One 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.
So 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…
Lederman 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?
Trackback
145 comments so far
Previous | 8 … | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | … 1 | Next
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 GaryA “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_bubbaSpending 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?
- Posted by Atif AshrafiWe 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?
[...] making babel like islands and searching for the ‘God Particle’, what can come [...]
- Posted by ‘Babel’-ing in Qatar and @homeTwo observations:
- Posted by Tom Heneghan1. 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
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 peterMay 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 akileshGod 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 MikeThe 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.
- Posted by kanomoI’d like to hear from you… Critics r welcome!!
[...] Travis and Peter Walker, guardian.co.uk) Not brought to book (Inayat Bunglawala, Guardian CiF) Is “God Particle” the right term for massive mystery in physics? (Tom Heneghan, FaithWorld) Bishop who called Jerry Springer: The Opera ‘filth’ quits [...]
- Posted by Terror bits: 08-09 April « The Daily TerrorPeople 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 MeWhile 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 BudTo 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.
- Posted by Louis KuheljWhy 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.
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/
- Posted by jerry wTo 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 R1) THE BIBLE AND CPH (CREATIVE PARTICLES OF HIGGS)
- Posted by cristian negureanu“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
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 HelfreyJust 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 LewisA 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 Lewisif it were called the apples or orange particle, would there be such a frenzy?
- Posted by ted