God must be a skier

[abc]

New York Times had an article on the search for the Higgs boson, nicknamed "God particle" for its crucial role in morden physics.

They use a cartoon to try to explain in layman's term what this God particle - Higgs boson is. I thought it was quite amusing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/05/s...most-elusive-particle.html?view=Game_of_Bumps

Click on the cartoon and see for yourself.

 

[hippiechick]

New York Times had an article on the search for the Higgs boson, nicknamed "God particle" for its crucial role in morden physics.

They use a cartoon to try to explain in layman's term what this God particle - Higgs boson is. I thought it was quite amusing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/05/s...most-elusive-particle.html?view=Game_of_Bumps

Click on the cartoon and see for yourself.

As a mega science geek, "god particle" irritates the crap out of me.

That being said, I like the snow explanation. I've watched a couple of PBS shows on the HB. Pretty cool shit. Even with science-heavy terms, the show that I watch can explain pretty well some pretty far out concepts, like HB, string theory, etc. They actually make it almost understandable!

 

[ScottySkis]

As a mega science geek, "god particle" irritates the crap out of me.

That being said, I like the snow explanation. I've watched a couple of PBS shows on the HB. Pretty cool shit. Even with science-heavy terms, the show that I watch can explain pretty well some pretty far out concepts, like HB, string theory, etc. They actually make it almost understandable!

I want them to find the particle. Doubt it a god one but I am not a religious person other then loving my Jewish Bagels are great.:beer::beer::beer:

 

[riverc0il]

As a mega science geek, "god particle" irritates the crap out of me.

It is an interesting case study on the media not being inline with what they are reporting on. There aren't many scientists in the world that would use that term but the media won't let it die. The term was coined to incite book sales and even the author of said book hates the term. What reasoning an atheist would use to coin that term is beyond me. Articles I have read regarding the author not being happy with the term still leave me scratching my head as to what the heck he was thinking in the first place.

 

[abc]

Actually, in that New York Times article, it was reported the original scientist would have preferred to call it the "god-damn-it" particle for how difficult it would be to detect it...

The problem with trying to explain complex scientific concept in layman's terms sometimes do lead to such irritations...

As for why use the term, my understanding is like this: the Higgs field is what gives all matter mass, kind of like God gives life to creatures on earth. That is, if you believe the stuff the bible said.

So even if you don't actually believe in god, you must have know about what god is "supposed" to have been responsible for making this world the way it is. Just as the Higgs field is responsible for making the world the way it is!

I really like the image of skier skipping effertlessly over the snow and guys in big boot slogging along. The same image can be used to visualize different elementry particles in a Higgs field, or to visualize particles with and without charges in an electro-magnetic field too!

 

[ScottySkis]

Actually, in that New York Times article, it was reported the original scientist would have preferred to call it the "god-damn-it" particle for how difficult it would be to detect it...

The problem with trying to explain complex scientific concept in layman's terms sometimes do lead to such irritations...

As for why use the term, my understanding is like this: the Higgs field is what gives all matter mass, kind of like God gives life to creatures on earth. That is, if you believe the stuff the bible said.

So even if you don't actually believe in god, you must have know about what god is "supposed" to have been responsible for making this world the way it is. Just as the Higgs field is responsible for making the world the way it is!

I really like the image of skier skipping effertlessly over the snow and guys in big boot slogging along. The same image can be used to visualize different elementry particles in a Higgs field, or to visualize particles with and without charges in an electro-magnetic field too!

I like this.:beer::beer::beer:

 

[riverc0il]

Actually, in that New York Times article, it was reported the original scientist would have preferred to call it the "god-damn-it" particle for how difficult it would be to detect it...

But when that title was rejected, he accepted the current title. Also, the Wikipedia page quotes the book in which the author writes 'the reason I call it the God Particle...' or something along those lines. He's culpable and made a bad decision. You have to read between the lines but ultimately he deserves some responsibility for the worst nickname for a scientific phenomenon ever.

 

[abc]

I'm not sure it's the "worst nickname". Not all physicists are atheists, mind you. (I don't know if Leon Lederman is or not but just saying it may not be as objectionable to ALL physicists)

 

[TropicTundR]

This doesn't explain what's going to happen 500years from now and how "sentinent beings" will be mocking us then

 

[Puck it]

Cartoon is not all that accurate. There are some theories that have photons not being massless.

 

[Morwax]

People being offended by words used in generic terms confounds the hell out of me. If this particle is the catalyst for all things having mass.. I would be happy to call it the God particle as nothing as we know it would exist, at least in this dimension.:beer:

 

[hippiechick]

No offense here, just irritation. The reason I hate the HB being referred to as a god particle is this - by definition, a 'god' or, deity, is deemed as something that is above and beyond all comprehension. Omnipotent. Out of our reach, if you will.

Science, by definition, is an ongoing quest to learn about things, and to keep learning and pushing, refusing to accept that something is 'out of your reach', knowledge-wise.

So by referring to a scientific breakthrough in a deity term is, IMHO, a bit of an oxymoron, and insulting to scientists.

I do, however, understand why the media latched onto it, because the average person can't comprehend something from nothing, without slapping that 'deity' title on it. Cater to the masses....

 

[Morwax]

No offense here, just irritation. The reason I hate the HB being referred to as a god particle is this - by definition, a 'god' or, deity, is deemed as something that is above and beyond all comprehension. Omnipotent. Out of our reach, if you will.

Science, by definition, is an ongoing quest to learn about things, and to keep learning and pushing, refusing to accept that something is 'out of your reach', knowledge-wise.

So by referring to a scientific breakthrough in a deity term is, IMHO, a bit of an oxymoron, and insulting to scientists.

I do, however, understand why the media latched onto it, because the average person can't comprehend something from nothing, without slapping that 'deity' title on it. Cater to the masses....

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."
Stephen Hawking.

 

[abc]

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."
Stephen Hawking.

Except the ignorant were the ones most impressed by the illusion of knowledge

 

[Morwax]

Except the ignorant were the ones most impressed by the illusion of knowledge

I dont think you got it

 

[abc]

I dont think you got it

Got what? The quote wasn't from Stephen Hawkin anyway: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking#Misattributed

So without context, you may feel free to interprete it anyway you like.

So would I.

 

[Morwax]

Got what? The quote wasn't from Stephen Hawkin anyway: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking#Misattributed

So without context, you may feel free to interprete it anyway you like.

So would I.

Wow .. you did alot of research on that quote. Sometimes attributed to Hawking without a source. What context are you referring too. I dont find it to be ambiguous at all.

 

[abc]

Wow .. you did alot of research on that quote.

30 second worth of googling!

I didn't believe a scientist would have said something like that, unless it's in some special context. I was correct. It was from a historian instead of a scientist.

There's nothing ambiguous about that quote TO ME. But I'm almost sure my take on it is quite different than yours. For a start, there's no such thing as "illusion of knowledge" in science. In science, it's either real knowledge, or not.

 

[Morwax]

30 second worth of googling!

I didn't believe a scientist would have said something like that, unless it's in some special context. I was correct. It was from a historian instead of a scientist.

There's nothing ambiguous about that quote TO ME. But I'm almost sure my take on it is quite different than yours. For a start, there's no such thing as "illusion of knowledge" in science. In science, it's either real knowledge, or not.

It must be so, I read it on the internet especially the all knowing en wiki.. talk about an illusion of knowledgeuke:
You didnt believe a scientist would say something like that but what about a theoretical physicist.
Real knowledge LOL isnt that an oximoron

 

[hippiechick]

Don't waste your blood pressure on him, abc. Keyboard warriors get their kicks by irritating people whenever possible.