philnic: You continue to make fun of a Christian. You compare the seeing of the hand of God to the tooth fairy. You dismiss the reality of God. He got lost in your view of life because you simply have not been taught what to look for? You say a scientist has the purpose to look for the reality of evidence to back up new discovery. A Christian can explain to you what and why of his faith, if he is a Christian, and demonstrate the reality of Christ. But there is one thing missing to fully understand. The Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the super intuitive. It is considered a gift. And this gift is like looking into a world of an artist and understanding why he chose his colors of style. What were his influences. why he chose this or that for his subject. Furthermore, any Christian worth his salt, at any time in any history in any country, will understand and see the same thing. It has little to do with human reasoning. It ultimately can't be intellectualized. I say ultimately because, ultimately, you just stand back thru-out your life, in the ups and downs, in the best joy and the worst tragedy, and stand in awe of God working to form the individual into the original intent of his creation .

Good description of God as an artist. The problem with the Hadron Collider looking for the Higgs-Boson, (God Particle) is that God is not a particle, tho Peter Higgs thinks that the universe and all that matters is essentially held together and made to work by a particle. Eventually such scientists will made to look like a fool, not unlike the Roman Catholic 'law makers' were eventually made to look in terms of Galileo and others.

Agreed, God is not a particle. Higgs never said it was. Read all about it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/scie...higgs-boson-cern-lhc

Hold on! First, the media are not the ones who came up with the term God Particle. Nobel laureate Leon Lederman dubbed the theoretical subatomic particle the God Particle because he said its discovery could unify understanding of particle physics and help humans know the mind of God.

And yes, philnic, in a round about way you DO ridicule Christians. By your reply you don't see it that way. We do.

Also, I notice the article had a closing date this summer for a rename of the Higgs Boson particle. What was it?

Lederman called it that, but that doesn't mean that is what the rest of us should call it. Physicists generally don't like the term and don't use the term, but it continues to be bandied about by journalists who haven't even read Lederman's book, and by religious types who then get offended by it. (If you don't like the term, don't use it!)

Ridicule, it seems, is in the eye of the beholder.

The Guardian seems to have forgotten to put in a link to the winning entry to their competition. A bit of Googling leads to a page with the answer...but I think the winning entry is a bit disappointing:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/scie...particle-higgs-boson

This message has been edited. Last edited by: philnic,

Ridicule is not in the eye of the beholder. But beauty is.

Actually, I am kind of partial to MOTHER NATURE term for what holds the universe together.

Couldn't find the proper link to the answer for the new term to replace God Particle. So what is it?

Actually, I didn't paste the link correctly, that's why you couldn't find the answer! I've fixed it in the post above now, but for anyone who doesn't want to read the whole article, the declaration of the winner reads as follows:

"The Champagne bottle boson".

So why did it win?

"The bottom of a champagne bottle is in the shape of the Higgs potential, and is often used as an illustration in physics lectures. So it's not an embarrassingly grandiose name, it is memorable, and has some physics connection too," the judges' spokesman said.

The so-called "wine bottle potential" is also called the "Mexican hat potential" and is a critical aspect of the Higgs mechanism.

[This is, of course, a piece of fun. The particle is still officially the Higgs boson.]

Yes, but would Satyendra Nath Bose approve?

225px-AatyenBose1925.jpg (16 Kb, 3 downloads)

So there is no confusion, Bose is the person from whom the term boson is accredited to.

Read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyendra_Nath_Bose

quote:

Originally posted by philnic:
The particle is still officially the Higgs boson.

Boson is almost a good word.

quote:

Originally posted by Salamander:
So there is no confusion, Bose is the person from whom the term boson is accredited to...

And jointly responsible for Bose-Einstein condensate, if I remember my quantum mechanics correctly.

quote:

Originally posted by Doug Spaulding:
Boson is almost a good word.

Better than bison, but not quite as good as bo'sun.

Even tho great demonstrations in Europe were made last several months pertaining to the start up of Hadron, the fear being that the Hadron would create black holes and swallow the Earth, a black hole(s) were already created in a far lesser sized collider in 2005. A fireball created at the 'small' Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider in Upton, New York, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...c_Heavy_Ion_Collider
had the characteristics of a black hole.

The Hadron Collider is still firing up last several weeks, and may take another week or two before it's full energy is reached.

quote:

Originally posted by embroiderer:
...A fireball created at the 'small' Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider in Upton, New York, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...c_Heavy_Ion_Collider
had the characteristics of a black hole....

Arguably, but that wise(!) source Wikipedia goes on to say:

On March 17, 2005, the BBC published an article implying that researcher Horaţiu Năstase believes black holes have been created at RHIC. However, the original papers of H. Năstase and the New Scientist article cited by the BBC state that the correspondence of the hot dense QCD matter created in RHIC to a black hole is only in the sense of a correspondence of QCD scattering in Minkowski space and scattering in the AdS5 × X5 space in AdS/CFT; in other words, it is similar mathematically. Therefore, RHIC collisions might be useful to study quantum gravity behavior within AdS/CFT, but the described physical phenomena are not the same.

So: like a black hole mathematically, but not physically.