Scientists narrow hunt for 'God' particle

"GENEVA – Scientists hunting for an elusive sub-atomic particle say they’ve found “intriguing hints” that it exists, narrowing down the search for what is believed to be a basic building block of the universe.

The researchers were careful to note they do not have enough data yet to definitively say the particle exists, but also said the latest data is strong enough that the question could be answered one way or another by next year.

Researchers hope that the particle, if it exists, can help explain many mysteries of the universe. British physicist Peter Higgs and others theorized the particle’s existence more than 40 years ago to explain why atoms, and everything else in the universe, have weight."

usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/story/2011-12-13/god-particle-higgs-boson/51869786/1

There’s something in the Talmud or some other book in Jewish theology that states that God created a substance out of which He shaped the world. I wonder if this particle could be that substance…

Could somebody summarise what on earth those scientists are trying to do?

:confused:

Higg’s boson is a particle that is believed to exist and that gives other particles mass. It does this with every single particle, hence it is referred to as the God particle (omnipresent). Recent research suggests we may have found it and we even now have a tentative mass. More experiments are needed to find out for sure that it exists, and that’s what is being done now. Hope that helped :slight_smile:

As far as oxymorons go, jumbo shrimp has nothing on omnipresent particle .

Sort of like a physical manifestation of the loving thought of God that keeps everything from collapsing into chaos or nothingness. …The very notion is making me tear up with joy.

Gee; I wonder what astrophysicist Carl Sagan would be saying to all this hunt for the God Particle?:wink:

ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/03/god-particle/achenbach-text

ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/03/god-particle/particle-interactive.html

More interesting theory when you look at it on a more grandiose scale.

But then splitting the atom was on a small scale similar to looking at the greater version of the big bang theory.

They are trying to confirm the existence of “The Higgs Boson”, which current theories of Particle Physics use to give mass to particles. Some physicist or another nicknamed the Higgs as “The God Particle”, a phrase that many religious have picked up, inflated way beyond what the original off-hand comment deserved, and use it to “prove” the existence of God.:rolleyes:

Trouble is, most scientists use terms like “God” and “Theory” way different from what non-scientists use. For example, “theory” does not mean some wild idea thought up last night in a bar. :tsktsk:

No, it means a model that best fits the existing facts., and creats testable predictions. Most current models/theories predict the Higgs Boson. If found, nice. If not, back to the drawing board to fit this fact of non-existence of Higgs into the theories. :coffeeread:

All this is taking place at CERN. Several years ago there was panic and doomsday predictions from the scientific illiterates that CERN might produce black holes and stranglets that would devour the Earth. :bigyikes:

All very interesting, but the nickname “God particle” is just absurd. Compete lack of understanding of (or disregard for) the idea of God as the source of all being.

Explained it much better than myself, thank you :slight_smile:

It’s not used to offend, more of a literary device. As it keeps our universe together, I think the name is apt.

Mmm, I’m a little concerned myself at the use of the term “God particle”, for the reason that some scrupulous types may take it too seriously.

This again points out that many Scientists use words like “God” and “theory” in ways different from nany non-scientists. When a scientist uses the term “God”, it might mean the Christian concept. More likely, it will be a Deistic concept. Most likely, just a rhetorical term with no intent of support of supernatural or metaphysical concepts.:shrug:

It would certainly be interesting if they do find this particle. From what I understand, it could have a drastic effect on modern science.

Um…probably not. If the Higgs were NOT found, THAT would have drastic effect on particle physics. :rolleyes:

But if you really really want a drastic effect, you can hope they find two more quarks beyond the current six. Or a magnetic monopole.:bigyikes:

For what its worth, most scientists hate that people call it the god particle, because it gives people the impression that it has to do with religion, which it does not. The name comes from the title of a book, The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question? * Originally the author wanted to call it, The God*ed Particle, after how elusive it had been to find…

Phooo… you beat me to it:crying:

The book was published in 1993…

theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/the-higgs-boson-and-the-search-for-god/article2269991/

The folks at the Large Hadron Collider put the chance of their findings being the Higgs Boson at 2 sigma… or about 95%. However, for a discovery to be declared in physics requires 5 sigma certainty and independent confirmation.

At 3 sigma certainty (99.7%), findings can be declared an observation, but the scientists at the LHC haven’t reached that point yet.
bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16167648

So close yet so far…

Just how basic is the Higgs Boson thought to be? More basic than quarks? More basic than the strings of String Theory [or the Membranes of M-Theory?]

Basic enough to give particles mass. :coffeeread:

The existence or non-existence of the Higgs Boson at a range of energy levels is a TESTABLE prediction. And that is what CERN is currently doing…testing for the existence of the Higgs Boson within the energy levels reached by CERN.:idea:

In contrst, String theory and Membranes theory suffer from the fact that they cannot, as yet, generate testable predictions.:shrug:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.