5 ms·

Higgs Boson: Physicists See Best Proof Yet of 'The God Particle'

29 points by chegra 14y ago

davidjohnstone 14y ago
"Best proof yet" sounds weird. How about "best evidence yet"?
jgrahamc 14y ago
Every time I hear "God Particle" I want to cry. Please, please, media stop saying that. It's the perfect name to annoy scientists and people who are religious. It's a stupid name. The Higgs has nothing to do with God at all. There's no implication that the Higgs boson is anything more than yet-another-particle (albeit an important one). Why won't people call it the Mass Particle instead?
- Devilboy 14y ago
  I say we change it back to the 'Goddamn Particle'
- i_cannot_hack 14y ago
  Seriously, what does it even mean!? What are they trying to convey by including "God" every time they mention it? That the theory was very important and hard to prove? In that case, might we be hearing about the "God string theory" or "God P=NP" next? They might as well just call it the "Ketchup particle", and it would make just as much sense.
  - tjoff 14y ago
    Lederman said he gave it the nickname "The God Particle" because the particle is "so central to the state of physics today, so crucial to our understanding of the structure of matter, yet so elusive," but jokingly added that a second reason was because "the publisher wouldn't let us call it the Goddamn Particle, though that might be a more appropriate title, given its villainous nature and the expense it is causing." From (with more): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson#.22The_God_particle.22 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson#.22The_God_particle... While mass is quite fundamental even to the general public I agree, "the god particle" is just silly.
- theorique 14y ago
  Your answer to this question: Why won't people call it the Mass Particle instead? is in your post: It's the perfect name to annoy scientists and people who are religious. Seriously, though, I think people are using it in the vernacular sense, like "God Mode" in video games, or Uber, or Mega or any of these superlative prefixes.
bdg 14y ago
Is there an Odin particle that banishes frost giants?
- valmitj 14y ago
  '' Lederman said he gave the Higgs boson the nickname "The God Particle" because the particle is "so central to the state of physics today, so crucial to our final understanding of the structure of matter, yet so elusive," ''
Variance 14y ago
Does anyone have the actual information of how many standard deviations the data confirms the Higgs to? Last I heard it was four, so I assume that this "update" has more, but I can't find any actual information anywhere. Edit: found it, physorg says that there's a reported "1 in 1.7 million chance" of them being wrong, which comes out to a z-score of around 4.86. So pretty close to 5, which is their standard, if I remember correctly.
- nilaykumar 14y ago
  No ATLAS or CMS member is currently allowed to release these numbers. Then numbers these sites are releasing are just pure rumors (although they may have an element of truth). Just wait until the press conference tomorrow and you will see all in gory detail.
  - Variance 14y ago
    I have to wonder where that "1 in 1.7 million" came from, then. It sounds too exact to be speculation, but I guess I did get the numbers from Physorg...
Anon84 14y ago
Let's hope they learned the "Faster than light neutrino" lesson... EDIT: In reply to comments: 1. The speed of the neutrino had already been measure experimentally before. It was unlikely that a new experiment would produce different results. 2. Requests for help from the scientific community are not delivered via press releases. Specially in an area as relatively small as high energy physics where everyone knows everyone. 3. If you look at the slides used to announce the "result" http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=155620 http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?resId=0&material... nowhere does it mention that they are not sure of the results and are asking for help finding the error. 4. The actual article, that was directed at the scientific community, http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897v2.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897v2.pdf makes no mention of asking for help to understand where the problem is. It simply announces a new result and the checks that were made to "ensure" that it was correct (as is common in any other scientific publication announcing a new result). 5. Immediate reactions from several leading minds in high energy physics were against the validity of the result. Perhaps these people should have been contacted before if they weren't sure of the result? 6. Shortly after the announcement was made, dozens of papers popped up "explaining" the result from every possible angle and receiving varying degrees of media coverage, further giving the impression to the general public that scientists don't know what they are talking about. Based on all of this, my conclusion can be just one. This was a publicity stunt that backfired. As a result, people lost their jobs and science was shamed in the public eyes. Nothing more than disservice to science in exchange for 15m of fame...
- fjh 14y ago
  And what lesson would that be?
  - Anon84 14y ago
    Don't call press conferences for results that you aren't sure about and likely wrong.
    - fjh 14y ago
      I strongly disagree. They never claimed they had a result, they had a measurement that they could not explain, which they made public. I think it was an example of how science should be done, being open instead of being afraid of being wrong in public.
fasouto 14y ago
Can we wait until tomorrow? Let's wait to hear CERN confirmation instead of make asumptions.

