God, Bosons and Black Holes
Let me start by saying that, being a musician first and foremost, sorry to disappoint, but what I know about the technicalities of particle physics could be inscribed on an ant’s ball-bag and still leave enough room for War and Peace in every language. That said…
I believe it was the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Leon Lederman who, much to Peter Higgs’ annoyance, coined the phrase ‘The God Particle’ to describe the Higgs boson. As I understand it—very simply, don’t worry—the hypothesis is that the Higgs boson gives mass to all the other particles in what scientists call the Standard Model. So, if that’s true, the Higgs field is literally in everything we see and touch. You can therefore understand why Lederman associated it with God, assuming you subscribe to the idea that God exists in the first place.
I suppose it rather depends on how you view God, doesn’t it?
If you believe God is up there directing traffic and generally interfering in a Third Party Ten Commandments sort of way, then these theories might raise a few eyebrows. However, if you believe God exists in everything we see and touch, then particle physics suddenly begins to raise some rather interesting theological questions.
As I understand it, many theologians—including the Bishop of Durham and, I suspect, the Reverend Sir John Polkinghorne, himself a former theoretical physicist who worked with Peter Higgs—believe that much of the Bible is symbolic rather than literal. If that’s the case, then perhaps Lederman’s conjecture has some merit. Mind you, I can’t help thinking that calling it the God Particle was also a rather cynical attempt to whip up media hysteria.
Incidentally, Lederman apparently referred to the elusive particle as ‘she’. That would certainly explain a great deal… train crashes, hurricanes and the like. Only kidding.
It is worth pointing out, though, that if renaming the boson wasn’t cynical, then it was, in itself, a statement of faith. Many scientists claim not to have faith, yet saying categorically that you do not believe in God is every bit as much a statement of faith as believing that you do.
I happen to think that one of the biggest spin-offs of the CERN experiment will not be scientific at all. It will be encouraging people to reconsider how they perceive God, whether they believe in one or not. Science attempting to rationalise religion, while religion tries to understand science—there’s something rather clever about that.
Now, as for the scientific merit—and more importantly the cost—of the Large Hadron Collider…
CERN proudly tells us it is discovering what the Universe is made of and how it works. Fair enough. What I have always found curious is that they spend a great deal of time telling us how important the science is, but remarkably little time explaining precisely how humanity will benefit from spending twelve billion dollars smashing tiny particles into even tinier particles at extraordinary speeds.
Surely someone, somewhere, asked:
“What exactly are we going to get for twelve billion dollars?”
Not politically.
Practically.
What benefits will eventually flow to mankind?
I don’t doubt there are answers—but I’ve always thought CERN could have done a much better job of explaining them.
As impressive as the Large Hadron Collider undoubtedly is, in the middle of a global financial crisis and the near collapse of the banking system, I confess I could think of rather a lot of alternative ways of spending twelve billion dollars.
There’s much talk of black holes and wormholes.
Judging by some of the documentaries I’ve watched, quite a few scientists appear to have disappeared into one of them already…