotations, but people took it that way because they failed to think about the deeper meaning behind the coined term.

Posted by Trey Williams | Report as abusive

if it were called the apples or orange particle, would there be such a frenzy?

Posted by ted | Report as abusive

A question to all ‘atehist’.

Who created this ‘Higgs boson’ or ‘God Particle’? Or in big bang, who created the first ‘Gold particle’ when there is nothing ‘zero’? Just give it a thought and you will reach the creationist.

There is someone needed to create something. A table and a chair can’t be made on its own and you are talking about a ‘perfect’, ‘systematic’ universe with 6.5 billion people living on your small planet, ‘Earth’?

Keep in mind, there are few things, that needs your geniune thought, before you can understand…. Its really easy to say, ‘No’ but to prove it rather difficult, my friends :)

And there is no creationist is a ‘hypothesis’ as well.

No offence, would like to apologize, if it had hurt anyone but please give it a thought once in your whole life..

Posted by Rob Lewis | Report as abusive

Just discuss two theories as well,

Believe there is no doomsday and there is no God that will ask you about your deeds.

Okay, but what if you come to know after death that there is one… You are on the loosing side – 50% chances of success.

Believe there is a God and He will ask you about your deeds on doomsday and if there is none.
You are still on the winning side – 100% success in either of the results.

Why not play safe? Just give it a thought guyz!

Posted by Rob Lewis | Report as abusive

Of course this is not offensive. The word “God” is no more offensive than the word “Cup”. Spirituality is a personal pursuit, and everyone is entitled to their own ideas about God and is free to express them… Even Physicists looking for a marketing gimmick to sell books. The facinating thing about the unknown is just that the unknown allows for all sorts of fantasy and hypothesis that can not be proved. The God Particle either is, or it is not, or perhaps somewhere in between, and it is called the God Particle becuase that is it’s label. It’s ultimate importance can only be speculated on at this point. The question is, will the physicists be able to accept the emptiness if the particle is not found?

Posted by Nathan Helfrey | Report as abusive

1) THE BIBLE AND CPH (CREATIVE PARTICLES OF HIGGS)
“The Universe was formed at God’s (elohim/anunnaki)command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.”(Hebrews 11:3).
2) Google (www.ufodigest.com):
- Modern Science and the Ancient Writings on the Genesis of the Solar System
- The Heart Kidneys Theory and the Psychology of the Future
- The Genesis of the Monkey People and the Genesis of the Anunnaki People
3) The book “Planet Eris and the Global warming” (can be found at Amazon).
4)Google:
- CPH Theory NASA AND PLANET X
(CPH = Creative Particles of Higgs)
5) http://www.australia.to/story/0,25197,23 040466-937,00,00.html

Posted by cristian negureanu | Report as abusive

To better understand the machine is to better understand the maker. Keep up the great work!

Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem; Creatorem coeli et terrae.

Posted by Brian R | Report as abusive

To those who choose to be upset / angry / disturbed by this particle being called a god particle, well, it’s named for the god in a different religion. You must understand that we never want to speak ill of your imaginary friend, jesus christ, the last thing I want is to be hit by lightning,
O.K., clear on that? It’s not your god, it’s someone else’s so chill will ya!!!

http://boskolives.wordpress.com/

To know the mind of God in the way that God knows his own mind, is not within the realm of possible human experience. For that to occur, man would have to be God.
Why would one find something like this offensive? Attempting to understand God as he understand himself using science is like weighing a hen with a yardstick. It’s not offensive, it is simply laughable.

Posted by Louis Kuhelj | Report as abusive

While there are too many mis-conceptions on both sides to even begin to approach (from how super colliders work to the idea the universe didn’t exist at some point to… well, like I said, just too many) I will leave the religious group with this idea. If I die and somehow end up in heaven answering to God, I can say I’ve done the ‘right’ thing my entire life without fear of punishment, without any pressure from eternity to push me in the ‘right’ direction, because it was the ‘right’ thing to do, not because I was worried I wouldn’t get to sip mochas with my ancestors in the clouds. Can you say the same? And you call yourself righteous?

Posted by Bud | Report as abusive

People take things WAY too literally. Why do you think so many believe in th bible in the first place? It’s just a figure of speech to call it the “God Particle.” I am far from a believer, and I am far from offended. They could call it the ass particle and I wouldn’t care. It’s the fact that the research is going into it, and the scientists are spending there time to discover more of our world. Some people who are a little crazy when it comes to religion need to calm down and understand scientists don’t have an agenda to “disprove God,” they want to discover the facts. PERIOD!

Posted by Me | Report as abusive

The term GOD that we use doesn’t fit into any scientific discoveries. These are two separate worlds. Can’t mix them up. Is the GOD we know is the GOD of all living things (aliens) of the universe, multi-universe, etc… The GOD we know is just for our solar system, thats all!! I’m not a believer. I would prefer to use another term so that science and religion remains two different subjects. I know is really hard for us to understand all the mysteries of physics yet we are on the right track and all the technologies we’ve developed so far proves that.
I’d like to hear from you… Critics r welcome!!

Posted by kanomo | Report as abusive

God is not a particle. God is my shadow. Within the perimeter of my shadow it is dark. Outside the perimeter of my shadow it is light. In this way my shadow, who is God, separates the light from the darkness.

Posted by Mike | Report as abusive

May be “God’s particle” is a more appropriate word? Coz otherwise it could spring a debate as to the very definition of God.

Posted by akilesh | Report as abusive

I think people are in denial as to what God is! face is people God is not an animal or a human..its a power..its energy that can only be felt. I hate it when people add literary mumbo-jumbo and make it all mushy. I understand ppl need gay stuff to keep themselves sane. But this is heights.

