Is one of these Navy soldiers the elusive Higgs Boson?
John Horgan at Scientific American conducts a pretty merciless take-down of all the hoopla surrounding the hunt for the Higgs boson particle, which generates breathlessly bad, over-hyped headlines like “How The Higgs Boson Could Change the Universe,” “Has the God Particle Been Found?” and dizzy claims by no less than Michio Kaku that scientists pursuing the Higgs are close to nabbing “the biggest prize in physics” and a possible Nobel Prize.
The truth, as Horgan helpfully points out, is that the Higgs is predicted by the standard model of physics, and believed to confer mass to quarks, electrons and the other fundamental building blocks of our physical world. But the Higgs wouldn’t actually bring science closer, in any meaningful sense, to a unified theory of everything—the real holy grail of physics (to keep up the religious metaphors). Even worse, Horgan seems to suggest the standard model is hardly worth rooting for, citing Kaku’s assessment that it is a theory “only a mother could love” and noting that it is so incomplete as to exclude gravity.
Why is everyone, then, so fired up about the Higgs?
Well, I’d wager the media is in heat because of the “G” word. That nickname for the Higgs, “The God Particle,” is supposed to reflect its fundamental nature, its primary importance. But it is not as if it’s discovery will really put paid to the big mysteries. And, by the way, if you actually read the articles describing the search for this elusive particle, it’s abundantly clear that scientists are not the least bit closer to discovering the Higgs—or, at least, they don’t actually have any more evidence for it. In fact, they are getting closer only in the sense that they are running out of places to look.
All that said, the best article about the Higgs at the moment is pure satire: “Higgs Boson found on Navy Frigate,” which claims the Higgs wasn’t missing—just visiting his mum in Dorking.
I don’t trust Scientific American. They allow pseudoskeptics like Michael Shermer to lie through their teeth on the pages of their magazine. So little seems to have changed since they declared the Wright Brothers to be liars more than one hundred years ago.
Biography of Scientists ; Dr. Stephen; and Dr. John – I’m sorry; but that’s utter bulacrlp. Multiple people have gone to heaven and returned (one of them was a four-year old kid who can’t even read and never had the bible read to him; as well as the daughter of two atheists; so no hoax) which I take us utter proof of a personal God; and only a personal God would create a universe with living beings in it. so WHAT NOW. and don’t waste your time with reprimands for rudeness; I don’t really care how rude I am when confronted with things like this. I would also like to say that I love the general attitude of this thread; and would like to extend a huge hand of gratitude towards Dishant; godmanenki; Rixterer; and Tracy. Oh and Sneha; that’s bulacrlp; too; about not directly communicating. If you can’t directly communicate; then how have I been Saved? While I recognize that some prayers are actually forms of telikinesis in a way; some are actual communication.Oh; and Dr. John ; what are you; a neonazi? White spirit of God? Really?
I dislike SA as well.
The term pseudoskeptic fits them well: I remember one of their recent articles about NDEs, claiming they had finally been explained; while I myself am not among those who consider them a glimpse on the afterlife, I happen to know a lot about them because of my interest in the study of consciousness. The supposed proofs were, at best, hypothesis, some valid, some wild, some already disproven.
The article mentioned en passant how the study hadn’t yet reached the experimental stage, but apparently guesses can be called proofs in some case.
I think a promising alternative to the standard model is the standing wave theory as promulgated by Milo Wolff which does away with particles as little “bits” of matter and replace them with the loci of putative in-out waves. In other words, what we take to be subatomic particles are really the vorticies where concentric waves meet, forming a vortex. Google Milo Wolff if you are interested in more.
http://physicalismisdead.blogspot.com
You wrote: “At worst, this is an obfuscation, a orerepissentatimn of the information supposedly being conveyed.” No, it’s worse than that. I was speaking with someone I know who is a born again Christian who, in all seriousness, was instructing me that science will be brought under the domain of Christianity to prove conclusively god’s existence. When I protested, he informed me that were it not for the Judeo-Christian tradition, Western science would never have come about (I countered it was the rise of secularism, that is, the revolt against religious irrationalism, control, and manipulation that was to be credited). Sadly, or, perhaps frighteningly, this individual’s point of view is not uncommon here in the United States.For these reasons, I think calling the Higgs the “god particle” has roots that go beyond what you correctly identify, among those a digressive thinking that affects everything from funding to what will be taught to our young students. Real scientists must not stand for this nonsense and should actively address these egregious errors. It really is as dramatic as the future of free scientific exploration and thought.