Scientists see God for the first time, maybe

Where do ATU members stand on the existence of the "God particle" (aka The Higgs Boson)?

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN might have, maybe, possibly showed traces of it for an itty-bitty, tiny instant.

I believe it was Bjorn Ulveaus who said "You have to be there! Without the Higgs Boson, the Universe cannot exist. "

I wonder if Miss Panties will try to take over the Large Hadron Collider.

The scientists believe (with less than 100% certainty) that they saw the God Particle for about a "yocktosecond" (1 septillionth of a second -- 1/1000,000,000,000,000,000,000th ).

It's hard to give an educated opinion about a matter which is being investigated by some of the most advanced scientific researchers in the world, I think.

What I do find intruiging is how fundamental science becomes ever more metaphysical.
Heidegger once said science and its technical output were the real inheritors of the metaphysical tradition.
With every step science advances, it ever more seems he was right.

Scientism used to be a notion characterised by its anti-metaphysical attitude.
But it has been seen so often throughout history: all criticism of metaphysics always leads to its own brand of metaphysical pre-suppositions be it implicitally or explicitally.

The scientists don't really consider the Higgs boson to have anything supernatural about it. It's just that, based on the currently accepted model of the universe, this particle must exist.

If we were to determine that it does not exist, that would mean that our model of the universe--and all of the assumptions that go with it--have to be changed.

I remember BS-ing in an early-style McDonalds with some physics students that had been working in the University of Minnesota's early-style little accelerator/collider, trying to detect bosons.

One of the was scribbling equations on a napkin and carrying on about the "coefficient of all hell breaks loose" when the Higgs boson is at the end of it's yocktosecond life.

And he did say "we haven't found it yet, but we know it has to exist."

I never mentioned the notion of anything supernatural, did I?

...do you think this is correct?

Origin of the term
http://www.livescience.com/17489-god-particle-higgs-boson.html

The Standard Model is the physics theory that describes nature's tiniest building blocks. Every particle included in the theory, except for the Higgs boson, has been detected experimentally.

On Tuesday, LHC physicists at the CERN laboratory in Geneva, Switzerland, reported their latest findings in the search for the Higgs, which indicate some preliminary hints that it is being created inside the atom smasher. The particle is thought to be associated with a field that is responsible for giving other particles their mass.

Much of the media coverage of the announcement included the term "God particle," which originated in the title of a 1994 book by Nobel-winning physicist Leon Lederman. The story goes that Lederman originally wanted to name the tome "The Goddamn Particle" because of how difficult it was to detect, but was persuaded by his publisher, Delta, to shorten it.

"It's a pity that Leon Lederman, otherwise a nice enough fellow, chose to go ahead with this moniker at the advice of his publishing agents to sell more books," Sharma said.

However, ever since the book came out, the Higgs boson hasn't been able to escape the nickname, at least in popular discourse.

"I feel the term 'God particle,' invented by a publisher to sell books and make money, insultingly misrepresents both science and religion," Rutgers University physicist Matt Strassler wrote in an email.

Andy wrote:I never mentioned the notion of anything supernatural, did I?

I don't think so--why do you ask?

blue moon wrote:"I feel the term 'God particle,' invented by a publisher to sell books and make money, insultingly misrepresents both science and religion," Rutgers University physicist Matt Strassler wrote in an email.

Substantively I agree with Matt Strassler, although he is perhaps a tad harsh and humorless. I myself did the same thing as the publisher by putting God in the thread title--but I'm not making any money.

pinhedz wrote:I don't think so--why do you ask?

Because of the first sentence in your post following mine.
For a second there I thought it was a reaction to my post.

Might have been, because I associate metaphysics with the eternal questions about the existence of God and life after death.

But I understand you were just talking about a "brand of metaphysical presuppositions," yes?

But I would say that the judgment that the Higgs Boson "must exist" is not a metaphysical presupposition," it's an unavoidable analytical conclusion based on our current model of the universe--which we are willing to discard if it doesn't stand up against reality.

So the current research is a reality check. We know the Higgs boson does not "have to be there," but if it isn't, there's a problem with our model.