Disclaimer

Disclaimer: I am not a Biblical scholar. All my posts and comments are opinions and thoughts formulated through my current understanding of the Bible. I strive to speak of things that can be validated through Biblical Scriptures, and when I'm merely speculating, I make sure to note it. My views can be flawed, and I thus welcome any constructive perspectives and criticisms!

Monday, August 13, 2012

The God Particle Found: 'It's A Boson!'


From the July 03, 2012 eNews issue
Visit Koinonia House for a FREE subscription


Scientists waited in a line 1000-persons long Tuesday night to witness the long-anticipated announcement of the discovery of the Higgs boson, often called the "God particle."

The elusive Higgs cannot be observed directly, but physicists at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) believe they have gathered enough evidence of the particle's traces - its subatomic-sized "footprints" - that they can say it does exist.

The Higgs boson is fairly large as far as subatomic particles go, approximately 130 times heavier than a proton and 500,000 times heavier than an electron. The difficulty is that it breaks down too quickly to be directly observed, and only its "shadow" can be seen. Yet, it is believed that the Higgs is the particle that unifies all the forces seen in the physics of the Universe, the substance of the invisible force field that gives all subatomic particles their mass in the first place, that gives them inertia, that makes it possible for atoms to hold together.

Physicists working at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN's laboratories deep under the Alps believe they have actually found the invisible Higgs, or at least a particle that behaves a lot like they thought the Higgs would act. There might not be just one Higgs particle, though, but a whole variety of flavors, just as there are a wide variety of quarks.

"If the boson really is not acting standard, then that will imply that there is more to the story - more particles, maybe more forces around the corner," Neal Weiner, a theorist at New York University, wrote The New York Times in an email, "What that would be is anyone's guess at the moment."

Particle Physics 101:
The Standard Model in particle physics attempts to explain how all the fundamental particles of the Universe interact with each other. The model, which is often compared to the Periodic Table of Elements used by chemists, consists of the various particles that make up all matter and force in the Universe.

When our children study about protons, electrons, and neutrons, they are learning old information. Particle physicists have developed the categories of subatomic particles a great deal since the neutron was discovered in 1932. Protons and neutrons now fall into the category of hadrons, particles that are made up of combinations of quarks. Electrons and neutrinos are both types of leptons. All the above particles, which make up the fundamental building blocks of matter, are called fermions.

In contrast to fermions, bosons are particles like photons, gluons and the Higgs boson that do not make up actual matter; they are considered force-carrier particles. Two fermions cannot occupy the same place at the same time; they bump into each other. Bosons, however, are not actually matter and can move right through one another.

Scientists like to talk about the fabric of time and space. The fabric of space? By definition, isn't a "space" an emptiness, the hole between two objects? Isn't space that vast black nothingness between the stars?

In 1964, a physicist by the name of Peter Higgs, currently professor emeritus at the University of Edinburgh, proposed that empty space is not really empty at all; it is filled with a background energy field, like a lattice through which all other particles have to move. Wherever a particle moves through this field, the field gets distorted and hugs around the particle. The Higgs boson is that "hug" of the field - like a crowd of people around a starlet. The particle is given mass, making it harder for it to change direction, speed up or slow down, like the crowd-clustered starlet trying to move across the room. People surround the famous woman as she moves, making it harder for her to speed up or slow down.

In a similar way, it is believed that subatomic particles get their mass - their inertia, their resistance to changes in motion - through interactions with the Higgs Field. That was Peter Higgs' idea.

Since a field cannot be seen, scientists are looking for the hugging clusters, the uncharged particle that would interact with every other subatomic particle to give them all mass. Since then, scientists have been scrambling to find this particle, the Higgs boson. It's difficult to prove the existence of an invisible particle that disappears before you can grab it.

Physicists working at CERN's Large Hadron Collider said Wednesday that they had built up enough evidence to declare that a Higgs boson-like particle did indeed exist, and already the scientists are working to learn more. From here they want to detail the nature of the Higgs and its possible siblings and hunt for dark matter, parallel universes and the other stuff of science fiction.


"The fact that both our teams have independently come to the same results is very powerful," Oliver Buchmueller, a senior physicist on one of the research teams, told Reuters. "We know it is a new boson. But we still have to prove definitively that it is the one that Higgs predicted."

Peter Higgs received a standing ovation when he entered the CERN auditorium. His eyes filled with tears as he spoke to his fellow researchers. "It is an incredible thing that it has happened in my lifetime."

Related Links:
• A New Particle Could Be Physics' Holy Grail - The New York Times
• "It's A Boson:" Higgs Quest Bears New Particle - Reuters
• What Is The Higgs Boson? - BBC News
• Higgs Boson 'We Have It' - BBC News


6 comments:

Ron Krumpos said...

The term "God Particle" came from the book "The God Particle / If the Universe is the Answer, What is the Question?," by Leon Lederman & Dick Teresi (first published in 1993 and reissued in 2006), which is in the bibliography of my free ebook on comparative mysticism.

In his 2006 Preface Dr. Lederman, a Nobel laureate in physics, wrote:
"Now as for the title, The God Particle, my coauthor, Dick Teresi, has agreed to accept the blame. I mentioned the phrase as a joke once in a speech, and he remembered it and used it as the working title of the book. The title ended up offending two groups: 1) those who believe in God and 2) those who do not. We were warmly received by those in the middle."

TCA said...

Thanks for elaborating on the origination of the term, "The God Particle."

