Through a particle accelerator darkly... A glimpse of the 'God Particle'?

 Have we just glimpsed God being sacked?

It looks like Richard Dawkins' (adopted) invention has come back to haunt him. To the uninitiated, this hi-tech graphic from the Large Hadron Collider could be taken for a flying spaghetti monster.... and if a flying spaghetti monster has been discovered then, in the Gospel according to Dick, God's chances of existing must have just improved. God must be relieved. Of course, this isn't a flying spaghetti monster, but it may provide an example of evidence of the existence of the so-called God Particle, the Higgs Boson. What goes around comes around, Dick, and sometimes very quickly - especially in high energy particle accelerators. To corrupt a favourite quote of Slicer's from Dana Scully, 'this is no place for a biologist.'

Physics is Slicer's fave branch of science. He revels in the new understandings which it provides progressively of how nature works. The summer before last, he reviewed a book by Nobel Prize-winning physicist Frank Wilczek, "The Lightness of Being." It's a fascinating text aimed at getting across complex ideas to non-physicists like Slicer, and Slicer rated it as successful at achieving that goal (insofar as he could tell since he's not a physicist - but you gotta assess it from one end or the other, and you can't be both a non-physicist and a physicist!). Wilczek highlights that matter, all the "stuff" we're familiar with, isn't just a set of building blocks stuck together like Lego.

 

Each of the building blocks is a kind of condensate from the fundamental fields or ethers which we can't see, and each mediates the effect of its associated field. Although there is often uncertainty around individual events at quantum level, fundamental small-scale uncertainty ultimately distills into large scale certainty - we are happy to depend upon knowledge of the conditions under which water boils/freezes, aeroplanes fly, guns recoil, brakes slow us down.... Heck, atoms hold together... It's not that classical physics was 'wrong' in its large-scale predictions (in everyday life, the velocity of a body remains constant unless it is acted upon by an external force; force is still a product of mass and acceleration eg the force of gravity). It just proved insufficient and inaccurate, wrong even, when we get to the extremely large or extremely small. It seems that the journalists regularly misrepresent/misunderstand* scientific understanding so the next few short paragraphs are Slicer's attempt at 'Noddy's Guide' to what is the fuss about the Higgs Boson, for the benefit (hopefully) of those who've read even less physics than him. Stick with it - it's not hard, at Slicer's level of understanding, anyway:

 

Many of these fields are difficult to detect, some more-so than others, but we can infer their characteristics from the particles that are associated with them. "We" here refers to we humans, when of course in reality it's only the very gifted minority that do this on behalf of the rest of us. The electromagnetic field is evidenced by its fundamental (ie indivisible or quantum) particle of light, the photon. By light Slicer means the whole electromagnetic frequency/wavelength spectrum - not just the tiny part of the spectrum that we can see. 

 

Modern physics classifies and describes the fundamental components - fields and particles - of the "stuff" of the universe that we're used to, in what is known as the "Standard Model." It's a bit like a jigsaw in which the pieces were predicted to be a certain shape/picture component using mathematics, often before they were demonstrated to exist/be that shape. The maths extrapolated beyond what we knew by measurement to be the case, to what we thought might be, but we didn't know whether the extrapolations/ predictions (our 'model') were correct until we found the jigsaw pieces/particles/fields the maths predicted. And we did... However, there was a known gap in the jigsaw - a 'fudge factor' which needed to be applied in order for all the rest to fit together.

 

In 1964 Peter Higgs (and some others) came up with a mathematical solution - and its prediction is the Higgs field, with the associated fundamental particle the Higgs Boson. In principle, this missing jigsaw piece could actually be several interconnecting pieces - several fields and several associated Higgs particles, which up to this point have not been observed.

 

This idea prompts a musical interlude: Northern Irish singer Juliet Turner's brilliant album "People have names" contains the following song. It was written about how a job can get in the way of family relationship, but Slicer thinks it's appropriate musical accompaniment to the notion of the Higgs field too, and also  to considering another entity with low visibility in the present. (He'll come back to home/family stuff later). Slicer dedicates its inclusion here to all the hardworking boys and girls at CERN who've stayed up late at night, 'doing their thinking, spending their time, rubbing their eyes 'til they are sore' .... perhaps at the expense of family life, to collect and process data, and who'll continue to do so next year to help make the truth about Higgs more clear.

"All my possibilities lie open to the sky... they're here all the time, invisible to the eye..." - how true of the quantum world... 

