Bad news from God – there IS no God particle

Trickling down through pop science media: The Large Hadron Collider has not found "the God particle," the Higgs boson.

From The Australian (August 23, 2011),

INTERNATIONAL scientists searching to solve the greatest riddle in all of physics say that signs are fading of the elusive Higgs-Boson particle, which is believed to give objects mass.

Just last month, physicists announced at a European conference that a big atom-smasher experiment had shown tantalising hints of the Higgs-Boson, as the search to identify the particle enters the final stretch with results expected late next year.

Sometimes described as the "God particle" because it is such a mystery yet such a potent force of nature, the Higgs-Boson – if it exists – represents the final piece of the Standard Model of physics.

"At this moment we don't see any evidence for the Higgs in the lower mass region where it is likely to be," said physicist Howard Gordon, deputy US ATLAS operations program manager.

ATLAS is the biggest particle collider lab at the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN)"s Large Hadron Collider (LHC). …

Remember "Physicists closing in on the God"? That was just so last November.

Prophet, ranting: There IS a God. There is no God particle. There is no God machine!

File under: New gimmick needed pronto.

File with: Higgs boson could be ruled out as particle by the end of next year, says CERN boss

News starts to sink in: Large Hadron Collider not wish list for multiverse

No God needed: CalTech physicist responds to Uncommon Descent's questions Denyse O'Leary is co-author of The Spiritual Brain.

7 thoughts on “Bad news from God – there IS no God particle

  1. The “God particle” is an unfortunate name, but the theory is a good one with good justification. But if it is not found, this would be viewed by most physicists as much more interesting than finding it right away. It would mean nature still has tricks up her sleeve.

  2. honestly, truthfully just sit down and think about this for a minute, on simple terms. We can’t solve the world’s simple problems but we are attempting to discover the “God particle?” seems like our efforts would be better applied to current worldly needs. God is based on faith, not pysicallity. If my God raises me on the day of judgment, then I was right. God bless everyone.

  3. 4,000 extra students cnihsoog to study chemistry is such a good sign much more useful than some subjects offered. But isn’t some of that number an increase in A level entries (in no way a bad thing) or just increasing size of the student body?

  4. I do agree with you on this 10-year time frame. But, it is not demanded by the senicce but by the human psychic.The principle of least action goes way beyond physics and mathematics, and it applies to all areas. When a new manufacturing process is invented (such as Nature did for itself), it could be quite rudimentary, and it goes through a fine tuning process to reach the “least action” steady state. In this process, it can appear a bifurcation state, that is, it gets more complicated by adding a lot of bells and whistles. But, this bifurcation will converge to the final end, the least action steady state.With analogy of the most advanced “Wash machine” which consists of the following sub-systems.1. the hard-core wash machine, without any bells and whistles.2. a robot system to gather the dirty clothes from all rooms, with a dirty sniffing subsystem.3. a color sorting system4. etc.However exotic this system is, we will always find the debris of the hard-cord wash machine when it is bombed into pieces.At LHC, we are not trying to find out what are inside of protons. The p-p collision acts as bomb to break up the neighborhood spacetime sheet and to see what are hiding in it. If our bomb energy (the p-p collision) is not big enough to crack the exotic Higgs, then it is an all different story. If the energy is big enough, then we can always see the debris of the hard-cord Higgs (without the exotic-ness) even if it were no longer a standalone entity in the current state of universe evolution.Thus, if we did not see a hard-cord Higgs now, there is a little chance for seeing an exotic Higgs according to this principle of least action. However, in human psychic, we demand the last evidence from the last hole. Then, 10 years might still not be enough.

  5. Interesting rumours, eiendd, and I am confidentthe Higgs will be found in the range 122-132 GeV, havingpredicted its mass together with the top quark massin a composite model, before either top or Higgs weredetected. But I’ld point out there were similar rumoursof an excess in the b anti-b channel indicating a Higgsin the range of 130-140 GeV just a couple of months back(personal communication from W. Marciano). It was a similardeal, a couple of sigma each in CMS and Atlas, which addedto a bit more than 3 sigma. It went away of course.My last look at the 2 gamma data, with abouthalf of the total data set analysed showed points aboveand below the theoretical continuum, and nosign of a bump whatever. The SM Higgs width at thismass is so small that I don’t even remember the numberbut I believe it’s on the order of 1 MeV. So in this casethe width of any bump in the 2 gamma mass spectrumwill be determined by detector resolution, on the orderof 5 GeV. There was an extra factor of two availablein the integrated flux not analysed at that time, butthat only gives 40% better resolution of any bumpat 125GeV. So I can’t believe this will be conclusive.A SM Higgs this light just escapes the vacuumstability and metastibility (due to finite temperatureeffects in the early universe) if new physics onlyappears near the Planck scale. So it’s premature for Kane and the supersymmetriciansto be rejoicing, I think. They should rather be worryingabout the absence of supersymmetry at 95% confidencelevel, below about 1 TeV. Exciting times! about 50%

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>