digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at usatoday.com

Physicist expects 'God particle' will be found soon

usatoday.com — The father of a theoretical subatomic particle dubbed "the God particle" says he's almost sure it will be confirmed in the next year in a race between powerful research equipment in the United States and Europe.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • listrophy, on 04/10/2008, -6/+60I'm not sure if it was tongue-in-cheek, but Leon Lederman, author of "The God Particle" and former Fermilab director, gives the following explanation: he calls it the God Particle, not because of religion, but because the publisher wouldn't let him title his book "The Goddamn Particle," referring to the difficulty in observing it. (Explanation recalled from reading "The God Particle" years ago)
    • Wakuko, on 04/10/2008, -9/+0There is no god particle.
      There is a continuum between nothingness and existence.
      Here comes the 'god force' powerful enough to create stuff from nothing.
    • sanman, on 04/10/2008, -1/+1But then what about the 'God Wave'?
      Or the 'God String'?
      Or the 'God Brane'?
  • eminiguy, on 04/10/2008, -22/+5And so what's God's take on this? Anyone has interviewed the Big Fella lately?
    • TheInfamousOne, on 04/10/2008, -4/+22he is, as usual, tight lipped on the topic.
    • dondara, on 04/10/2008, -2/+5Who?
      • Pixelante, on 04/10/2008, -1/+3The Doctor. Who else?
        • thcobbs, on 04/10/2008, -0/+2I've never known the most recent doctor to be tight lipped about ANYTHING.
          • supermanred, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1...or any of the previous 9 I dare say.

            The Doctor knew what the time space continuim was made up of. "It isn't linear... it isn't a line it's Wiggledy-waggledy googledy stuff"

            "Jelly belly?"
  • jsully, on 04/10/2008, -11/+81It's the Higgs Boson, stop calling it the God particle.
    • bosssmiley, on 04/10/2008, -3/+2"Game over man. Game over!"
      Oh, wait. Sorry. Higgs. Gotcha now.
    • thephysicist, on 04/10/2008, -4/+4I personally don't belive in God, but I go with this nickname (mainly because it could lead to a ToE, thus replacing the idea of a God) - and is unilaterally accepted within the Scientific community.
      • IncogMosqui, on 04/10/2008, -0/+2It seems pretty narrow viewed to think that finding the existence of the H.B. will lead to a ToE. There will *always* be more questions to ask.
        It might lead us to a ToE for about the next five years or so, but we'll figure out some way that it doesn't quite model the universe perfectly down the road somewhere.
        • Barryke, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1I have a few statements to keep scientists busy, have a few hours?
    • SpykerSpeed, on 04/10/2008, -1/+16It is sort of funny they're calling it the "God particle". It's like they're begging for controversy... why not just call it the "mass particle" if you're that hell bent on giving it a nickname? Well I guess on one level it's appropriately titled since these scientists seem to have a high degree of faith it exists.
      • spikespikespike, on 04/10/2008, -0/+4actually, higgs refuses to use that name for fear of offending someone.
    • loopis, on 04/10/2008, -0/+7Huge Bossoms
    • Buddhaismybuddy, on 04/10/2008, -7/+2I think it's funny, a lot of the atheists I hear talking about God have a more closed minded view of God then most religious people I know. The problem is Atheists seem to only be able to understand the Christian concept of God. A lot of people believe God is the energy that gives things life, the force behind the universe, the invisible untouchable essence of existence. Not the bearded guy sitting on his cloud throne damning people. There are many respected scientist who share this belief, not in a Christian god, but in something that is the basis of everything in the universe. So if you ask me it makes perfect sense that they would call it the "God particle".
      • Barryke, on 04/10/2008, -0/+3Good for you, but lets not force your definition of God particle upon others that don't want to cling on some deithy overseeing their life on this blue marble.
      • tyywebb, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2Kid, I've flown from one side of this galaxy to the other, and I've seen a lot of strange stuff, but I've never seen *anything* to make me believe that there's one all-powerful Force controlling everything. Cause no mystical energy field controls *my* destiny. It's all a lot of simple tricks and nonsense.
    • Cydonia21, on 04/11/2008, -1/+1I actually sat though a lecture by a guest speaker at my school that tried to claim that Y-chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial eve were the REAL adam and eve of the bible. A clear and gross distortion. I agree that calling it the "God Particle" is going to cause problems. People to this day still claim that Einstein's "God does not play dice" quote is proof he was a theist. I hear it ALL THE TIME. Its pathetic
  • duk0r, on 04/10/2008, -9/+23Who is this God person anyway?
    • jperdomo, on 04/10/2008, -5/+13Don't know I've never met the guy.
    • Almightymole, on 04/10/2008, -8/+6He is my imaginary friend in the sky.
    • bosssmiley, on 04/10/2008, -2/+7Dugg for Oulan Koopid (sp?) ref.
      • ChocChunkOaties, on 04/10/2008, -0/+9'Oolon Colluphid' but i'll digg you up because no one else spotted it.

