Higgs boson found (again?)

The last time was inconclusive.

This time will be inconclusive as well.

There is no god.

But there are many gods ;)

The talking heads all ride the short bus to work.

As many gods as man wants to invent.

So who started calling it the "God particle" and why? I assume it was a scientist and they are supposed to be ateists, right?

;)

It was the press, and particle physicists just reach for the aspirin bottle when they hear it.

Scientists as a class are, indeed, presumed to be atheists. At least they are supposed to be so by fundamentalist demagogues. Probably because when you're a physicist, it's hard to believe in a big magic white guy in the sky who wants us to hate gays.

I think we can blame Leon Ledermen

Though I think I might have heard him once say that it was the publisher who picked the name. Still he went alng with it.

Nay, I'm a total agnostic, I find certainty ridicules. (And I know plenty, with a deep religious faith.)

George H.

ttdesign.com

Who believes in that god?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Nobody is supposed to be anything. Most scientists are atheists, in my experience. Interestingly, biologists seem less likely to be theists than other scientists.

It seems to be the press who calls it that, but the term was originally used in a 1993 book by Leon Lederman. The draft title of the book was, "The Goddamn Particle" to illustrate the frustrations in trying to "nail the Higgs". The publisher changed that to just "God" for a couple of reasons...

BTW, the wikipedia article on the Higgs uses the term, "sobriquet" about this term. WTF? Do contributors always have to show off how smart they are? Can't they just *explain* things?

This same article includes mention of the recent announcement and yet still states it is "uncertain" that the new boson matches the predictions from the Standard Model. Really? That is not what I'm reading in the press. Do they have that wrong too?

BTW, there is a god, and he has noodly appendages.

hey

The "New Scientist" article claimed that the latest round of results had reduced the the list of possible candidates to two, and they still needed to work out the spin of the particle they were looking at to eliminate the possibility that it was a graviton (whatever that might be) rather than the Higgs boson. It sounded as if a lot of people would be very surprised - and extremely interested - if it turned out to be a graviton.

There's discussion of this on the web, but nothing I find particularly informative.

In the interim, they lost it in the sofa cushions.

Tea Party Republicans? Chris Mooney has written another book

which seems to write up recent research linking cognitive styles and political affiliation, which suggested that Republicans generally aren't into evidence-based decision-making.

I'll buy the book when it comes out in paperback (or maybe download it onto my Kindle sometime - I like the idea of the Kindle, but still seem to by buying more stuff on paper).

So in other words you don't know any either. They don't exist, AFAIK, except in some fevered imaginations.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Who doesn't exist, Tea Party Republicans? If not, that would explain why the Republicans did so poorly in the last election.

Lets call a spade a spade:

The Republicans lost because they wanted to lose.

They (Republicans) know that this country can not live under W's tax cuts.

So they had to give the Democrats the election so they (Democrats) can do what they (Republicans) could not do.

Raise taxes like Regan did, and save face. (Regan raised taxes by calling it something else)

Blame the Democrat's for raising taxes, a Republican president did not do that, saves face.

Now the Republicans want to save face again by giving illegal emigrants a path to citizenship ( or something close) so they can get elected.

Why start now ??

They have the taxes to now reduced the debt and it was not their (Republicans) fault.

Life is now good and they (Republicans) did not have to do what they could not do. (Raise taxes)

I don't know, but I imagine that even those who are believers in a supreme being might keep it to themselves to avoid being attacked by atheists. Like many who do not believe in any significant man-made global warming, but keep quiet about it for fear of intimidation and grant denials. In any case, I've read somewhere that even Einstein believed in a creator. At least toward the end of his life.

But maybe they left a copy in the archived files of the b**ing.general news group. ;-)