I hope we all have the ability to discern from the Truth and false truths, and I continue to encourage all of us to re-evaluate what we believe to be true.

The idea here is not a name game. People can easily get offended by anything.

The idea here is science does not disprove the existence of God. Contrary to popular misunderstanding, science continues to prove the existence of God.

I am not here today to try to sell you my idea. We all have ideas, and I don't think mine is the best, so I won't waste my time trying to convince you my ideas are awesome.

The point of this blog is to encourage us to really think about what Truth means. Just because the majority of people make fun of something does not make that not true. Just because the majority of people support a theory also does not make that true. If this was how science operated, we might still think the world is flat.

Science is based on OBJECTIVE evidence. That is, no matter what you want to believe or what I want to believe, the evidence reveals the truth. That is, it doesn't matter if you choose to believe gravity is a silly idea, the fact that the apple falls from a tree is the OBJECTIVE evidence that proves gravity exists.

Honestly, I'm not offended by the terminology, "the God Particle." I support humor. Have fun with it.

But this conversation is more than just, "What's in a name?"

I fear for those who, despite the amount of scientific evidence we have today, continue to ignore all that evidence and think humans are beyond God. I am not offended by the name. What's to offend since the name itself has no real meaning? I fear for those who mock God. It is the heart condition that is the bottom line here.

People who believe science is all there is like to mock Christians and tell us to think outside the box.

Well, be careful that science does not become our religion.

If we can truly think outside of the box, then review the scientific data and truly ask ourselves, does the data support the God hypothesis?

Pride is a huge, huge obstacle to understanding the truth. If what we're after is the truth, then clear our mind of the world's clutter and start with the simple question: Does God exist? Throw out preconceived notions and review the data available. Let the data speak for itself.

If we've already made up our mind about it before we even try, then we're not after the truth. We just want more excuses to be okay with the conclusions we have made up in the absence of evidence.

And on a side, if we carry out our search for the Truth with diligence, mysticism would be easily disproven by science.

THINK, people. Please do not just blindly believe!

Ron Krumpos said...

TG, you said " mysticism would be easily disproven by science."

Quantum physicists Heisenberg, Schroedinger, de Broglie, Jeans, Planck, Pauli, and Eddington were supporters of mysticism. I suggest reading Quantum Questions / Mystical Writings of...Greatest Physicists, edited by Ken Wilber (Shambhala 1984, 2001).

TCA said...

Hi Ron,

I'm always cautious about getting into a debate online.

The quest for Truth isn't something that we can easily achieve through online exchanges. It's a personal quest based on personal research. This is why I encourage everyone to do his/her own homework.

In regards to your comment, just because other people support mysticism, that doesn't make it true. Each one of these great thinkers have had their theories amended by current findings. Some of their theories remains just that: theories. Theories are not truths. Theories are not facts. That is the beauty of science. We must always maintain an open mind so that we can truly explore ALL possibilities, not just the ones we prefer to believe in.

Thank you for your reading suggestion. Might I suggest you give the Bible a solid good try in return?

The Book of Isaiah was written way before scientists discovered the Earth was round, and yet Isaiah knew that before the discovery was made (Isaiah 40:22). In fact, the Book of Job contains descriptions of the Earth that took scientists thousands of years later to discover. Job lived in hot, desert place, and yet, he knew of snow and ice and polar caps.

As I repeatedly stress on this blog, if we are truly seeking the Truth, we need to ANALYZE the information we receive. Science can prove to us what is true and what is not. And if science has proven true what was accurately described thousands of years ago by prophets of God, what does that tell us?

If one person did it, okay, maybe he got lucky. But, dozens of God's prophets? And with NO MISTAKES?

We are going to look at that evidence and say, luck? Random chance? Mysticism?

If we're truly seeking the truth, then we have to analyze the information we have today and make logical conclusions. What other people believe or say does not constitute as facts. I may think my kid is the cutest kid in the world, but that does not make it true, even if I win the Nobel Prize.

I think we all need to remember that quantum physics is largely a field dominated by THEORIES. Theories are not facts. Theories are not truths.

I'm a scientist by training. I love theories. I love running experiments. Theories are great fun. But at the end of the day, I am grounded in the Truth. Something that I know will not change just because another discovery has been made. I'm going to stick my neck out and say this: I think any scientist who has lost the ability to differentiate between theories and truths, well, he/she should consider taking a long vacation and reclaim the essence of curiosity.

I pray that you will at least give the Bible an honest read :)

Ron Krumpos said...

TCA, you are right...a blog is too limited for this discussion.

I was raised a Christian and have read both the New Testament and the Old.

Beginning in 1959 I met 19 mystics, of five faiths, in 12 countries. Divine union is experiential...absolute Truth is not found in any book.

TCA said...

Hi Ron,

I wish our paths could cross, because I'm sure a conversation with you over a nice cup of coffee/tea would be so interesting.

It pains to hear that you were not inspired enough by the Bible and have sought comfort elsewhere.

I agree that divine union is experiential, although I'm sure you are not talking about the personal relationship we build with God.

I disagree that "absolute Truth is not found in any book," because the Bible has been proven to be absolutely correct thus far.

Since you have read the Bible, I'm curious whether you have any evidence substantiating your claim that "absolute Truth is not found in any book."

My goal here isn't trying to pick a fight. I'm truly trying to learn and share. And if you can point out the things that I'm not seeing, to help me discover the Truth, I am more than eager to learn from you!