God Particle Found, But Does Anyone Care?

[Phatscotty]

A poll for curiousity and a share of an article written in the National Review.

They found the “God particle.”

That was the headline splashed all over America’s news media. It turns out that the name actually derives from substituting “God particle” for “goddamn particle,” the original name some scientists had given the elusive particle. But the media adopted the former nomenclature.

Why?

Because otherwise the bulk of humanity would not pay attention.

Physicists went nuts. And no one can blame them. For decades, they have searched for the particle that may explain why there is any mass in the universe. And 10 billion dollars was spent on the machine that probably proved its existence.

Without any disrespect to the enormous intellectual achievement of these scientists, let me state that I identify with the mass of humanity that doesn’t really care about the existence of the Higgs boson.

Those scientists and science writers who have likened this discovery to the discovery of DNA are wrong. If significance means relevance to the human condition, the discovery of DNA merited a ten out of ten and the Higgs boson might merit a two.

This does not mean that the search was either a waste of time or money. Both the time and money invested were necessary because satiating our curiosity about the natural world is one of the noblest ambitions of the human race.

But scientific discovery and meaning are not necessarily related. As one of the leading physicists of our time, Steven Weinberg, has written, “The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless.”

And pointlessness is the point. The discovery of the Higgs boson brings us no closer to understanding why there is a universe, not to mention whether life has meaning. In fact, no scientific discovery ever made will ever explain why there is existence. Nor will it render good and evil anything more than subjective opinion, or explain why human beings have consciousness or anything else that truly matters.

The only thing that can explain existence and answer these other questions is God or some other similar metaphysical belief. This angers those scientists and others who are emotionally as well as intellectually committed to atheism. But many honest atheists recognize that a godless world means a meaningless one, and they admit that science can explain only what, not why.

In a recent interview in the Wall Street Journal, Woody Allen, an honest atheist, made this point in his inimitable way. Allen told the interviewer that, being a big sports fan, and especially a New York Knicks fan, he is often asked whether it’s important if the Knicks beat the Celtics. His answer is, “Well, it’s just as important as human existence.” If there is no God, Mr. Allen is right.

One must have a great deal of respect for the atheist who recognizes the consequences of atheism: no meaning, no purpose, no good and evil beyond subjective opinion, and no recognition of the limits of what science can explain.

But the atheist — scientist, philosophy professor, or your brother-in-law who sells insurance — who denies the consequences of atheism is as worthy of the same intellectual respect atheists have for those who believe in a 6,000-year-old universe.

Not only is science incapable of discovering why there is existence; scientists also confront the equally frustrating fact that the more they discover about the universe, the more they realize they do not know.

I happen to think that this was God’s built-in way of limiting man’s hubris and compelling humans to acknowledge His existence. Admittedly, this doesn’t always have these effects on scientists and especially on those who believe that science will explain everything.

So, sincere congratulations to the physicists and other scientists who discovered the Higgs boson. We now think we have uncovered the force or the matter that gives us the 4 percent of the universe that we can observe (96 percent of the universe consists of “dark matter,” about which scientists know almost nothing).

However, ironic as it may seem to many of these physicists, only if there is a God does their discovery matter. Otherwise, it is no more important than whether the Knicks beat the Celtics.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ ... nis-prager

[GBU56]

Is this about the Higgs bosom particle or some rant against atheists? Perhaps you're bi-polar or suffering from Schizophrenia

[Juan_Bottom]

While not entirely accurate, my circle of internet friends have been talking about this for days. We all like to talk science, yet honestly none of us actually understand this.
I'm pretty sure Higgs didn't understand it either.

[Phatscotty]

Is this about the Higgs bosom particle or some rant against atheists? Perhaps you're bi-polar or suffering from Schizophrenia

what is it that makes you think I wrote that?

Let me guess, it's for sure not bi-polar or Schizophrenia....right?

[Lootifer]

I care about any scientific advance. /shrug.

[GBU56]

Is this about the Higgs bosom particle or some rant against atheists? Perhaps you're bi-polar or suffering from Schizophrenia

what is it that makes you think I wrote that?