 

A key task of experiments at Large Hadron Collider (LHC), our most powerful particle accelerator, is to go looking for the Higgs particle, not as an end in itself, but to demonstrate the presence of the Higgs field, in which it is thought "we live, and move, and have our being." If the omnipresent Higgs field is confirmed, it essentially validates the entire Standard Model - that particular jigsaw is shown to form a complete picture, with all of the other pieces in the right place. But what is the bit of the picture on the Higgs piece, on which the rest of the picture depends for its completeness?

 

It is pretty central to our picture.... without it all the other fundamental particles have no inherent mass. The Higgs mechanism only accounts for 2% of the mass of 'stuff' as the majority is actually the binding energy of fundamental particles, so what's the big deal? Without this 2%, atoms would not hold together and the cosmos as we know it would not exist. If Higgs isn't the answer, something else has to fill that void in the jigsaw. The Higgs mechanism is a proposal that particles acquire mass by interaction with the postulated Higgs field. Those particles that interact more with the field are slowed down by it as they move - they are more massive; other particles, which may be of similar 'size' to the former, interact less, continue to travel faster, and so are less massive. The Higgs field has been compared with a bowl of molasses - as particles travel through it, the molasses sticks to them, slowing them down. But the molasses sticks more to some particles, slowing them down more, than others. The Higgs field also has importance to cosmology, as it is thought to have been instrumental, a tiny fraction of a second after the big bang, for the formation of structure out of 'sameness,' or out of 'symmetry' - the scaffolding, if you like, around which a structured universe distilled. Before that the universe was "without form..." Maybe it's becoming clear why the media love dubbing the Higgs Boson the God Particle....

Prof Matt Strassler will explain the history of that nickname, and how it's viewed in the physics community. This is an excerpt from a talk he gave this year at the "Secret Science Club," which evidently is not-so-secret anymore. He goes on to explain a little bit about fields - if you want you can stay for the trip, but it's not essential:

 

Is the LHC trying to catch Higgs particles, or to make them?

As Slicer understands it (happy to be corrected if wrong), when protons are accelerated around the LHC to near the speed of light before being crashed into one another, physicists don't think of those collisions as being just train wrecks which might fling the Higgs Boson out as a constituent part, like a bolt being dislodged; rather they hope to achieve such energetic collisions as to cause the postulated Higgs field to resonate, and distill or create a Higgs Boson. Make no mistake, particles are regularly created, and morph from one form into another, in particle accelerators (see earlier post on Wilczek's book for more details). The Higgs Boson, however, is predicted to decay/morph extremely rapidly into other particles, in a predictable fashion. It is these latter 'Higgs signature' particles which are sought as indicators of the Higgs particle and its field.

 

In the last 24 hours, teams from CERN have announced their findings, on the basis of data collected from experiments over the last year. Two separate experiments/technologies seem to be providing independent data supportive of a Higgs particle at energy of around 125 GeV, and the excitement in the physics community (and in the author of this blog) is palpable. Given the high standards which physics require for statistical 'certainty,' the data at present is insufficient to amount to having 'discovered' the Higgs Particle, and it is therefore possible that the apparent signal(s) could be just noise, but the next number of months will likely resolve that one way or the other. For those who want to hear more information, really well explained by a proper expert, click to hear LHC physicist Prof Jon Butterworth take these concepts, and a few others, a bit further.

 

Is God redundant? Emmm.... noooo....whether or not Higgs is/are there, and whatever energy/mass it/they are found to have. When physicists are asked where did the (postulated) Higgs field come from, they often treat that as an irrelevant question - it just 'is.' It's part of the fabric of our universe... fortuitously as it turns out. However, lest theists rub their hands with glee, it's a pretty poor consolation, and a pretty lightweight foundation for theology and for faith - another example of "God of the Gaps." The consolation prize may rapidly turn into a booby prize if/when a mechanism for the appearance/distillation of the Higgs field emerges.

 

The theological poverty of that position was pointed out some time back by respected former particle physicist John Polkinghorne (who made major contribution to the understanding of other fundamental particles, quarks, but latterly became an Anglican minister): God is not just Creator in the sense of someone who lit the blue touchpaper and stood back. Creation is ongoing - stars continue to be born, elements continue to be forged in the heavens, fundamental particles appear and disappear, seemingly ex nihilo. He is Alpha, Omega and everything else in between. He is Sustainer as well as Creator. He permeates his entire created order, and transcends it. We shouldn't be looking for him only outside the natural, we should be looking for him within it. He thought it was very good when He made it, wanted to have relationship with man within it, set foot within it, revealed more of himself and his purposes than He ever had before while within it, and here created the means by which we can have restored relationship with him within it, and with others within it. This time of year commemorates when He became integrated into the natural, material order. While walking around amongst us, He even warned us against depending on supernatural spectaculars - He suggested it was evidence of a lack of faith, and then underlined it by legitimising an enhanced understanding of the natural world! (Meteorology isn't that far from physics...)

