Researchers at the European Organization for Nuclear Research in Geneva claim that they are close to finding a sub-atomic particle, which has been affectionately nicknamed the “God particle”. If the Higgs boson particle exists, it would explain why we have gravity, and why matter has mass. Scientists have been experimenting with a Large Hadron Collider (LHC), and are confident that their experiments will yield results by 2012. It see if the Higgs really does exist, the LHC will send two beams of protons, traveling in opposite directions at roughly the speed of light, towards each other, creating a collision that will hopefully prove the existence of the Higgs proton.
But what if Higgs does not exist? Rolf-Dieter Heuer, the director general of the European Organization for Nuclear Research, says that this proves there is something more elusive and mysterious in the universe that we must find. Several religious groups have shared their disapproval with the new experiments, saying that they will yield no results, because a sub-atomic particle can not do the work of an all powerful creator.
Some people are saying that scientists are trying to find the particle in order to shut down religions. What do you think?
May 31st, 2011 at 3:22 pm
We need a link for this post. Where did you get the information?
As for the religion question… I think that the number of scientists that do their work to provide a counterpoint to religions is tiny.
You can’t put to much stake in the term “God particle.” It was originally used the way people use “miracle” or “holy grail.” As in, “this team’s win is truly a miracle” or “This is the holy grail of cellphones.”
It was the media that morphed the expression “God particle” into something religious.
October 30th, 2011 at 4:48 pm
Studying the Earth and Creation has been a stumbling block for scientists for a long time. Careful not to trample on religious boundaries yet trying to prove the Big Bang Theory is a struggle.
As for the “God Proton” how is it possible to prove that God created it if it is possible to replicate the particle by sending the two beams of protons together? Wouldn’t that be qualified as a reproduction of evidence already found? And it doesn’t relate to how the particle came to existence on Earth.
SCIENCE RULES!!!!!!!!
November 1st, 2011 at 9:52 pm
I agree completely with the comment above. Joining two things that were already created (by who…?) doesn’t prove how something was made. Scientists haven’t crushed the belief of creation by proving evolution so how would they be able to change people’s beliefs based on this?
And while we’re on the topic of science verses religion, I think some things should just be left for people to wonder about. Humans are human, they aren’t supposed to know everything. What happened to Adam and Eve when they ate fruit from the tree of knowledge? That story demonstrates God saying that humans aren’t all powerful so some things in life are meant to be a mystery.
November 1st, 2011 at 10:46 pm
Science and religion I feel walk hand and hand. How you want to look at life can be influenced by how you are raised, society, and you yourself. I am a religious person but with the experiments and technology we have today it is becoming harder not to see how it is possible to create such things at the “God Proton” and things that explain why things are the way they are. After reading @Captain’s comment above I wondered, maybe God is the one controling all of this? We are just his little puppets. If he is the true creator of the universe he has control of everything, even experiments trying to prove him wrong. If reseachers are aiming to shut down religions, then this issue is bigger than our World can imagine.
November 2nd, 2011 at 11:53 pm
Why would you say it has to be the particle OR God who created gravity anyway? Can’t God create gravity by creating the particle the same way we would create a chair using wood? It has been sort of a pet peeve of mine when people say or imply that they can prove God can’t be real, reason being that when you assume God created all things, he can therefore operate outside the laws of physics and logic (which we can conclude since we are assuming he created all things such as logic, physics and mathematics). For that reason, we cannot test and provide accurate evidence that something is incorrect using logic (and logic is obviously the only method we can use) if the thing in question has the option to use different rules instead, if that makes sense. It would be like saying “the rules of checkers don’t allow for that”, and the other person says “I’m not playing checkers, though”.
Interesting science, though, even if all they’re saying is “I think…” as of yet.