Posted by peter | Report as abusive

Two observations:
1. I am surprised to see how much time is wasted in semantic arguments about hypotheses and theories. When we talk about evolution, we’re talking science and we should all use the scientific definitions of the words so we can debate about the same things. All scientific theories are open to debate — that’s how we get the paradigm shifts Thomas Kuhn wrote about — but their critics miss the target if they simply argue about semantics.
2. These science and religion debates are always so polarised. Many comments want science to disprove religion or religion to disprove science. What do you think about someone like Francis Collins, who is both an eminent scientist and a believer? The Washington Post has a video interview with him today on its On Faith blog at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/video/2008/04/03/VI2008040303663.ht ml

Posted by Tom Heneghan | Report as abusive

Spending billions of dollars on finding a subatomic particle doesn’t make sense to me. How will this discovery benefit the majority of the people on this planet?
We live in a world where a huge portion of the population cannot afford 2 square meals a day.
Could the money spent on this experiment not been utilized in a better place — perhaps on projects to help the poorest of the poor?

Posted by Atif Ashrafi | Report as abusive

A “pedantic group” argueing about how many angels can reside on the point of a pin….You folks need to find a life….really, don’t you have work to do somewhere??

Posted by Beach_bubba | Report as abusive

Seems to me like most of the religeous people are offended that someone would have the audacity to call something a GOD particle. Meanwhile, the scientists are expressing their sense of wonder in the mystery they have encountered. If this thing had been named something like the PUZZLE PARTICLE the non science people would be perfectly content and the scientists would have had more quality time to tease more questions and answers out of the puzzle. For now, whether GOD exists or not is best left to the discretion of the reader. No one is going to prove that question conclusively unless GOD shows up tomorrow and starts dispatching people to heaven or hell as he sees fit.

Posted by Gary | Report as abusive

There is some good news here. If the CERN scientists do manage to create the “God” particle and our universe folds into itself or goes up in a second “big bang”, at least the French will be the first to go!

Posted by nick | Report as abusive

Its in switzerland, not france. For you (who else) americans Switzerland is the capital of Australialand.

Calling anything scientific the “god” something is always going to attract the crazies and the idiots, as can be easily seen by the sometimes hilarious posts here. It was fashionable at the end of the twentieth century to suggest something of the miraculous or divine was implied in modern physics but sadly since “the war on terror” the forces of unreason and religiosity are rearing their witch burning heads again. Bottom line: unless you want to attract drooling morons (american ones more often than not), leave “god” out of physics.

Posted by Wisdo | Report as abusive

Why do people still believe in evolution when it was disproven over 140 years ago by Louis Pasteur. Pasteur proved that life comes from life, life cannot come from nonlife. Omne vivum e vivo. Evolution requires spontaneous generation in order to have the “first cell”.

Like Pasteur said in Sorbonne, Paris (1864): “It is dumb, dumb since these experiments were begun several years ago…Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow of this simple experiment! “No, there is now no circumstances in which it could be affirmed that microscopic beings come into the world without germs, without parents, similar to themselves.”

Why do evolutionists, who have yet to prove that Pasteur was wrong, continue to believe a disproven theory? They do fallow his proof when it comes to medicine and pasteurization of food. so they know the proof to be correct. They (the evolutionist) just chooses to believe in what they know to be impossible.

Posted by justin | Report as abusive

Yes Religion does offend me!

Posted by Billy Boson | Report as abusive

This ise’nt about religion. It is about someone trying to play God. It has been said that we all have the god particle in us, good luck when people start to jack it around…smiling…what’s next????

Posted by Darcy Drogorub | Report as abusive

That Pasteur could not produce something one would consider “life” from something one would consider “non-life” is not sufficient to disprove evolution — it only indicates that a more detailed experiment may be needed.

After all, it was only in the middle of last century that it was shown that a mix of primitive non-living gases, in a flask with high voltage electrodes, could produce the basic compounds that lead to amino acids… Pasteur’s time had little to no knowledge of the internal workings of cells — and don’t even consider the nature of a virus (which many do not consider to be “living” — a free virus is just a chemical coating around a chunk of rna or dna, with nothing available to take in energy or process matter… but let a virus contact a cell wall, and chemical reactions dissolve the coating, drawing the rna/dna into the cell, where the cell’s own production systems start treating the virus as if it were its own).

I’m not sure how this thread went from cosmology to evolution, but evolution is probably the hardest theory to disprove: lack of evidence does not disprove something — if one seeks to disprove evolution, one must produce overwhelming AND TESTABLE evidence of an alternative process that covers the same situations. We see evolution in action (look at all the disease causing “bugs” that are becoming tolerant and immune to formerly effective antibiotics); we can trace changes through the fossil record. We can produce components of “life” (amino acids, etc.) through chemical reactions… That we haven’t produced a strand of functional rna from a raw chemical soup /yet/ does not prove it can never happen.

A counter to evolution is going to have to explain why germs become resistant to antibiotics, how snarly wild silver foxes can become tame floppy eared pets in just a few generations (and why this has not occurred in the wild), explain the changes seen throughout history in the fossil record… and at the same time explain why — given time and energy, some primordial mass of chemicals can never produce components of life… And then offer up testable experiments to support this counter proposal

Posted by Wulfraed | Report as abusive

Perhaps it should be called the “Lederman Particle Theory”, and recognize that before we start calling God believers idiots and forcing this on them in school. LET’S FIND IT FIRST.

I’m Catholic, and not offended. I think if anything it shows the lack of insight on the person naming it, although he sounds remorseful (albeit for the wrong reason).

God is independent of particles, so the term is contradictory. That’s the only thing that bothers me about it.

