petrushkagoogol Posted February 25, 2018 Report Share Posted February 25, 2018 (edited) IMHO instead of the Higgs boson, the neutrino should be the God particle. 1. It is ubiquitous. 2. It is present since the big bang. 3. Around 4000 of these particles pass through your body every day. (I think for women that figure should be more, considering the fact that they have more adipose tissue, and more interstitial spaces). God can be "felt" through these innocuous (zero rest mass) messengers of a sentient Universe. viz. they can pass through your body without any harm to body tissues, like gamma-rays for example. Do you agree ? :vava: Edited February 25, 2018 by petrushkagoogol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crasto Posted February 27, 2018 Report Share Posted February 27, 2018 The words (can there be a physics of words?) are more subtle than neutrinos and above all are diverse, just like reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted February 27, 2018 Report Share Posted February 27, 2018 IMHO instead of the Higgs boson, the neutrino should be the God particle. 1. It is ubiquitous.2. It is present since the big bang.3. Around 4000 of these particles pass through your body every day. (I think for women that figure should be more, considering the fact that they have more adipose tissue, and more interstitial spaces). God can be "felt" through these innocuous (zero rest mass) messengers of a sentient Universe. viz. they can pass through your body without any harm to body tissues, like gamma-rays for example. Do you agree ? :vava: No. Maine farmer and JMJones0424 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveC426913 Posted April 22, 2018 Report Share Posted April 22, 2018 Are neutrinos somehow attracted to - or generated by - adipose tissue and interstitial spaces??? :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMJones0424 Posted April 23, 2018 Report Share Posted April 23, 2018 (edited) IMHO instead of the Higgs boson, the neutrino should be the God particle....Do you agree ? :vava: No, I don't agree. I don't agree for the same reason that I also don't like that the Higgs boson is referred to in popular media as the god particle instead of as the god damn particle. Your question exhibits a fundamental lack of understanding of why the Higgs boson is referred to as the god particle and what it is. I don't think any of your justifications are relevant for describing neutrinos as god damn particles. Your assertion that neutrinos should be the god particle is meaningless linguistic hand waving. It is similar to me claiming that peaches should be instead named blues. If I wave a magic wand and your humble opinion is executed, exactly nothing changes other than the words that we are using to describe physical phenomena. Edited April 23, 2018 by JMJones0424 Maine farmer 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petrushkagoogol Posted April 23, 2018 Author Report Share Posted April 23, 2018 (edited) No, I don't agree. I don't agree for the same reason that I also don't like that the Higgs boson is referred to in popular media as the god particle instead of as the god damn particle. Your question exhibits a fundamental lack of understanding of why the Higgs boson is referred to as the god particle and what it is. I don't think any of your justifications are relevant for describing neutrinos as god damn particles. Your assertion that neutrinos should be the god particle is meaningless linguistic hand waving. It is similar to me claiming that peaches should be instead named blues. If I wave a magic wand and your humble opinion is executed, exactly nothing changes other than the words that we are using to describe physical phenomena. I know that the Higgs boson represents mass, as a quantum excitation of the Higgs Field ....BUTThe innocuous particles that are ubiquitous, and pass through our bodies every day in their thousands, are, in-fact neutrinos. If there was a serious competitor for the "God Particle ", it is this. (statistically). Edited April 23, 2018 by petrushkagoogol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted April 23, 2018 Report Share Posted April 23, 2018 I know that the Higgs boson represents mass, as a quantum excitation of the Higgs Field ....BUTThe innocuous particles that are ubiquitous, and pass through our bodies every day in their thousands, are, in-fact neutrinos. If there was a serious competitor for the "God Particle ", it is this. (statistically). You appear to be a real-life version of Mike Giggler: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurring_in-jokes_in_Private_Eye Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMJones0424 Posted April 24, 2018 Report Share Posted April 24, 2018 I know that the Higgs boson represents mass, as a quantum excitation of the Higgs Field ....BUTThe innocuous particles that are ubiquitous, and pass through our bodies every day in their thousands, are, in-fact neutrinos. If there was a serious competitor for the "God Particle ", it is this. (statistically). Well, in my opinion, which isn't at all humble, anyone that refers to one particle in the standard model as being the god particle is a moron. Perhaps I'm not a particularly good person for you to ask whether particle A or particle B is more appropriately referred to as the god particle. What I do know is that the Higgs boson is not referred to as the god particle because it is innocuous, ubiquitous, and passes through our bodies every day in the thousands. There is no serious competitor for the god particle because the nomenclature is meaningless and the significance you are trying to shoe-horn in is a fiction that exists only in your mind. You are functionally arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Maine farmer, petrushkagoogol and exchemist 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted April 25, 2018 Report Share Posted April 25, 2018 (edited) Well, in my opinion, which isn't at all humble, anyone that refers to one particle in the standard model as being the god particle is a moron. Perhaps I'm not a particularly good person for you to ask whether particle A or particle B is more appropriately referred to as the god particle. What I do know is that the Higgs boson is not referred to as the god particle because it is innocuous, ubiquitous, and passes through our bodies every day in the thousands. There is no serious competitor for the god particle because the nomenclature is meaningless and the significance you are trying to shoe-horn in is a fiction that exists only in your mind. You are functionally arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.I find the following extract from the Wiki article on the Higgs field and boson quite illuminating, on the subject of this nickname "God particle" : QUOTE The Higgs boson is often referred to as the "God particle" in popular media outside the scientific community.[172][173][174][175][176] The nickname comes from the title of the 1993 book on the Higgs boson and particle physics, The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question? by Nobel Physics prizewinner and Fermilab director Leon Lederman.[25] Lederman wrote it in the context of failing US government support for the Superconducting Super Collider,[177] a part-constructed titanic[178][179] competitor to the Large Hadron Collider with planned collision energies of 2 × 20 TeV that was championed by Lederman since its 1983 inception[177][180][181] and shut down in 1993. The book sought in part to promote awareness of the significance and need for such a project in the face of its possible loss of funding.[182] Lederman, a leading researcher in the field, wanted to title his book The Goddamn Particle: If the Universe is the Answer, What is the Question? Lederman's editor decided that the title was too controversial and convinced him to change the title to The God Particle: If the Universe is the Answer, What is the Question?[183]While media use of this term may have contributed to wider awareness and interest,[184] many scientists feel the name is inappropriate[18][19][185] since it is sensational hyperbole and misleads readers;[186] the particle also has nothing to do with God, leaves open numerous questions in fundamental physics, and does not explain the ultimate origin of the universe. UNQUOTE So it all came about from the editor changing the title of Lederman's book - written to support funding for a collider - to make it more eye-catching, and is a nickname generally repudiated by scientists. Edited April 26, 2018 by exchemist Maine farmer and JMJones0424 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMJones0424 Posted April 25, 2018 Report Share Posted April 25, 2018 I agree, the only thing you left out is that the SSC was already being built and that foreign as well as US funding had already been committed and spent in its construction. Had it been finished, it would have been more powerful than the LHC, which, after numerous upgrades, is capable of just more than half the capcity. Instead, due to silly politics, the US backed out of the deal and the other contributing nations were left high and dry, so now the premier place to study particle physics is no longer in the US. But, the money we saved might buy us half of a F-35, so there's that. The whole debacle was an unfortunate foreshadowing of the downfall of the US as a leader in physics research. petrushkagoogol, Maine farmer and exchemist 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.