        The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" is a wholly remarkable book. Perhaps the most remarkable, certainly the most successful book ever to come out of the great publishing corporations of Ursa Minor. More popular than the Celestial Home Care Omnibus, better selling than Fifty-Three More Things to do in Zero Gravity, and more controversial than Oolon Colluphid's trilogy of philosophical blockbusters Where God Went Wrong, Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes and Who is this God Person Anyway? It's already supplanted the Encyclopedia Galactica as the standard repository of all knowledge and wisdom, for two important reasons. First, it's slightly cheaper; and secondly it has the words DON'T PANIC printed in large friendly letters on its cover.
    • chrisduser, on 04/10/2008, -5/+6Why does everyone think God is a being? God could be nothing more than the laws and properties of the Universe.
      • dncarlson, on 04/10/2008, -2/+7Why would anyone bother with the personification? Seems people are reaching for a reason to place the concept of god in everything.
        I don't see the point in applying a concept to a concept. It is both redundant and illogical.
        • nullx42, on 04/10/2008, -2/+3FFS Digg this man up! For great justice Digg him up!
      • Theisos, on 04/10/2008, -1/+4I think our idea of God is skewed by the concept that Christians try to feed everyone. Maybe God is the force that is responsible for the existence of our Universe. Maybe it is sentient and crafted a universe that would produce sentient beings. Has no one ever wondered what the Universe is doing here? Sitting in the middle of non-existence? Maybe a sentient super being fired up the big bang which created this really huge mess. Maybe we can call it God. I'm not saying I believe it...but it's another take on the whole God bit.
        • dncarlson, on 04/10/2008, -2/+2And maybe we are living in a computer simulation, and "god" is just the end-user interacting with us like in a sort of Sim City.

          But wait! Maybe the end-user is deceived into thinking he is in charge, but actually the devil flying spaghetti monster is manipulating all of his senses in some sort of Kantian nightmare scenario.

          Until there is evidence of such a thing, this scenario is just as valid as a Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, and even the Celestial Teapot!

          Observable phenomena are the only logical building blocks of human understanding- faith builds nothing, and even impedes progress.