Let me guess, it's for sure not bi-polar or Schizophrenia....right?

I know you didn't write that drivel....but why copy/paste that nonsense?

Thank GOD! for the Higgs bosom, otherwise we wouldn't have beer!

[Timminz]

In fact, no scientific discovery ever made will ever explain why there is existence. Nor will it render good and evil anything more than subjective opinion, or explain why human beings have consciousness or anything else that truly matters.

Be careful what you say about PERMANENT concepts and projects, because in the future someone may be quoting what YOU said on the record. What will your children and colleagues think in 2030 about what you said in 2002?

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."

-- Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp. (DEC), maker of big business mainframe computers, arguing against the PC, 1977

"We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out anyway."

-- President of Decca Records, rejecting The Beatles after an audition, 1962

"Transmission of documents via telephone wires is possible in principle, but the apparatus required is so expensive that it will never become
a practical proposition."

-- Dennis Gabor, British physicist and author of Inventing the Future, 1962

"There is practically no chance communications space satellites will be used to provide better telephone, telegraph, television, or radio service inside the United States."

-- T. Craven, FCC Commissioner, 1961
(the first commercial communications satellite went into service in 1965)

"The world potential market for copying machines is 5000 at most."

-- IBM , to the eventual founders of Xerox, saying the photocopier had no market large enough to justify production, 1959

"To place a man in a multi-stage rocket and project him into the controlling gravitational field of the moon where the passengers can make scientific observations, perhaps land alive, and then return to earth--all that constitutes a wild dream worthy of Jules Verne. I am bold enough to say that such a man-made voyage will never occur regardless of all future advances."

-- Lee deForest, American radio pioneer and inventor of the vacuum tube, 1957

"You ain't going nowhere, son. You ought to go back to driving a truck."

-- Jim Denny, manager of the Grand Ole Opry, in firing Elvis Presley after a performance, 1954

"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."

-- Popular Mechanics, "predicting" the relentless march of technology, 1949

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."

-- Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

"Atomic energy might be as good as our present-day explosives, but it is unlikely to produce anything very much more dangerous."

-- Winston Churchill, British Prime Minister, 1939

"A rocket will never be able to leave the Earth's atmosphere."

-- New York Times, 1936

"There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean the atom would have to be shattered at will."

-- Albert Einstein, German-born American physicist, 1932

"Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?"

-- H.M. Warner, Warner Brothers, maker of silent movies, 1927

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."

-- Lord Kelvin, British mathematician and physicist, president of the British Royal Society, 1895

"X-rays will prove to be a hoax."

-- Lord Kelvin, British mathematician and physicist, president of the British Royal Society, 1895(?)

What do you guys think?

[HapSmo19]

I totally see the similarity between those things and an invisible particle.

[HapSmo19]

wait...can we make bombs out of it?

[Phatscotty]

wait...can we make bombs out of it?

"order a new laser gun asap" was honestly going to be one of the poll options....

[Phatscotty]

In fact, no scientific discovery ever made will ever explain why there is existence. Nor will it render good and evil anything more than subjective opinion, or explain why human beings have consciousness or anything else that truly matters.

Be careful what you say about PERMANENT concepts and projects, because in the future someone may be quoting what YOU said on the record. What will your children and colleagues think in 2030 about what you said in 2002?
..........goes on to repeat the dumbest things ever said in history....

What do you guys think?

I think you would get busted for crappy editing, discredited, and then publicly flogged by the a super-majority of divine Tea-Bag rulers.

[Lootifer]

wut?

[Haggis_McMutton]

Those scientists and science writers who have likened this discovery to the discovery of DNA are wrong. If significance means relevance to the human condition, the discovery of DNA merited a ten out of ten and the Higgs boson might merit a two.

I'm guessing his crystal ball gave him this information.

And pointlessness is the point. The discovery of the Higgs boson brings us no closer to understanding why there is a universe, not to mention whether life has meaning. In fact, no scientific discovery ever made will ever explain why there is existence. Nor will it render good and evil anything more than subjective opinion, or explain why human beings have consciousness or anything else that truly matters.

