The Difference Between the Higgs Boson and Go

[Rhondazvous]

Scientist detest the idea of calling the higgs boson the “god particle.”

God and this boson seem to be similar on the surface. Scientists proclaimed the existence of this boson long before they had any direct proof. Also, the Standard model requires that particles be massless. The higgs boson does not have this requirement.

So it seems valid to call the higgs boson the god particle. But there’s one important difference.

While the observable universe required that the higgs boson exist and scientist spent decades searching for it, I feel no compulsion to look for the god of the bible who created the grass and the trees before he created the sun and the moon.

The higgs boson doesn’t give other particles mass, since mass cannot be created. When the higgs boson touches another particle, the interaction cause that particle to have mass. A better understanding will have to come from someone else, not me.

But I do understand that, unlike god, the higgs boson is not burdened by a long list of reasons why it can’t exist.

Note to moderators: You may feel this thread belongs in the physical science section. I put it here because it seems to belong in both, so it was a toss up.

[Succubus]

Scientist detest the idea of calling the higgs boson the “god particle.”

God and this boson seem to be similar on the surface. Scientists proclaimed the existence of this boson long before they had any direct proof. Also, the Standard model requires that particles be massless. The higgs boson does not have this requirement.

So it seems valid to call the higgs boson the god particle. But there’s one important difference.

While the observable universe required that the higgs boson exist and scientist spent decades searching for it, I feel no compulsion to look for the god of the bible who created the grass and the trees before he created the sun and the moon.

The higgs boson doesn’t give other particles mass, since mass cannot be created. When the higgs boson touches another particle, the interaction cause that particle to have mass.  A better understanding will have to come from someone else, not me.

But I do understand that, unlike god,  the higgs boson is not burdened by a long list of reasons why it can’t exist.

Note to moderators: You may feel this thread belongs in the physical science section. I put it here because it seems to belong in both, so it was a toss up.

No, it doesn’t belong anywhere. It's a waste of keyboard ink.

[Amarok]

Lots of stuff was postulated by effect before it was confirmed .And we been over this already .

[The Grand Nudger]

The higgs boson exists. It also has nothing against shrimp, poly blend cloth, or the canaanites. I'm not really sure how you arrived at the validity, above...but to each their own I guess. What's in a name anyway, amiright?

[Cyberman]

Wasn't it originally the "goddamn particle", because it was so elusive?

[Rhondazvous]

The higgs boson exists. It also has nothing against shrimp, poly blend cloth, or the canaanites.  I'm not really sure how you arrived at the validity, above...but to each their own I guess.  What's in a name anyway, amiright?

Of what validity do you speak? I could understand a theist disagreeing with my op. But with you, I think we're just not understanding each other. Talk to me.

[The Grand Nudger]

When you mentioned, in the OP, that it seemed "valid" to call the higgs boson the god particle.  Naming something isn't really an issue of validity, we don't call a rose a rose because it's "valid", validity is non-applicable to such nomenclature.  It's not some sort of rule of inference...and if it were, I'm wondering what rule of inference it would be. How does one establish that some particle is the "god" particle, as opposed to simply naming it that? There seems to be nothing at all similar about particles and gods. It's use as such is a creative euphemism, but also a category error. It's not a god at all.

[Rhondazvous]

I wish there were something other than language to express ideas.

I used the word "seem" in an effort to show that I do not think it is valid. I read that some people call it the god particle and tried to come up with two reasons why they might do so. Then notice I offer my own reason why the higgs boson is different from god meaning that calling it the god particle is NOT valid. By valid, I don't mean true. I only mean that some people have their reasons and it SEEMS valid to them.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ah, I still don't think it's anything more than a catchy name, honestly.  The terms "seems" and "validity" are sort of cross purpose. It's the Higgs Boson, but most people don't hear higgs boson and think "oh, that sounds interesting, I gotta read about some of that".

[Rhondazvous]

Ah, I still don't think it's anything more than a catchy name, honestly.  The terms "seems" and "validity" are sort of cross purpose.  It's the Higgs Boson, but most people don't hear higgs boson and think "oh, that sounds interesting, I gotta read about some of that".

I've heard from at least two people who read my first book and found bosons of any kind interesting now that they know about them. I'm not bragging. I'm just saying.