          When in doubt, apply the K.I.S.S. principle.
          • Theisos, on 04/10/2008, -1/+1Faith has nothing to do with my comment. It's based on a simple observation - we exist. Lot's of people choose to believe that we simply do. I would rather believe that something powerful is responsible for the existence of this reality.
          • dncarlson, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1I respect that you have a differing belief from me- but I must say that faith has everything to do with your comment. You have far too many maybes in your comment for it to be anything but faith-based. Sure it's not Christianity, but what is fundamentally different in your ideas?
            'Theisosanity' (I must admit it has a certain ring to it) as a belief structure that has absolutely no grounding in reality, no evidence, and no possibility of being proven right or wrong, deserves just as much credence as any other religion.
            When Christians say their belief is grounded in fact, you know they are delusional. Instead, they cite 'faith' as their reasoning. What makes your argument any different?
        • tyywebb, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1Basically there are two ways of looking at the world. You can think up hypotheses and search for evidence supporting or refuting those hypotheses or you can just believe whatever you want and can it a day.
      • IncogMosqui, on 04/10/2008, -0/+2This.
        And Theisos - that too.
        This thread is full of win, relevant to my interests, and quite epic indeed.
        I'm glad to see there are other people out there that share my same views.
    • etx313, on 04/10/2008, -0/+4He has many noodley appendage. And that's all you will ever know.
      • bosssmiley, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1...We do know he's called The Stig.
  • justinx0r, on 04/10/2008, -20/+6(lame comment that is exactly like every other comment above this one about how God doesn't exist)
  • asskicker32, on 04/10/2008, -1/+37Wow, this looks like the same article that was posted two days ago... Some of you people need to stop getting out and read digg more.
    • Rocketbird, on 04/10/2008, -0/+4Your logic confuses me. It's the opposite of what I've been told my entire time on "internet."
  • justice7, on 04/10/2008, -14/+13*groan* .. here we go.. another anti religion spin just because of the "G word". You would almost think digg is religious in its anti-god sentiments.
    • skeen07, on 04/10/2008, -4/+6Religious != passionate, or adamant.
      • Pixelante, on 04/10/2008, -3/+0passionate != fanatic
      • justjoehere, on 04/10/2008, -2/+3religious + passionate=fanatic
        • dopplerdog, on 04/11/2008, -1/+1religious = sqrt(pi) * passionate^2 * exp(fanatic)
          • noumuon, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1there has to be an imaginary unit in there somewhere... ;)
    • noumuon, on 04/10/2008, -3/+1naturally people will be offended because some physicist called something in his field of expertise the god particle in jest. naturally people will be offended because people are offended at the use of the word god, as they're too consumed with their own religious viewpoint to give tolerance to other people's viewpoint and cry oppression when that sentiment gets returned to theirs. basically, they're all a bunch of chimpanzees with their heads up an orangutan's ass.
    • slothlovechunk, on 04/10/2008, -4/+1So you believe in god, and you are OK with completely perverting the meaning of the word 'god'? Usually to the point where it no longer means anything? Certainly not anything worth worshiping.
      • noumuon, on 04/10/2008, -1/+5he said he believed in god?
      • IncogMosqui, on 04/10/2008, -1/+2yes. It doesn't matter what you call it. "A rose by any other name" etc.
        • slothlovechunk, on 04/10/2008, -3/+1Of course it matters. Words have meanings. If we all spoke our own language we couldn't communicate.
    • flashback99, on 04/10/2008, -1/+2dugg for invention of idiotic term "anti-religious spin"
    • Barryke, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1I respect beleivers.
      I don't respect false definitions.
      • flashback99, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1what if a believer gives you a false definition, presenting it as the "gospel" truth? What then?
  • Anillusion, on 04/10/2008, -0/+15If this 'god particle' is similar to the omega molecule (Star Trek Voyager season 4 episode 20) we are screwed.
    • oscarolim, on 04/10/2008, -1/+3not really. since we still dont have warp engines. dont forget the omega molecule only caused problems in subspace.
      • KraftDinner101, on 04/10/2008, -0/+8It exploded with such force that it caused ruptures in subspace extending several light years. So it didn't just affect subspace. *sigh* I hate myself.
      • millson249, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1A single molecule was made by the borg. That single molecule destroyed 29 borg vessels, killing 600,000 drones when it went unstable.

        ...Dont ask..
      • grantmoore3d, on 04/10/2008, -0/+2*shakes head* star trek nerds, when will you learn that the only thing that matters it he force
        • tyywebb, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1Hokey religions and ancient weapons are nothing compared to a good blaster at your side, kid.
    • surKaz, on 04/10/2008, -0/+14I like how you referenced a particular season and episode... Proves you are a brother ...
    • kabbalahdigg, on 04/10/2008, -1/+2If this 'god particle' is similar to a 1000MT exploding nuke, we're screwed too, what's your point?
      • Barryke, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1Hmmm... I bett € 3.000.000 that i will survive.
    • ApokalypseNow, on 04/10/2008, -0/+3It's just the Higgs Boson - basically, the particle that imbues objects with mass (if I understand it right)
    • meridian, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1Omega Directive is the name of the episode.