Slicer fully understands and sympathises with the materialist mindset, to which this seems superfluous gobbledygook, and which asks the (rhetorical) question "What does God bring to the party?" The Christian theist response continues to be: meaning, purpose, redemption, objective reality (and definition) of good and evil, forgiveness, humility, responsibility; concepts of 'ought,' not just is; suggestions of why, not just how.... oh, and love. CERN will enlighten us on none of these - they're not measured in GeV. Slicer holds (yes, dogma! - An understanding arrived at by a route independent of the scientific method) that the Creator God delights in the complexity of the universe, and is a Father who also takes delight in his children learning more and more about the cosmos; but He rates love, mercy, justice and faithful relationship much higher than head knowledge. We get to see these by a different route altogether; and we get to glimpse their author through a glass darkly for the present.

Regarding the future, in a lesser known work a well-known songwriter croaked "Look out across the fields, see me returning." A sort of Adventy notion, second time around... Slicer notes that he's in good company quoting this artist in the context of an article on physics, given the fetching title of the fetching Lisa Randall's book, which is near the top of Slicer's own Christmas wishlist:


Randall is Professor of Theoretical Physics at Harvard, and is one of the leading physicists whose work is intimately related to the LHC. (Not sure the title of her earlier tome is a winner tho....!)

 

In yet another song, focusing on the importance of communication in a relationship, the same songwriter sang "Somewhere in this universe there’s a place that you can call home." You gotta work out some balance in life, and some priorities - the Higgs is clearly hugely important, but how do you measure its importance against relationship, against "home"? In fairness, even particle physicists acknowledge this. Speaking of the shutdown over Christmas of the LHC, a senior figure in CERN was reported as saying that the excuse for shutting down was to allow technical adjustments, but the real reason was to ensure that the physicists still had families and homes to return to.

 

The LHC is a fantastic machine - a truly brilliant and powerful tool that gifted men and women have built and are using to unlock many secrets of the universe. Regarding Higgs, we may have seen a glimpse darkly - Slicer is really excited about the potential, and what the LHC will reveal about it - but the Higgs (and the LHC, and arguably the entire scientific method) has its limitations in what it brings to the party...

 

God Particle, my arse.

 

 * a typical example is describing the hunt for the Higgs as the "Holy Grail" of modern physics. If anything deserves that title (physicists usually regard religious metaphors with disdain), it's the unification of forces. The Standard Model does not address this as gravity, the most difficult force to join with others, is still outwith its remit.

Comments

[Shanemuk]

Dude, get used to the pejorative comments. There is no point in your pointing out that I'm insulting you - to YOU it may seem that it weakens my argument, but if you knew the first thing about logic you would know that looks can be deceiving. You may *wish* that it would let you off the hook, but it doesn't remotely. So deal with the issues rather than pointing out the obvious. Tone doesn't bother me, and if you want me to take you seriously, I suggest it shouldn't bother you either.

So on to the meat. Is my approach circular? I'm glad you accept that yours is - that fact on its own is hardly a good position from which you can launch an attack on anyone else's "worldview". If the best you can do is to suggest that MY worldview (caps intentional - let it go) is at LEAST as good as yours, this would strike most people as a weird approach. Who is to win then? Are we basing this on raw sexiness, because I don't know you well enough to know how either of us might fare.

You're right in that I do not accept my approach is circular. I quite openly acknowledge that I go on evidence rather than opinion, because opinion *categorically* is a flawed guide (CS Lewis be damned). It's not that *some* people's opinions are wrong (and it's even provable that many/most are) - it is that opinion as a *category* is epistemologically hopeless.