So, science can't answer philosophical questions? Wow, huge insight here.
You know what might matter though? GPS, which wouldn't be possible without the special and general theories of relativity.

One must have a great deal of respect for the atheist who recognizes the consequences of atheism: no meaning, no purpose, no good and evil beyond subjective opinion, and no recognition of the limits of what science can explain.

No absolute meaning is not equivalent to no meaning whatsoever. Looks like the author moves on from grossly misrepresenting science to grossly misrepresenting philosophy.

Not only is science incapable of discovering why there is existence; scientists also confront the equally frustrating fact that the more they discover about the universe, the more they realize they do not know.

If you know anything about scientists or science you'd realize that fact isn't frustrating but one of the major appeals.

"We live on an island surrounded by a sea of ignorance. As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance."

In fact several physicists (including Hawkins) were somewhat dissapointed they found the Higgs, they had hoped the LHC would prove the Higgs doesn't exist and thus invalidate the standard model and make room for new and exciting research.

See, scientists revel in their ignorance and the pursuit of knowledge rather than being so afraid as to have to pretend they know what happened (i.e. "god did it")

I happen to think that this was God’s built-in way of limiting man’s hubris and compelling humans to acknowledge His existence. Admittedly, this doesn’t always have these effects on scientists and especially on those who believe that science will explain everything.

Oh yeah, THAT'S how god decided to convince us he exists. Uh huh.
His other approaches seem to be launching tornadoes and earthquakes our way and appearing on slices of toasts.

However, ironic as it may seem to many of these physicists, only if there is a God does their discovery matter. Otherwise, it is no more important than whether the Knicks beat the Celtics.

Well, I'm sorry that to this author all of science's advances leading to improving and saving billions of lives are of equal importance to some sport. Seems he's a bit of a sociopath.

---
Also, to anyone seriously claiming they know this discovery will not change anything, please explain how you would have know general/special relativity would be important as soon as it was published.

Keep in mind, I'm actually tossing you guys an easy one here. I could have asked about quantum mechanics.

[BigBallinStalin]

They found the “God particle.”

That was the headline splashed all over America’s news media. It turns out that the name actually derives from substituting “God particle” for “goddamn particle,” the original name some scientists had given the elusive particle. But the media adopted the former nomenclature.

Why?

Because otherwise the bulk of humanity would not pay attention.

Wouldn't it receive more attention if it was called the "Goddamn particle"? The religious nuts would freak out. Their screams would ripple across the zeitgeist of the US, and everyone else would be laughing and then talking about the Higg's boson. (Higgs' boson? not sure)

[nietzsche]

Is this National Review respectable? Because the guy writing seems annoyed for some reason, zero objectivity. He sort of tries to imitate the mood with which I sometimes post.

Why would you say all those things?, some persons have so petty a mind.

[Phatscotty]

Is this National Review respectable? Because the guy writing seems annoyed for some reason, zero objectivity. He sort of tries to imitate the mood with which I sometimes post.

Why would you say all those things?, some persons have so petty a mind.

I think he was just trying to identify and analyze the hype, and offer his own response

I do not know about the National Review, but I know the author Dennis Prager kicks ass

[nietzsche]

Is this National Review respectable? Because the guy writing seems annoyed for some reason, zero objectivity. He sort of tries to imitate the mood with which I sometimes post.

Why would you say all those things?, some persons have so petty a mind.

I think he was just trying to identify and analyze the hype, and offer his own response

I understand his article appeals to people who already want to say "I don't care". He's talking for them, but once written doesn't make him look good.

[Lootifer]

Is this National Review respectable? Because the guy writing seems annoyed for some reason, zero objectivity. He sort of tries to imitate the mood with which I sometimes post.

Why would you say all those things?, some persons have so petty a mind.

I think he was just trying to identify and analyze the hype, and offer his own response

I do not know about the National Review, but I know the author Dennis Prager kicks ass

If failing to understand even the simplist notions of philosophy "kicks ass" then sure.

[Nobunaga]

... The discovery of the "God Particle" is fascinating. So technical as to be above the heads of 99% of the population, but fascinating nonetheless.