Why do they keep naming things that they haven’t proven exist yet, and neglect to attach “theory”? Sounds like faith.

Reminds me of the “Archaeoraptor”.

The creationist Edward Blyth discussed natural selection 25 years before Darwin, but recognized that it was a conservative, not a creative, force. In other words that natural selection has been used to show creation for 25 years longer then it has been clamed to help evolution.

The reason that germs become resistant to antibiotics is that they loose DNA and thereby loose what the antibiotic reacted with. This can be by loosing a pump in the cell wall, change a control gene, or loose the enzyme the antibiotic atacked.

A loss of information is not evolution (in the molicules to man sense) but is natural slection as shown and predicted by the creationists. Dogs are artificial selection so that this would not happen in the wild but as man chose.

And like I said before evolutionists have yet to show that Pasteur was wrong. They continue to hope and insist that maybe, eventualy, posibly, sometime in we MAY be able to show that he was wrong. That seems to me to take a lot of faith to belive in something that the evidence goes agianst.

Oh by the way most of those experiments that you are talking about also created cyanide and other key eliments to Embalming Fluid. That sounds like the perfect environment to create life?

Posted by justin | Report as abusive

Many important scientists (such as Einstein) do not believe in the stories told in the Bible, they do not believe Jesus to have walked the earth and performed miracles. Most do not believe that God can change anything in the world as it is right now. They simply acknowledge the fact that science can not explain the fact that the universe has always existed. Somehow the universe IS. human logic implies that a fact has a cause so we search for a cause of the universe. Einstein and Newton and many others choose to call this ’cause’ God. I am a university student and last semester we had a course about religion, given by a (religious) professor in theology. He pointed out that people like Einstein are not called theists but deists. They do not belief in the God of any particular religion that had a son who walked the earth and whom you could pray to etc, but more vaguely a ‘something’, a big mystery which can be seen as the cause of the universe but which is currently disconnected from the universe. Deists believe in something but they do not believe in praying, do not believe that ‘god’ loves you or encourages you to do anything at all. Einstein stated that ethics is a purely human affair, with no connection to religion and I believe this to be true. I do not believe there are any religious people who help their fellow man because they’ll go to hell if they don’t. You help because you care, not because you have to, wether you’re religious or not.

Please do not mix religion and science. Science is a different approach to life and the universe than religion. Science is based upon experiments and rational building of theories upon previous theories. If creationism wishes to be a scientifically based theory, then it should step out of the realm of the religous and into the realm of science. In the realm of science the Bible and God mean nothing. Accept that, or if you can’t, stay out of science, believe in your theory as much as they like but do not call it a scientific theory. Creationstists who are willing to take the scientific approach are more than welcome to write papers and conduct experiments that proof their theories fit in with the rest of the scientific theories.

A theory is really just a theory, not a fact. For example Newton’s theory of gravity was corrected by Einsteins theory of general relativity. Note that word: “corrected”, because it’s a key word. A hypothesis is an educated and professional guess. A hypothesis becomes an accepted theory when all (or a large majority) of experiments fit into it. for example Newton’s law of gravity gives correct results for just about any movement or action on earth. However when you apply it to high-energy, high-speed or atomic-scale problems it fails. So Newton’s theory is ‘wrong’. But it is not wrong like it is a wrong of the old egyptians to say that the sun rises because a scarabee is rolling it up into sight on the edge of the earth…
A theory is always just a theory because to be absolutely sure you’d have to test the theory on every particle in the universe at any time past,present,future..and that’s kinda hard :-) So yes, existing scientific theories can be wrong, but they’re hardly ever totally wrong and it’s not because someone comes up with a new theory, that he automatically deserves our attention. As Stephen Jay Gould put it so nicely: “In science, ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.’ I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.”

As to the original subject of this discussion: “The mind of God” is just a poetic name for something that is ungraspable, but believed to contain the explanation for many important questions. As stated before, many scientists do not even believe in a god that has any human attributes such as a ‘mind’.

To all religious people: I have no problem respecting the fact that you believe in God and do not believe that you are any more wrong or right than I am. I hope however that you too can accept that many people do not believe in a god and do not think of us as being wrong.
And to all non-believers: Please accept that some people do believe in a God and respect that. Religion has no place in science, but to many people religion is important for their spiritual life and we have no right to judge over that as long as it has no negative implications for the outside world (such as religious-based terrorism)

Posted by Ronin aka SavageFX | Report as abusive

it is very unhelpful to talk about the god particle, just like (dare i say it) Einstein got himself in a needless muddle by ever mentioning God. Of course Einstein did not believe a theist God who answers prayers, cares who you sleep with, what you eat and on what day. I dont think Einstein even meant a deist God, he used God to signify the wonder of the universe in a slightly Spinozian sense. This was a mistake and the word should not be used for secular enquiry, like in the case of the particle search.

Posted by Mark | Report as abusive

There’s nothing offensive about the term, at least to this non-believer, and it does convey some of the fundamentality and mystique around the search. But there seems to be fallout from the references to divinity in physics – the references are ripe to be picked and misappropriated by people who want scientific support for theist agendas.

Posted by Kieran | Report as abusive

To SavageFx – I accord people of faith the respect that they deserve, which is exactly the same respect that I accord to those who believe that the world is flat or that the sun goes around the earth. I can’t see why any respect at all is due to people who purvey fiction as fact.

Posted by Kieran | Report as abusive

First of all I would like to let you know my philosophical views on God would tend to be deist, but changes with circumstance like any open minded human. This Creationist Argument that was created by fundamental Christians in America, I think is flawed. No one can make me believe that the world is 6000 years old. When it comes to evolution, Darwin or Dawkins can’t explain to you the evolution of the eye either. My view is that both theories are bogus, they are both incorrect. Also, Darwinism is responsible for Eugenics.God particle?don’t know enough to comment!