But if I find a gorilla in my car, I find a gorilla in my car. My epistemology is neither here nor there. It's not a matter of logic or reason - it is something that, if asked, I can demonstrate with reference to the real world. But your characterisation is worse than that - I don't have to nail *any* colours to a metaphysical mast - I can change my metaphysics as I wish, but Reality doesn't care, and it's what is in Reality that counts. Yes, our senses can be deceived, but science (which is basically the ongoing extension of "my metaphysics") is quite demonstrably good at increasing our understanding of the world, so just on the basis of the raw scorecard, other things (as you assert) being equal between our metaphysics, I seem to be kicking your arse ;-)

[The Slicer]

shanemuk clearly has not been paying attention. Slicer has not been attacking your worldview; he has been defending his own against your (and Dawkins') false charges of naivety and stupidity - by demonstrating that you're in no stronger a position. The "opinion" point made by shanemuk applies equally to his own position (that the only means to know anything is via reason and all else must be rejected as false). IF we're going to be so firmly constrained in ALL domains by demonstrable proof in the present, each position must be deemed opinion until that proof is forthcoming.

This has not been a contest to determine a winner - self-evident to Slicer (if not to shamenmuk) from the outset as we are hardly the first to apply ourselves to this discussion, and we won't be the last (Slicer has no delusions of grandeur, but he's not sure about shanemuk) - it has been a demonstration that it is inappropriate and untenable (on the basis of your pre-suppositions whether you acknowledge them or not) for you to declare yourself/yourselves winners without a means to keep score, other than one you invent yourself which rigs the thing in your favour (refusing at the outset to accept any means to arrive at truth independent of evidence-based reason). Many of us have in childhood come across playmates who have attempted unilaterally to introduce self-made rules to a game in progress, and/or to appoint themselves the winner of a game before it's over, so your approach isn't exactly novel.

[Shanemuk]

More twaddle. You are the one rigging the game, and furthermore you are mischaracterising my position. Here it is again. "Faith" and "Revelation" are *known* to give misleading information. They are a crap basis for making any meaningful statements about the world - and this applies even if those statements are actually true.

Think on this, Slicer - even if the gods DO exist, your faith and reason are rubbish bases for believing in them. That is what I said, that is what I maintain, that is a core of my "worldview" (it's the same "worldview" that you use in medicine - I *hope*!!). It's a method. It's a refusal to accept the sort of pap that issues from priests, prophets and holy books (or post-hoc re-imaginings thereof).

So you are quite wrong to suggest that I reject your view as *false* because of your "faith" etc. That is not what I am rejecting. What I reject is much more fundamental - it is your entire basis for belief; because this basis can be demonstrated to be unreliable. Heck, you even agree with me here!

And then you try the old boring nonsense about how my "empiricism" is an equally guff basis for believing anything. However you are in real trouble here, because you cannot demonstrate that. All you can demonstrate is a pseudo-logical argument that is self-refuting! In other words, if you are right in your silly critique (in this case, the word "critique" is appropriate - wow!) of rationalism, then your critique itself - which is based on rationalism - has no basis. Yes, I have seen people (like McGrath, like Lennox, Like Plantinga, like Craig) come out with this argument, but in their cases they *should* know better. The problem with those johnnies is of course that they are trying out an apologia. You could call it dishonesty.

Let me illustrate that in another way: "This statement is false". That is pretty much the sum total of the anti-rationalist argument. It's tiresome, it's sophomoric, and frankly does not bring home the biscuits.

And of course the main reason why my "worldview" is superior (i.e. that the rationalist science-based approach beats the faith-based approach) is that it WORKS. You are spending far too much of your capacious brain trying to establish ontological bases for arguments, but this is just messing with words. Scientists base their epistemology on the *functional* - i.e. whether it actually does the job or not.

It's not my assertion that "faith" and "revelation" necessarily deliver *false* statements - just that they do not provide a basis for accepting any statement as true. The existence of the gods, for instance, is a scientific question. Please line up your favoured deity and let me fire some protons at it.

[The Slicer]

Slicer understands this argument (and is pleased to see one!), and sympathises with a worldview that restricts itself to scientific methodology, because it provides objective confidence in the present (even tho' that confidence can sometimes be seen in hindsight to have been misplaced). Yes, Slicer has already acknowledged it's a really powerful tool for understanding how things work, and whether they work or not. And yes, medicine is a good example of where Slicer uses whatever scientifically-determined information is available to guide prognostication and treatment choices (as all good doctors should). Slicer also continues to contribute to some small degree to that pool of knowledge as principal investigator in scientific studies, and along the way was rewarded with a higher degree for some of that work.

