‘God particle’ distracts from greater scientific implications

23

Author: Mallory Fencil

In the early 1960s, Peter Higgs, physicist and Professor Emeritus at the University of Edinburgh, theorized about the Higgs
Boson particle 
– the elementary particle to which the Standard Model of physics attributes the existence of mass, via its interactions with other particles. Last month, the Center for Nuclear Research (CERN), the laboratory housing the world’s largest particle accelerator, announced that a statistically observable and verifiable amount of data had been collected that shows that the particle CERN announced having discovered in July 2012 has continued to behave in the way that the Higgs Boson has been characteristically theorized to act. Due to a book published by physicist Leon Lederman, “The God Particle: if the Universe is the Answer, What is the Question?,” the term “God particle” was coined for the elusive particle. Despite the origin on the nickname being a scientist, the term is considered a misnomer due to the fact that the discovery of the particle does not enlighten the scientific community as to the source of creation. With this most recent discovery, the necessity for public awareness has risen; unfortunately, the naming of the particle with a religious moniker has created the unnecessary potential for friction that has caused many religious denominations to discredit science in the past.

Science and religion, while not fundamentally exclusive, are often at odds with one another. The careless use of a religious term to describe a scientific discovery, especially when the term does not fit the concept, does not serve to inform the community. Allowing for the name of a deity to be associated with a physics concept gives rise to the chance that readers will misinterpret the information. Both American and international media outlets have taken to referring to the particle as the “God particle” in virtually every article surfacing on the topic. The name has been used primarily to encourage the attention of the non-science oriented readers. Splashing the term onto headlines, many media groups appear as if they’re trying to grasp the attention of the religious masses and the scientifically challenged alike. The act of classifying the particle in an inaccurate way allows for misinterpretation, not only about the particle but also about science’s role in a highly religious world.

Naming the Higgs Boson after a religious figurehead builds a connection between the particle and religion that is completely irrelevant to the science. Science doesn’t need to be confirmed by someone’s opinion and introducing the particle into the nonscientific world with the religious label implies that the particle’s existence needs validation.

Religion and science do not have to be combative. Many scientists see the complexity of the universe as cause for their belief in God and some keep the two completely separate. God and science have been forced to butt heads by humans, while neither actually remain within the same area. Religion and science are not rivaling theories; however, humans have debated with one another and claimed that the two are at odds. The continued use of the title ‘God particle’ only expands the rift between science and religion.

Because many scientific discoveries have disputed religion before in history, the fear that a new development may discourage some of the religious masses is not unfounded. Therefore, those who subscribe to said fear were encouraged by the misnomer, which Lederman attributes to the publisher not allowing for the use of the term “God-damn.” Due in this case to superfluous connection being drawn between science and religion, miscommunication between the scientific sector and the public will only be aggravated.

Mallory Fencil is a junior physics major. She can be reached at fencil@oxy.edu.

 

This article has been archived, for more requests please contact us via the support system.

Loading

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here