Posted by Trevor Login | Report as abusive

I believe the rebirth of the Creationist argument was created to irate secular and Atheist people plus other Christians who don’t believe in latter day doctrines.
Oscar Wilde wrote ‘to understand how stupid someone is, Ask them the unanswerable?’The Creationist will give you an answer.
Why do Atheist and strict secular people engage in an debate were their view is blasphemous to their audiences ear?Why do Creationist bring their argument to the scientific table and not to Theologians? This debate from the foundation is complete rubbish and incoherent. thats my view and thank you.

Posted by Trevor Login | Report as abusive

I do not find the term “God particle” offensive, merely unhelpful. Like most other references to God it helps obscure rather than explain.

Posted by Roy Brown | Report as abusive

There are so many gods. Thor is one. The monkey god is another from chinese lore. Shiva? I personally like the hindu ones, so colourful. It’s okay to name something after a myth. We have planets and stars named after gods, why not a subatomic particle?

Posted by veggiedude | Report as abusive

“Creationstists who are willing to take the scientific approach are more than welcome to write papers and conduct experiments that proof their theories fit in with the rest of the scientific theories.”-SavageFx

Creationists use the scientific method. They, afterall, are the ones who invented it. However, they are denied publicaction of their research, denied tenure, denied research grants all because they challenge darwin.

The documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” chronicles how Darwin-dissenters have been ruthlessly expelled, or otherwise persecuted, in their professions. This movie does not promote creationist or even intelligent design theories(they are different just ask them). This movie goes to theaters in the USA on the 18th.

All of these questions posted here to mock the creationist have long been answered. The answer and the evidence suports ceation. You just need to look at rhe research. If you want to see the answers to most of the anti-creationist questions that have been getting posted here go to http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/are a/qa.asp But only do this if you want to be chalanged in what you believe with the evidence.

Posted by justin | Report as abusive

I read a few short pieces of the articles on above-mentioned website. The general point of one of the articles on the origin of life was: The chemical and physical processes that are required for life forming the darwinian way are not completely understood and some are only hypotheses, without any conclusive scientific proof.
Now, this might be true. I know that darwinism has quite a few open questions so up to this point the article could be right in saying that darwinism can’t be proved, because the causes can’t be scientifically proved. However, the writer than goes on to state that the only conclusion is that “The Creator” must have done it. This is however doing exactly the same as what he is telling the darwinist off for. He’s stating that a theory is true, without any scientific evidence of its causes. If darwinism is not acceptable if the chemical processes are not scientifically proven, then intelligent design is not acceptable if the existence of God is not proven scientifically.
Of course God probably can’t be proven to exist in a scientific, which is a very reason for denying funding into intelligent design research. If it is impossible to proof the correctness of your causes, then you can never be certain of anything in a theory.
So at the most, the conclusion of the article should be that neither darwinism nor intelligent design are proven theories and at this moment in time. To accept either one, you have to believe in something rather than knowing something. Either unexplained chemical processes or an intelligent creating God… Given this choice, I do not find it surprising that most scientists would rather stick with the unexplained chemistry than introducing a God into their theories.

Posted by SavageFX | Report as abusive

i dont read a lot about somethings like this one. because it makes me too curious that i might even find something strange due to curiousity. For me, as a Catholic myself, believes that God is all about SCIENCE, He is biology, He is physics, He is astronomy, He is history, He is everything that civilization had learned.

this partical collider stuff is a waste of money and they need to get rid of it cuz i dont feel like dieing any time soon …

… as long as finding the God particle does not create a hell on earth…

CERN predicts the creation of up to 1 micro black hole per second in the Large Hadron Collider and references the 1999 RHIC safety study as proof of safety. (But the 1999 RHIC safety study only ruled out any possibility of colliders creating micro black holes based on knowledge at that time.)

CERN’s web site predicts that micro black holes will evaporate. (But Hawking Radiation has been disputed by no less than 3 peer reviewed studies that found no basis in science for such conclusions).

CERN’s web site and Steven Hawking state that much greater energy cosmic ray impacts with Earth prove safety. (But higher energy cosmic ray impacts with stationary particles have net collision speeds less than the speed of light and send all particles created safely into space, while head-on collider collisions have net collision impact speeds at almost twice the speed of light and are designed to focus all the energy to a single point in space and particles created may be captured by Earth’s gravity).

CERN promised to create and release an new safety report before the end of 2007. (CERN’s LHC Safety Assessment Group has concluded that cosmic ray impacts do not prove safety and they do not assume that micro black holes will evaporate, but CERN never released any safety reports created by their LHC Safety Assessment Group.)

Professor Otto Rossler calculates that a single micro black hole could accrete the Earth is as few as 50 months and Dr. Rossler is world recognized as one of the most prestigious, most eminent, award winning scientists alive. (But CERN has not scientifically refuted his calculations that I am aware of, CERN only promised Dr. Rossler that if they create stable micro black holes that they will stop the experiment. Will that be too late?)

Even though the Large Hadron Collider will create conditions not seen in Nature since the first fraction of a second prior to the big bang, CERN asserts that there is no risk to the planet. (But the legal action contends a 75% probability of risk with very high degree of uncertainty calculated by a scientist with a masters degree in statistics, and alleges that Chief Scientific Officer Mr. Engelen passed an internal memorandum to workers at CERN asking them regardless of personal opinion to affirm in all interviews that there were no risks involved in the experiments, changing CERN’s previous assertion of minimal risk).