      http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Omega_molecule
    • missingnoh4x, on 04/10/2008, -0/+3PROTIP: When you have to make in-text citations like that, you might be making a bit too obscure of a reference.
  • apackofmonkeys, on 04/10/2008, -3/+27Soon a rival faction of scientists will discover the Jesus Particle, and another the Mohammad Particle, then they start arguing about whose particle is better; after that it's gonna get messy.
    • PayneX, on 04/10/2008, -0/+6Until we all agree that they're thetans.
  • SpykerSpeed, on 04/10/2008, -3/+6Headline fixed: "Physicist has faith 'God particle' will be found soon". Tee hee.
  • synyster, on 04/10/2008, -3/+2i'm still wait for dark matter to be found soon.
    • asskicker32, on 04/10/2008, -2/+1The day scientists discover "dark matter" to actually exist and the effects are not just an effect of gravity or some other force that we dont entirely undertstand, Ill buy everyone in this thread a beer.


      In other words, I dont think its going to happen.
      • AetherWind, on 04/10/2008, -0/+2http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/news/

        You should start with a round of beers for the WMAP crew, who worked so hard to make this all possible.
        • asskicker32, on 04/10/2008, -1/+1first of all, dark energy != dark matter.

          The main theory behind dark matter is that we see the effects of mass (magnetism, gravity...) on objects in the univers, but we see no mass. Therefore, there must be mass there that we cant detect. Based on man's history of revising theories, I believe it will be discovered that due to unknown circumstances, the visible affects are created by an alredy known force, albeit in a different application or method than is currently known...
          Occam's razor.
          • AetherWind, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1Did you actually try READING up on the subject before you posted your idiotic rant? No? That's what I thought.
            The WMAP data shows BOTH a significant dark energy component, AND a significant non-baryonic matter component. This non-baryonic matter IS dark matter. Dark matter isn't just a fudge factor to explain galaxy rotation curves. While that may have been how it started, it's now a lot more, with plenty of evidence to support it.
          • asskicker32, on 04/10/2008, -1/+1I suppose this all depends on how you define dark matter. invisible pieces of nuclei? Solid forms that create a field of energy or force that acts on other pieces of matter yet is undetectable by microwaves or electromagnetic impulses.I believe it is not necessarily matter that is acting on it, rather another physical force that is acting on it that we have not discovered. However, you are right, I am an idiot, as one of my friends is a particle physicist and works on a particle collider and she tells me Im stupid for not believing in dark matter.

            Whatever, Im from Jamaica, the "show me" island...
          • asskicker32, on 04/10/2008, -1/+1http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/08013 ...

            Here is an actual scientist who seems to think that there may not be "dark matter" as is currently theorized...
          • AetherWind, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1Dark matter is difficult to detect in that it does not interact via the electromagnetic force, or the strong nuclear force. Only through the weak force and gravity. This is nothing special however, neutrinos have the same properties. Only they travel much much faster, and are much much lighter. And I'm glad your friend has at least tried to talk some sense into you.

            Also, you should be just as wary of science that lies "outside the mainstream" as you would be wary of medicine that lies outside the mainstream. It lies outside the mainstream for a reason, namely the evidence supporting it is spotty at best. This isn't to say that new ideas cannot become a part of the mainstream, as it does happen from time to time, always following the adage of "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
  • LordRahl72, on 04/10/2008, -1/+3The new Geneva collider will re-create the rapidly changing conditions in the universe a split second after the Big Bang. It will be the closest that scientists have come to the event that they theorize was the beginning of the universe. They hope the new equipment will enable them to study particles and forces yet unobserved.

    Hmm sounds like they are making a WMD there. I will be surprised if Bush and company don't decide to consider it an axis of evil and throw some Shock and Awe at it.
    • Chirp08, on 04/10/2008, -0/+3No if anything its a WUC - Weapon of Universe Creation, and that my friends is not very patriotic, time for a trip to Cuba..
    • asskicker32, on 04/10/2008, -0/+4"Shock and Awe"... There's a term that should go down as defining this administration...
  • missingnoh4x, on 04/10/2008, -0/+4Why not just say it's the Higgs-Boson? I was going to make a joke about how if the LHC doesn't kill us all then finding this thing will, but it turns out he's talking about the same thing.
  • spikespikespike, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1so...is this particle going to help us make a really really really big bomb?
  • zantos420, on 04/10/2008, -3/+2FTA: "...hundreds of scientists from around the world are ready to start smashing together protons to study their composition."
    I am going to laugh when they smash two protons together that end up causing a nuclear-like blast of epic proportions.
    • colihondro, on 04/10/2008, -1/+2or a black hole.
      I thought humans weren't supposed to see the "face of God".
  • LiberalAK, on 04/10/2008, -10/+2Now what do you atheists have to say for yourself? HAHAHAHHA!!