29 points by chegra 14y ago

"Best proof yet" sounds weird. How about "best evidence yet"?

Every time I hear "God Particle" I want to cry. Please, please, media stop saying that. It's the perfect name to annoy scientists and people who are religious. It's a stupid name. The Higgs has nothing to do with God at all. There's no implication that the Higgs boson is anything more than yet-another-particle (albeit an important one). Why won't people call it the Mass Particle instead?

Devilboy 14y ago
I say we change it back to the 'Goddamn Particle'
i_cannot_hack 14y ago
Seriously, what does it even mean!? What are they trying to convey by including "God" every time they mention it? That the theory was very important and hard to prove? In that case, might we be hearing about the "God string theory" or "God P=NP" next? They might as well just call it the "Ketchup particle", and it would make just as much sense.
- tjoff 14y ago
  Lederman said he gave it the nickname "The God Particle" because the particle is "so central to the state of physics today, so crucial to our understanding of the structure of matter, yet so elusive," but jokingly added that a second reason was because "the publisher wouldn't let us call it the Goddamn Particle, though that might be a more appropriate title, given its villainous nature and the expense it is causing." From (with more): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson#.22The_God_particle.22 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson#.22The_God_particle... While mass is quite fundamental even to the general public I agree, "the god particle" is just silly.
theorique 14y ago
Your answer to this question: Why won't people call it the Mass Particle instead? is in your post: It's the perfect name to annoy scientists and people who are religious. Seriously, though, I think people are using it in the vernacular sense, like "God Mode" in video games, or Uber, or Mega or any of these superlative prefixes.

bdg 14y ago

Is there an Odin particle that banishes frost giants?

valmitj 14y ago
'' Lederman said he gave the Higgs boson the nickname "The God Particle" because the particle is "so central to the state of physics today, so crucial to our final understanding of the structure of matter, yet so elusive," ''

Variance 14y ago

Does anyone have the actual information of how many standard deviations the data confirms the Higgs to? Last I heard it was four, so I assume that this "update" has more, but I can't find any actual information anywhere. Edit: found it, physorg says that there's a reported "1 in 1.7 million chance" of them being wrong, which comes out to a z-score of around 4.86. So pretty close to 5, which is their standard, if I remember correctly.

nilaykumar 14y ago
No ATLAS or CMS member is currently allowed to release these numbers. Then numbers these sites are releasing are just pure rumors (although they may have an element of truth). Just wait until the press conference tomorrow and you will see all in gory detail.
- Variance 14y ago
  I have to wonder where that "1 in 1.7 million" came from, then. It sounds too exact to be speculation, but I guess I did get the numbers from Physorg...

Anon84 14y ago

Let's hope they learned the "Faster than light neutrino" lesson... EDIT: In reply to comments: 1. The speed of the neutrino had already been measure experimentally before. It was unlikely that a new experiment would produce different results. 2. Requests for help from the scientific community are not delivered via press releases. Specially in an area as relatively small as high energy physics where everyone knows everyone. 3. If you look at the slides used to announce the "result" http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=155620 http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?resId=0&material... nowhere does it mention that they are not sure of the results and are asking for help finding the error. 4. The actual article, that was directed at the scientific community, http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897v2.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897v2.pdf makes no mention of asking for help to understand where the problem is. It simply announces a new result and the checks that were made to "ensure" that it was correct (as is common in any other scientific publication announcing a new result). 5. Immediate reactions from several leading minds in high energy physics were against the validity of the result. Perhaps these people should have been contacted before if they weren't sure of the result? 6. Shortly after the announcement was made, dozens of papers popped up "explaining" the result from every possible angle and receiving varying degrees of media coverage, further giving the impression to the general public that scientists don't know what they are talking about. Based on all of this, my conclusion can be just one. This was a publicity stunt that backfired. As a result, people lost their jobs and science was shamed in the public eyes. Nothing more than disservice to science in exchange for 15m of fame...

fjh 14y ago
And what lesson would that be?
- Anon84 14y ago
  Don't call press conferences for results that you aren't sure about and likely wrong.
  - fjh 14y ago
    I strongly disagree. They never claimed they had a result, they had a measurement that they could not explain, which they made public. I think it was an example of how science should be done, being open instead of being afraid of being wrong in public.

fasouto 14y ago

Can we wait until tomorrow? Let's wait to hear CERN confirmation instead of make asumptions.