We could delay the experiment until the promised safety studies are completed and per reviewed, and this might prevent a catastrophy. (But then some scientists may not be the first to discover new science and some Nobel prizes may be lost.)

JTankers
LHCConcerns.com

Correction: conditions not seen in Nature since the first fraction of a second AFTER the big bang…

So where did the God particle come from? Are there yet smaller and smaller particles? Will this answer all of our questions of life the universe and everything. I doubt it. But all these projects sound cool and keep the money in the pockets of those who have and out of those who have not. Let’s use our money for better projects.

Yea we can figure out how the universe works but we can’t make a freaking car that gets 100 mpg. What a joke. We don’t know jack. Yes people some science is a wast of time and money IMO.

Posted by Unclesharkey | Report as abusive

If there is no God, then what created the God particle and what gave it the power to create mass?

Posted by Gail Quick | Report as abusive

if there is a God, it woul be preposterous to believe This God did not create the universe, Himself being the only thing allowing something possibly capable and by definition of God,supreme, and if there is a God, it is also preposterous to believe that we can assume to understand Him without having observed, and then say that He can only be found in the non particle, or the “un-” substance of His own creation cannot be justified. Whether the potter is also the clay, the potter but not the pot, will be the only conclusion from the god-particle. Either way this creation being that, must reflect, as every creation, its creator in some way.

oh and yes there is a car that makes about 300 mpg modestly. However technological capability does not neccessitate nor finance the implementation of that kind of an innovation to date, it will become practical when a corporate body must advance in this way to survive, or competition escalates to this level. Otherwise, read about it in popular science, and then don’t read about how its trial in Socal was shut down by giant corporations because the innovator lacked the economic power to compete. That’s life.

Posted by Matthew | Report as abusive

and biblically speaking, the earth is anywhere from 14-20,000 years old, with rougly 150 generations from Adam to the present. Somewhere in the middle, there was a theological monkey wrench thrown in the spokes of archaeology called the deluge, which is a biblical term for what may explain why neither side has an answer that can be backed. It was all (biblically) destroyed by a great flood. To talk this down some more, a surviving remnant would have been capable of re-populating the earth to it’s present proportion within about six to ten thousand with a little elbow grease. None of these claims the bible makes are anywhere nearly as ridiculous as the contemptible theory that we will find God wrapped around a particle, or that we will build a machine that could tear a controlled hole in space-time. Are they? Maybe when you find God, you can ask his opinion on the matter.
Until then, it might not be good to look a gift donkey’s colt in the mouth.

Posted by Matthew | Report as abusive

1. I like the thought of revealing a particle that produces mass – but then, that particle must also be made up of something…I wonder how minute we can go? Fascinating.
2. When my mother was dying, she said, “There is only one thing I know for sure: things change.” This statement sucked me into a vortex of clarity that made my eyes burn with tears. Everywhere I look I see change, and evidently, everywhere I can’t look, also. Motion and interaction seem to be key in everything, even vacuum states. The only time I have witnessed “nothingness” was when my mum’s soul left her body. Or, as she said, was that merely a “change?”
3. I envy you believers and you non-believers. At least you KNOW something. I, on the other hand, know nothing…
4. “What will be, will be.” -Doris Day
5. “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” Juliet as written by William Shakespeare (translation – it is what it is – our names are meaningless)

Posted by Kelly | Report as abusive

or rather, they mean something only to us….hmmmm….

Posted by Kelly | Report as abusive

Some things are better left untouched as I always say. Maybe us being the creatures we are shouldn’t understand what everything really is, maybe it was just meant to be there. Sure we could use this technology to create a better life for the people of tomorrow but ya know what if something goes wrong here and creates something bad. Think of hiroshima in 1945….we developed the atomic bomb. Now…..we’ve got even worse things. Though I look at it from a positive way of creating travel through time and space…..and a bad thing of creating a paridox and destroying anything and everything.

If people want to know the mind of God all they have to do is accept Jesus. He died for us so we may find the truth and not only know God but with him forever.

Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)

Posted by Jane | Report as abusive

i can see the confusion between trying to figure out if the Boggs particle will disprove God. But science explains things scientifically and when you can look at undeniable prophecy that no group of the wisest scientists could have come up with- had they been transported back to Old Testament times- you come up with miracles that science can’t begin to try to explain. And they won’t try because they would look foolish. But these were simple men who were told what to write and yet they foretold things that would occur time and time again, never being wrong. It would be impossible for scientists with all they have at their disposal to be able to predict all this prophecy. So if these are miracles that had to have more than human influence or lucky guesses to take place, then it goes beyond science. As one scientist put it who is a Christian, taking even 10 of the prophecies out of hundreds and having them all turn out as predicted, the odds are overwhelming to happen by chance. There is more chance a cat could jump up on a taple where was was different colors of paint in on a eisel and knock it over and create the Mona Lisa, then for 10 of these prophecies to take place.

