Why God Particle Is A Perfect Name For The Higgs Boson

I prefer to call it The Force — a particle that “surrounds us and penetrates us” binding the galaxy together — but Czech physicist Luboš Motl makes a good case as to why the Higgs boson should be called the God Particle.

Motl argues that all those scientists saying that God Particle is a bad name just do it mainly because they don’t want to be labelled as religious, “a ritual that helps to assure many physicists that “they’re a part of the right community”, a classical example of a group think.”

He makes some good points, an tongue in cheek revises all the name alternatives. Some physicist proposed the dreadful the evanescent yet essential Higgs boson. According to Motl, that’s “long, redundant, smug, hard-to-pronounce, hard-to-remember, arbitrary, and just universally annoying.” He is right. Others proposed stickyon, inertiaon, oom (origin of mass), and weighton. Even Billion, because it’s going to cost $US10 billion to find it.

I have to agree again with Motl: all of those sound sound like total crap.

Why God Particle?

Other than God Particle, the cheeky Czech physicist also likes hardon, “because it makes previously soft/light/placid particles hard/heavy.” Obviously, it’s not a very elegant name for what could become one of the most fundamental particles in physics.

So after examining all the options, the atheist Motl thinks that, indeed, God Particle is a great name. And to justify it, he uses the Genesis (in cursive), translating it to an scientifically accurate version (in bold):

1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

1. In the beginning, the Higgs field created, by interactions with itself, the unstable stationary point at the top and the stable stationary valley at the bottom of the potential.

2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

2. The symmetry-breaking vacuum was a sea of radiation without any internal structure; and electromagnetic interactions and light were previously mixed with the other electroweak gauge bosons. And the condensate of the Higgs field moved into the sea of radiation.

3. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

3. And the Higgs field had the quantum numbers to preserve the unbroken symmetry of light: and light particle remained light and probably massless.

4. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

4. And the Higgs field was able to interact with light (via virtual loops of W-bosons and top quarks), i.e. to “see it”, and the vanishing tree-level interactions guaranteed that the quantum number sourcing the interactions via the exchange of virtual light particles was a good quantum number (called the electric charge).

His blog has more, but I think he makes a valid point, even while making it tongue-in-cheek. [The Reference Frame]

Discuss

(21 Comments)
  • [–]

    Joel

    Monday, December 19, 2011 at 12:06 PM

    Why God Particle Is A Perfect Name For The Higgs Boson:

    Because neither have been proven to exist yet.

    • [–]

      Lindsay

      Monday, December 19, 2011 at 12:43 PM

      That’s exactly why it’ll turn out to be a terrible name if it’s existence is eventually nailed down.

  • [–]

    NateC

    Monday, December 19, 2011 at 1:00 PM

    There are hardons all around us…

    • [–]

      Jay

      Monday, December 19, 2011 at 1:52 PM

      This is why Cern build the Large Hardon Collider after all.

      • [–]

        olearymo

        Tuesday, December 20, 2011 at 10:05 AM

        oh man. you just made me laugh out loud at my desk.

  • [–]

    Timmahh

    Monday, December 19, 2011 at 1:01 PM

    I just hope the bible thumpers don’t jump on it just because someone has called it the God particle!
    ‘Yes, of course it’s made by God, that’s why they called it the God particle”
    Doh!… Face plant….. bloody hell!

    • [–]

      Nathan

      Monday, December 19, 2011 at 1:26 PM

      Science can call it what they want, they are still looking for answers to why we are here. Maybe more sensible to some, but looking to space to solve the problems on Earth. I think these guys using the LHC are your fundamentalist scientists while the ones trying to solve disease and hunger are your true scientific believers.

      • [–]

        TSH

        Monday, December 19, 2011 at 1:59 PM

        >>I don’t see the use of pushing the boundaries of theoretical/experimental physics

        Enjoying your wifi and GPS? Relativity was just an obscure theory that had little practical relevance back in the day…

      • [–]

        Timmahh

        Monday, December 19, 2011 at 1:59 PM

        Yeah, thanks for the ethics lesson, not! Now lets talk about the reason we need to get into space, not just understand how it works! Sooner or later we will need to have colonised other planets, or maybe just huge space stations, because sooner or later our planet will be unliveable. Either by our own stupidity or some natural calamity. We need to have left the nest by then!

        • [–]

          Me

          Monday, December 19, 2011 at 2:44 PM

          Yes, I hate to think that the spreading of human “stupidity” would end with this planet alone.

          • [–]

            Jaezass

            Monday, December 19, 2011 at 3:03 PM

            Tell you what, if you hate the Human race that much, we’ll stop the planet and you can get off!

            • [–]

              Me

              Monday, December 19, 2011 at 3:25 PM

              Honestly, I do not see how you read any for of human hatred my post. If you are trying to imply that I called the human race stupid then you ignored that it was in quoted response to the previous post. I just found it funny that the salvation of mankind from destruction by his “own stupidity or some natural calamity” was to spread out into space, where those two potential threats will still exist no matter how far we travel. But maybe you don’t see it that way.

        • [–]

          Nathan

          Monday, December 19, 2011 at 9:58 PM

          Did you not read my post? If more scientists were thinking about solving the problems on Earth we might not need to explore space so soon. Yes we will have to but there is plenty of stuff to focus on at home before we get there.

          oh and @TSH thanks for paraphrasing, I reckon people got on fine without GPS and Wifi. Not saying they aren’t awesome and marvellous and can also help make the world better. What I am sure of though is that everyone in the world still needs to eat and drink everyday, solved that one yet?

          I guess you can console yourself with all the internet on demand and the ability track where you jogged today, you can carry.

          • [–]

            Nathan

            Monday, December 19, 2011 at 10:01 PM

            Oh and GPS may have been possible because of Theoretical Physics but what drove its development and what was it used to do? War and kill things better. Yay for science.

            • [–]

              matt

              Tuesday, December 20, 2011 at 3:30 AM

              ….youre saying that not developing new technology is a good idea and that we should thus trust organised religion instead of scientists? i.e. the last bastions of true denial and bigotry in the world?

            • [–]

              matt

              Tuesday, December 20, 2011 at 3:33 AM

              p.s., most of this stuff was made by scientists who wanted to improve the world whilst managing to grab some funding money off of a military organisation…(Manhattan project not included)

  • [–]

    Higgsy

    Monday, December 19, 2011 at 1:26 PM

    I AM the Higgs boson.

    More correctly, I am Higgs Boson.

    Pleased to meet you!

  • [–]

    TeamTerry

    Monday, December 19, 2011 at 1:43 PM

    Is it pure coincidence that the article is written by a person who goes by the name ‘Jesus’. ??

  • [–]

    Jason

    Monday, December 19, 2011 at 3:07 PM

    I think we should try and avoid naming things after fictional beings; especially when these fictional beings are usually malevolent tyrants.

  • [–]

    luke

    Monday, December 19, 2011 at 3:46 PM

    +1 for Monty Python thumbnail

  • [–]

    grah!

    Monday, December 19, 2011 at 4:55 PM

    MEDICLORIANS!

Join The Discussion