    It's only a matter of time now before we have proof you "scientsts" and atheists are all wrong!! HAHHAHA

    http://liberalsmustdie.com/2008/04/10/Physicists+C ...
    • GvnMcCld, on 04/10/2008, -0/+4That was one of the stupidest blogs I've ever read. This rivals that myspace guy from yesterday who wrote a blog about getting even with Digg.
    • rune420, on 04/10/2008, -0/+3"There's a new sherrif in town, and their name is "physicists" and they aren't constrainted by your evil science ways!"

      One of the best laughs I've had in a few days. Thanks.
  • fireburner23, on 04/10/2008, -4/+3Why is it they always say "Soon we'll find the particle" "We predict we'll find it soon" just like the doomsayers will say "The world is ending soon!"
    It's all ***** and no material.
    • Plotinus, on 04/10/2008, -2/+4moron
    • fireburner23, on 04/10/2008, -0/+2No, seriously we have these articles come on here all the time talking about the great things we can find and do. But none of it matters until it is actually used. Just like all the great energy ideas (super efficient solar energy, cold fusion?) that come through Digg. The ideas are great, but lets get to applying it and making it practical.
  • OdinThor, on 04/10/2008, -1/+11Do you think that once they find the God particle they will find that it is actually one particle that simultaneously exists as three particles but is still only one particle?
  • IncogMosqui, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1So, maybe somebody can explain this to me -
    If we split off the Higgs-Boson (the particle that theoretically induces mass on matter) from the particles that are observable by our current means, wouldn't we have unobservable mass? If that's the case, isn't that in essence what "dark matter" is?
    I could be way off...
  • Vullkan, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1they have built it for 6 billion $ not for 2.
  • benonymous, on 04/10/2008, -2/+3I expect 'an ass that ***** twinkies' will be found soon.
  • Vullkan, on 04/10/2008, -0/+9"in the collisions of beams of protons traveling at the speed of light???"
    You mean to the 99.9999% of the speed of light.
  • PhantomSoul, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1So if we call this the God particle, imagine the betrayal we'll feel when another particle even more ubiquitous is discovered. When you've reached infinity, how do you know? If I called myself a compulsive liar, should anyone believe me?
    • Rendonsmug, on 04/10/2008, -0/+3Its not called the 'God particle' because its ubiquitous, its called that because the publisher of Leon Lederman's book didn't want to print the 'God-damned particle'
    • Barryke, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1I only wonder why you are the only one on digg to actually say this.
      Does it mean only few realise this - think this way? :((
  • trollick, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1Jesus particle?
  • Bersy, on 04/10/2008, -0/+2Where's the Satan particle?
  • grantmoore3d, on 04/10/2008, -0/+5Every time I read "Large Hadron Collider" I can't help but mix up the "d" and "r" in the Hadron
  • oceanographer, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1OMG particle
  • supermanred, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1Buddha Particle FTW!
  • Kenzan, on 04/10/2008, -0/+4Dumbest part of the article:

    Nobel laureate Leon Lederman has dubbed the theoretical boson "the God particle" because its discovery could unify understanding of particle physics and help humans "know the mind of God."


  • phatch, on 04/10/2008, -0/+0Finally located, the particle was heard to exclaim, "Pay no attention to that particle behind the curtain!" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE)
  • uiguy3, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1and then the discovery of the higgs-boson particle will lead to the theory of another particle... and that will lead to another particle.....

    I hope they find it I'm just saying that there are probably other subatomic particles left to be discovered
    • IncogMosqui, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1Well, once they find the higgs-boson, wouldn't the need to find the complementary particle? The Positron equivilent to the Higgs?
  • Hangly, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1Followed closely by a Satan anti-particle?
  • smek2, on 04/12/2008, -1/+1Stop calling the boson "God particle". People confuse metaphors easily and before you know, we got another debate about religion.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.