Posted by burt ray | Report as abusive

I personnally do not believe in the God Particle, the Higgs particle, because I think they should already have found it a long time ago. I also do not believe in a graviton to explain gravity … it is too easy : when you cannot explain something, you just create another something to imagine what happens, but that also does not explain anything.
Maybe the Higgs ” field ” exists, if we may call it aether, yes why not …. but particles moving in it and gaining mass ….. I think for exemple they then should slow down at some moment …
No ! I believe only in energy, it’s all about energy and vibrations/energy fields !! I think MATTER only is existing when mass particles come together to form atoms and molecules and matter is just the new vibration on a different level created by the protons and neutrons and electrons together … it is the vibration/energy field of the atom, of the molecule … Mass becomes matter only on atom scale, I think you have MASS particles ( proton, electron, neutron ) and massless ones ( photons ) and when you put mass particles together they form a atom, and that atom IS MATTER.
If I may explain it this way : it feels like matter in the same way that you can feel a resistance when you put 2 magnets North against North : you feel resistance, the more you want to put them together, the more resistance you feel … and MATTER IS resistance – it’s all a question of vibrations, energy fields.
Photons have NO MASS, but they can give energy to mass particles – electrons – to move on a higher level, and when the electron looses its energy again it gives birth to a photon …. When you knock on matter, you knock on a energy field !! do you really think that your feet are walking on the ELECTRONS ( around the nuclei ) of the stones ?? You surely also do not walk on the protons ! the electrons of your feet atoms are NOT touching the electrons of the stone atoms : you walk on a energy field created by the ATOM of the stone, the electrons around the nucleus !! otherwise you would smash and crush the atoms or you would be like a photon pushing electrons away !!!!! Not convinced ?

Posted by george | Report as abusive

The big bang theory doesn’t say that there was a creator it just said that there was nothing,no time no space, than the quantum singularities was everywhere than there was always energy and matter and than it got spinned faster and faster and it explode and created one universe. i can’t say if this theory is true or not cause i wasn’t there. i always say that if it was just natural causes i believe it still doesn’t dismissed after life.

, These Physicists are about to understand finally, that there are two realms the Physical and the Angelical. Something had to start the bang. The God Partical which is the Divine natural cause. But the Divine will only allow them to know what he wants them to as in the scripture Genesis 11:1-9. Why do Physicists ponder on this like in Genesis? It is unclean spirts that are controlling the minds of the Physicists, but it is not there fault in perspective, they have been led astray by the unclean spirts to do this project. As crazy as this seems it is the cause and effect of the Divine nature

Posted by Jason Helper | Report as abusive

Updating my last comment, Everyone read Genesis 11:1-9 and then turn to Isaiah Chapter 47 and read 8-15. And then Isaiah 48&49. There will be No peace for the Wicked. Physicists who chase this have no inter peace. And the world needs to pray for them.

Posted by Jason Helper | Report as abusive

Yes, the “HIGGS BOSON” is refered to as the god particle. We should not seek the Scientific side of life.
We are no longer the leaders inthe world in science, math, health care, or anything else! But we lead the way in the Military Industrial Complex. Why spend billions on the trueth we we can spend it on BOMBS to take lives from those who do not agree with our religious beliefs.
A M E N !!!

Posted by caveman | Report as abusive

The bible says “in the beginning was the word”. Therefor to inquire into the nature of the universe as these physicists are doing is to follow God’s will to understand his greatest book – the universe itself, which is the direct writing of God – the bible was “inspired” by God, the universe was created by God through his creative word. Physicists are the true holy men seeking to read the truest bible – the universe.

Posted by jojobee | Report as abusive

The reason the God particle is so elusive? God will not allow you to know what he knows. You are wasting your money. You are like Eve, wanting to be as wise as God. But God is just silly superstition to those who try to find him through science.

Posted by voice inda widdernus | Report as abusive

Not offensive at all – they’re only words. There’s nothing wrong with trying to understand the nature of our existence, coming up with names, labels and classifications in the process. It also seems natural (to some) that God is in the center of it all anyway – in whatever state, shape or form. Plus, God doesn’t mind… it’s people who get offended for whatever reasons, not God.

Posted by Patryk Ploszaj | Report as abusive

A general law of probability states that the probability of a given evnet being due to chance is inversely proportional to the number of variables involved and the range of possible values for each of those variables.

It is reasonable to hypothesize that the Higgs boson was the initial result of the big bang. If these most elementary particles almost immediately transoformed into the subatomic particles that gave rise to atoms, the probability is very low that these subatomic particles formed by chance because of the virtually infinite range of possible particle types that could have been produced. Additionally, if the big bang was the initial event or cause of the physical universe and prior to that event there was nothing, a question arises of what was the first cause that resulted in something, even the Higgs boson, being produced from nothing? An increasing number of scientists are coming to the conclusion that the big bang was intentional and the resulting universe was intelligently designed. If these contentions are true, then an intelligent, living being did so. Such a being would be supreme and is normally referred to as “God.”

the name isnt very offensive to me because i do balieve in god and i believe in science i think god and science are the same thing so to say that isnt a god particle to me is like saying that god doesnt exist since in oone of the many verses of the bible it says thif yuo cut open a tree you will find me so in that sence god is all things so by saying that he must also be within the god particle as well. i go to church and they say god passes the ultimate power so that power to me must mean that he3 can creat something from nothing by using nothing to creat something for if you think about it nothing must be something or we wouldnt give it meaning so in this calling it the god particle wouldnt be offensive because gods child stated that he is everything.

I’d be inclined to buy into with you one this subject. Which is not something I typically do! I really like reading a post that will make people think. Also, thanks for allowing me to speak my mind!

Rethinking the basic laws of Nature:

“TIME THEORY OF EVERYTHING”
A challenge to CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC) experiment, search for a God Particle!

