The LHC must never be allowed to open!

[Fat Strat]

Can someone explain this in fairly simplistic terms? I think I understand what the "God particle" is, but I'm not sure. And I'm curious as to why they felt like it should be named the "God particle". That seems unnecessarily controversial to me.

And AD, why is this so unsatisfying?

[jim]

Why name it that? To sell a book (and a darn good one too btw - very suitable for laypersons)

http://www.amazon.com/The-God-Particle- ... 0385312113

My one sentence explanation as to it's importance: It's the particle that explains why other particles have mass.

edit ... in that book Lederman said:

It’s called the God Particle, says physicist, Leon Lederman, in his book of the same title, because we couldn’t call it the Goddamn particle. It’s been that frustrating to find.

[wart57]

Why name it that? To sell a book (and a darn good one too btw - very suitable for laypersons)

http://www.amazon.com/The-God-Particle- ... 0385312113

My one sentence explanation as to it's importance: It's the particle that explains why other particles have mass.

That's easy, becasue they do, if they didn't have mass, they wouldn't be there.

[jim]

Why name it that? To sell a book (and a darn good one too btw - very suitable for laypersons)

http://www.amazon.com/The-God-Particle- ... 0385312113

My one sentence explanation as to it's importance: It's the particle that explains why other particles have mass.

That's easy, becasue they do, if they didn't have mass, they wouldn't be there.

Which goes along with the following genearl equation that completely describes the universe:

U=1.

where U is the universe, and 1 signifies it's existence. True, but worthless.

[wart57]

Why name it that? To sell a book (and a darn good one too btw - very suitable for laypersons)

http://www.amazon.com/The-God-Particle- ... 0385312113

My one sentence explanation as to it's importance: It's the particle that explains why other particles have mass.

That's easy, becasue they do, if they didn't have mass, they wouldn't be there.

Which goes along with the following genearl equation that completely describes the universe:

U=1.

where U is the universe, and 1 signifies it's existence. True, but worthless.

If they hadn't found what they were looking for, would U=2?

[jim]

For anyone of faith that might be put off by Lederman's naming of the particle, read what he had to say about religion in the opening of his book:

IN THE VERY BEGINNING there was a void—a curious form of vacuum — a
nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound.
Yet the laws of nature were in place, and this curious vacuum held
potential. Like a giant boulder perched at the edge of a towering cliff . . .

Wait a minute.

Before the boulder falls, I should explain that I really don't know what
I'm talking about. A story logically begins at the beginning. But this story
is about the universe, and unfortunately there are no data for the Very
Beginning. None. Zero. We don't know anything about the universe until
it reaches the mature age of a billionth of a trillionth of a second — that is,
some very short time after creation in the Big Bang. When you read or
hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up. We
are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the
Very Beginning

[go birds]

Ba da...dong

[jim]

Can someone explain this in fairly simplistic terms? I think I understand what the "God particle" is, but I'm not sure. And I'm curious as to why they felt like it should be named the "God particle". That seems unnecessarily controversial to me.

And AD, why is this so unsatisfying?

This is my guess on AD's take on it ... but some find it unsatisfying because it's "messy". We have been going back and forth in history from simple elegant solutions to messy solutions and back - from Democritus' simple solution of the atom to a hodge-podge list of basic elements and then back to an elegant solution that had three particles (protons, neutrons, electrons) and now back to essentially a fairly messy periodic table of basic elements (the Standard Model).

[wart57]

I still like Venus Flytrap's explanation of the atom on WKRP the best. I would post it, but I am at work and can't access youtube.

[Mary1966]

I still like Venus Flytrap's explanation of the atom on WKRP the best. I would post it, but I am at work and can't access youtube.

[/youtube]