... A lack of interest by the general public shouldn't surprise anybody. Americans get dumber every day. What else might one expect?

...

[Army of GOD]

oh god this is awesome. And completely true.

[Lootifer]

Also its hardly hype.

It is the discovery of a particle that unites two long held theories that were essentially "inconsistent" (not quite the right word but whatever). Together these two theories potentially unite (with proof of the higgs boson actually existing) to form what's called a theory of everything which is a model that explains all of the four forces: gravity, electromagnitism, weak [nuclear] and strong [nuclear].

Without the higgs boson one of these forces, gravity (and therefore relativity), was left out of the standard model.

To put this in perspective: Arguably the smartest man on earths' gut feeling was that the higgs boson could not be proved; he was wrong. The smartest man on the planet was wrong.

You personally dont have to care; but the discovery is undeniably very important in terms of our understanding of the universe. If you dont think our understanding of the universe is related to our advancment as a race (better lives, for more people) then you are ignoring many of the examples that have already been given in this thread.

[Army of GOD]

for the general population, it means almost nothing. I feel like it'll be a while until the discovery of the Higgs has a practical effect on our lives.

But for scientists, this is like having a threesome with Kate Upton, Vanessa Hudgens and Ken Griffey Jr (alright, that's maybe just my fantasy, but you get the point).

[Phatscotty]

False Messiah: Scientists Contend Recently Discovered ‘God Particle’ Is an ‘Impostor’

Less than a week ago, the scientific community was celebrating the 99.9999 percent certain findings of a particle thought to be the Higgs boson. Scientists at the European Center for Nuclear Research (CERN) were cautious to step right out and say they officially found the subatomic particle with the nickname the “God particle,” stating the results were preliminary but hinting at it being the particle consistent with the theoretical one thought to help explain some fundamental questions of matter in our universe.

(Related: ‘Very, Very Preliminary Result’: CERN Scientists Tentatively ‘Find’ Infamous God Particle)

Now, a set of other scientists at the Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois reviewing data from the large hadron collider in Geneva are saying the particle physicists think could be the Higgs boson could actually be an impostor. They write:

Assuming an unbroken custodial invariance as suggested by precision electroweak measurements, only four possibilities are allowed if the scalar decays to pairs of gauge bosons, as exemplified by a dilaton/radion, a non-dilatonic electroweak singlet scalar, an electroweak doublet scalar, and electroweak triplet scalars. We show that current LHC data already strongly disfavor both the dilatonic and non-dilatonic singlet imposters. On the other hand, a generic Higgs doublet and a triplet imposter give equally good fits to the measured event rates of the newly observed scalar resonance, although a Standard Model Higgs boson gives a slightly better overall fit. [...] We emphasize that more precise measurements of the ratio of event rates in the WW over ZZ channels, as well as the event rates in bb and tau tau channels, are needed to distinguish the Higgs doublet from the triplet imposter.

Gizmodo explains more on the “controlled enthusiasm” regarding the potential finding exhibited by CERN scientists — and much of the scientific community — and the Argonne researchers who have called up the possibility of an impostor:

The reason for his controlled optimism is the elusive nature of this particles. Since we can only create them for a very limited time before they decay into other particles, it’s very difficult to trace their signature. It’s even more difficult when, looking at the the data so far collected by CERN, the signature can be attributed to other particles.

This just further confirms that the actual presence of the Higgs boson cannot be unequivocally cited just yet.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.1093

[Woodruff]

But for scientists, this is like having a threesome with Kate Upton, Vanessa Hudgens and Ken Griffey Jr (alright, that's maybe just my fantasy, but you get the point).

Ummm...would the scientists just be watching as far as your "threesome with" is concerned?

[Lootifer]

I guess my point is that at the individual level no one cares; but collectively as a race we care a lot (whether or not you want to dig your heels in, fold your arms, and squeal until youre blue in the face about how much you dont care) - no individual can change that because collectively we all just got a whole lot smarter: our collective intelligence is measured by our entire knowledge base, not that of the individual.

That knowledge base just moved forward a good couple of paces.