I’m a researcher working on “Time Theory of Everything”.
My motto is: “ One day of a researcher’s life is better than 100 years life of a king !”
Universe is my everything and I am in search of a “Theory of Everything”!!
My passion is about Cosmology, nature of the Universe, Physics, Theory of Everything, nature of TIME, origins of LIFE and Consciousness.
Research is a FUN for me.
The only truth about the physical Universe is that it is not physical ! The smartest thing of the Universe is Universe itself ! Universe is not only small and finite. Universe ‘on the whole’ is smartest phenomenon of the Universe ! ‘On the whole’ Universe is ‘shapeless’, ‘massless’ and ‘weightless’. I CAN PICK IT UP !!!
Einstein’s “second law,” m = E/ c^2 i.e. m = E/ c2 [ How mass drives from pure Energy.], raises the question whether mass can be understood more deeply as energy. And can we build, as Wheeler put it, ” Mass Without Mass “,? are the best predictions in favour of my ” Time Theory of Everything “.
In my view the first question is “How pure energy drives from TIME?”.
”The Universe is not what it used to be, nor what it appears to be.” as Frank W ilczek of MIT quoted in first chapter ‘Getting to it’ of his book titled ” The Lightness of Being ” [ mass, ether, and the unification of forces ] also supports my theory.
Infinity is finity ‘on the whole’. There is nothing original under the physical phenomena. All physical properties of the universe are secondary in nature.There is a Universe behind the ‘Physical Universe’ which is ‘DARK’ and primary Universe.
If a “Theory of Everything” is Holy Grail of cosmology, “Time Theory of Everything” is Holy Grail of physics.
Physicists are hunting for an elusive particle that would reveal the presence of a new kind of field that permeates all of reality. Finding that Higgs field will give us a more complete understanding about how the elusive universe works!
I believe in bold imagination in research. I believe universe is not acadamic, and is not bound of our physical theories. Capture Higgs particle, ‘eyes on a prize particle’, the search for the Higgs boson [God Particle] and creation of micro black holes is nonsense idea.
Higgs boson is not Destiny. We have to rethink TIME and ETERNITY.
Basic and primary stuff of the universe is not physical. All matter, energy and fundamental forces of nature are secondary and reffered by a unified primary force of nature.
There is a ‘co-ordination force’ in between ‘God’ and all secondary forces of nature, which is more important than Higgs boson !!
I suggest this force is TIME.
TIME is invisible presence and the only BASIC BUILDING BLOCK of the Universe and Everything in it !
Deep down, the particles and forces of the universe are a manifestation of TIME.
TIME is a coordination force of the Universe and Multiverse referred by Nature.
Nothing has independent existence except TIME. All three and extra dimensions of space are of time’s dimensions. Time is not a 4th dimension of space. TIME IS ALL DIMENSIONS.
PASSWORD of TIME is in the Mind of GOD.
Tell me about the NATURE OF TIME, I can create the UNIVERSE, a MACRO BLACK HOLE, Higgs boson and even LIFE !
“If all cosmologists of the world say a foolish thing it is still a foolish thing !” I WILL CHANGE THE HISTORY OF TIME ! I have suggested in my ” TIME THEORY OF EVERYTHING ” that God does not play PARTICLES game with the Universe !
Three of space and one of time that three space dimensions and one of time dimension is wrong idea. Time is included in three space dimensions, but not as a 4th dimension i.e all dimensions of space are dimensions of time.
TIME IS NOT A MANUFACTURED QUANTITY. Time has independent existence and fundamental. Space is a manufactured quantity and secondary form of time.
I believe in infinite extra spatial dimensions of ‘TIME’ only, and I know what these dimensions are, but I don’t believe time as extra dimension with space. I don’t believe in extra dimensions of space, I believe in extra dimensions of time! Three dimensions of space and one dimension of of time is absolutely wrong idea. Our physical universe exists in three or 11 dimensions of time! [as string theory proposed,10 of space and one of time dimension]
“There isn’t just one dimension of time,” says Itzhak Bars of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.”There are two. One whole dimension has until now gone entirely unnoticed by us. Two time / 2T Physics” [New scientist 13 October 2007, Hypertime, Cover story] Why we need two dimensions of time? Why not we need 11 and many more dimensions of TIME !
Higgs boson should be named “TIME PARTICLE”

A NEW HYPOTHESIS:

I don’t believe particles in any shape or dimensions as basic building blocks of matter, energy, and everything in the universe. I have an alternative “Fluctuating Extreme Levels” hypothesis which is a part of my “Time Theory of Everything” [Extreme Level Theory]
Extreme Level Theory suggests that basic building blocks of everything in the universe are composed of ‘Fluctuating Extreme Levels’ of energy.
In ‘Extreme Level Theory’ of time, Extreme Levels correspond to different entities and quantities.
If Extreme Level Theory proves correct, photons, electrons and neutrinos are different due to changes in the fluctuations of extreme levels.
Prior to Extreme Level Theory, subatomic ‘particles’ were envisioned as tiny balls or points of energy. Extreme Level Theory works on the premise that the tiniest subatomic bits that make up the elements of atoms actually behave like ‘Fluctuating Extreme Levels’ and not like vibrating or dancing strings!
Higg’s Field is a “Time’s Field”……..
Photon is no more now a particle, a wave, or has features of both! Photon exist at fluctuating extreme level of energy.
My “TIME THEORY OF EVERYTHING” will change the meaning of Matter, Energy, Natural Forces, Consciousness, Life & Extraterrestrial Life and Death.

Posted by Anonymous | Report as abusive

Rethinking the basic laws of Nature:

“TIME THEORY OF EVERYTHING”
A challenge to CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC) experiment, search for a God Particle!

I’m a researcher working on “Time Theory of Everything”.
My motto is: “ One day of a researcher’s life is better than 100 years life of a king !”
Universe is my everything and I am in search of a “Theory of Everything”!!
My passion is about Cosmology, nature of the Universe, Physics, Theory of Everything, nature of TIME, origins of LIFE and Consciousness.
Research is a FUN for me.
The only truth about the physical Universe is that it is not physical ! The smartest thing of the Universe is Universe itself ! Universe is not only small and finite. Universe ‘on the whole’ is smartest phenomenon of the Universe ! ‘On the whole’ Universe is ‘shapeless’, ‘massless’ and ‘weightless’. I CAN PICK IT UP !!!
Einstein’s “second law,” m = E/ c^2 i.e. m = E/ c2 [ How mass drives from pure Energy.], raises the question whether mass can be understood more deeply as energy. And can we build, as Wheeler put it, ” Mass Without Mass “,? are the best predictions in favour of my ” Time Theory of Everything “.
In my view the first question is “How pure energy drives from TIME?”.
”The Universe is not what it used to be, nor what it appears to be.” as Frank W ilczek of MIT quoted in first chapter ‘Getting to it’ of his book titled ” The Lightness of Being ” [ mass, ether, and the unification of forces ] also supports my theory.
Infinity is finity ‘on the whole’. There is nothing original under the physical phenomena. All physical properties of the universe are secondary in nature.There is a Universe behind the ‘Physical Universe’ which is ‘DARK’ and primary Universe.
If a “Theory of Everything” is Holy Grail of cosmology, “Time Theory of Everything” is Holy Grail of physics.
Physicists are hunting for an elusive particle that would reveal the presence of a new kind of field that permeates all of reality. Finding that Higgs field will give us a more complete understanding about how the elusive universe works!
I believe in bold imagination in research. I believe universe is not acadamic, and is not bound of our physical theories. Capture Higgs particle, ‘eyes on a prize particle’, the search for the Higgs boson [God Particle] and creation of micro black holes is nonsense idea.
Higgs boson is not Destiny. We have to rethink TIME and ETERNITY.
Basic and primary stuff of the universe is not physical. All matter, energy and fundamental forces of nature are secondary and reffered by a unified primary force of nature.
There is a ‘co-ordination force’ in between ‘God’ and all secondary forces of nature, which is more important than Higgs boson !!
I suggest this force is TIME.
TIME is invisible presence and the only BASIC BUILDING BLOCK of the Universe and Everything in it !
Deep down, the particles and forces of the universe are a manifestation of TIME.
TIME is a coordination force of the Universe and Multiverse referred by Nature.
Nothing has independent existence except TIME. All three and extra dimensions of space are of time’s dimensions. Time is not a 4th dimension of space. TIME IS ALL DIMENSIONS.
PASSWORD of TIME is in the Mind of GOD.
Tell me about the NATURE OF TIME, I can create the UNIVERSE, a MACRO BLACK HOLE, Higgs boson and even LIFE !
“If all cosmologists of the world say a foolish thing it is still a foolish thing !” I WILL CHANGE THE HISTORY OF TIME ! I have suggested in my ” TIME THEORY OF EVERYTHING ” that God does not play PARTICLES game with the Universe !
Three of space and one of time that three space dimensions and one of time dimension is wrong idea. Time is included in three space dimensions, but not as a 4th dimension i.e all dimensions of space are dimensions of time.
TIME IS NOT A MANUFACTURED QUANTITY. Time has independent existence and fundamental. Space is a manufactured quantity and secondary form of time.
I believe in infinite extra spatial dimensions of ‘TIME’ only, and I know what these dimensions are, but I don’t believe time as extra dimension with space. I don’t believe in extra dimensions of space, I believe in extra dimensions of time! Three dimensions of space and one dimension of of time is absolutely wrong idea. Our physical universe exists in three or 11 dimensions of time! [as string theory proposed,10 of space and one of time dimension]
“There isn’t just one dimension of time,” says Itzhak Bars of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.”There are two. One whole dimension has until now gone entirely unnoticed by us. Two time / 2T Physics” [New scientist 13 October 2007, Hypertime, Cover story] Why we need two dimensions of time? Why not we need 11 and many more dimensions of TIME !
Higgs boson should be named “TIME PARTICLE”

A NEW HYPOTHESIS:

I don’t believe particles in any shape or dimensions as basic building blocks of matter, energy, and everything in the universe. I have an alternative “Fluctuating Extreme Levels” hypothesis which is a part of my “Time Theory of Everything” [Extreme Level Theory]
Extreme Level Theory suggests that basic building blocks of everything in the universe are composed of ‘Fluctuating Extreme Levels’ of energy.
In ‘Extreme Level Theory’ of time, Extreme Levels correspond to different entities and quantities.
If Extreme Level Theory proves correct, photons, electrons and neutrinos are different due to changes in the fluctuations of extreme levels.
Prior to Extreme Level Theory, subatomic ‘particles’ were envisioned as tiny balls or points of energy. Extreme Level Theory works on the premise that the tiniest subatomic bits that make up the elements of atoms actually behave like ‘Fluctuating Extreme Levels’ and not like vibrating or dancing strings!
Higg’s Field is a “Time’s Field”……..
Photon is no more now a particle, a wave, or has features of both! Photon exist at fluctuating extreme level of energy.
My “TIME THEORY OF EVERYTHING” will change the meaning of Matter, Energy, Natural Forces, Consciousness, Life & Extraterrestrial Life and Death.

Khalid Masood
khalidcustoms@gmail.com

P.S. I am reposting the article posted above under my name as it is not given before. Kindly replace the article with this one. Thank you.

Posted by khalidcustoms | Report as abusive

Physical world is not merely a lump, it is everything of the earth that represents “five elements” which are foundation for the entire physical world and from which life also evolves. The “five elements” are Earth (prithvi), Water (jal), Air (vayu), Fire (agni), Space (akash).”Jainism” also describes about independence and interdependence of the elements and in other religions also similar researches were done in past. Unfortunately the relevant literature is either not available or distorted to a great extent and twisted as well to suit personal bias. comment of khalidcustoms is great. Keep your research going and enjoy a life better than a king.

Posted by ADISH | Report as abusive