Where Slicer differs is that he does not share shanemuk's unshakeable confidence that either scientific methodology or reason is all-sufficient for everything. Just because it works so well for some things, doesn't mean it works for everything. (Ironically, there is no logical basis to infer that it does, beyond doubt). In medicine, Slicer has often been frustrated by doctors treating by opinion rather than desiring objective data (because opinions differ, and some are strongly held, despite being wrong). Nevertheless in real life, clinicians frequently have to make decisions before such scientific data are available. Heck even the diagnosis may be unproven, never mind the treatment! In those circumstances there is no substitute for ill-definable clinical acumen. In some cases the necessary treatment data may never be available eg when a condition is so rare as to render trials not feasible. So it is in life. When we choose our spouse we don't conduct a randomised controlled trial; when we desire to know whether our children are happy, we don't conduct a study (at least Slicer hopes shanemuk doesn't!). When we invest our money, we try to make informed choices (or our bankers do) but, as recent economic circumstances demonstrate, there isn't a reliable scientific method for doing so - it involves an element of gamble. What repeatable experiment will determine whether the Beatles or the Stones were better? However, in medicine the scientific method (where it can be applied) is still the best tool for the job over time. In pursuing the answers regarding fundamental particles in physics, it is the right tool for the job. In engineering, Slicer imagines it is the right tool for the job.

And it is not just faith routes that can give misleading information. Sure, the scientific method should be self-correcting (eventually) but many patients have been harmed in the meantime (and will continue to be in future) by application of misleading data/publications. That it's ultimately self-correcting is not much consolation for those who are harmed in the process (tho it is much superior to unregulated quackery). Arguably the faith/revelation route could be self-correcting too (if at least one of its variants proves ultimately to be true, which you are honest enough to concede is possible).

[The Slicer]

Slicer understands entirely the point made in shanemuk's 1st & 2nd paragraphs (and reiterated in the last) and sympathises with shanemuk's desire to have something demonstrated to be true before accepting it to be true. Trouble is that it is unrealistic regarding many decisions we have to make in life - and not just those in a religious/philosophical context.

Re your 3rd paragraph, Slicer has understood all along that you reject the basis for his belief not because of the nature of the belief per se because it rests on faith and not on reason, but is puzzled why you think Slicer agrees with you. Just because some faith positions have been demonstrated to be untrue does not render all faith positions untrue any more than demonstration that some drugs are ineffective renders all drugs to be ineffective. Just because faith goes further than rationality does not render it necessarily irrational. Still, Slicer understands and very much sympathises with a position that sees no "reason" to adopt one of those faith views which remain to be demonstrated to be true/untrue. It may be cliched, but that does not render it untrue: if it was dependent on reason it wouldn't be faith. Slicer understands shanemuk's desire that the "existence of gods" be a "scientific question" – however regardless of whether or not the question is a scientific one, designing a suitable scientific experiment to answer it is a pipedream - perhaps well exemplified by the desire (i) to have me "line up" my "favoured deity” and (ii) to fire protons at "it."

Slicer maintains that (a) shanemuk's confidence in material reductionism (ie that it is all-sufficient for every job) is misplaced (b) shanemuk has fundamental assumptions/assertions which are untestable/undemonstrable to be true, not least (a), and it seems that shanemuk remains in denial that (b) is the case. Slicer doesn't know (has insufficient data!) but surmises that this is motivated by Shanemuk's expectation/desire for control (which Slicer often feels/desires himself); in contrast to a Christian faith position which ultimately is surrendering of control. The latter is why Slicer has no desire/expectation to "win" here (or lose) - he doesn't see it as a contest (any more than he sees faith and science as being in competition); merely a refutation of false charges.

[Shanemuk]

Unfortunately you have not remotely understood or addressed my argument. Once again, slowly, I am not relying simply on "man's reason". I am relying on reason tightly coupled with *what actually happens in the real world*. When there is a disjunct between the two, the real world wins; it is our reason that needs sorting out.

And then you go and repeat that same old nonsense about worldviews. The problem for dear old Slicer in this is *precisely* that these worldviews are based on faith, and since many of them are wrong, the problem is not the truth-statements of the worldview, but the very fact they are based on faith. Faith is *shown* to be unreliable. Sure, you'll say that I haven't demonstrated that, but that is not an argument, it is just denialism, and it's not a heck of a lot different from the denialism of the most deluded creationist.

I know you don't expect to win the argument (at least you have some insight into how rubbish your arguments *are*!), but you need to provide some basis for me (as your average Joe Bloggs) to follow *your* "faith" rather than that of Muhammad down the road. And you cannot do that.

So let's not have any more of this tosh that the scientific worldview is as circular as the supernatural space pixie infested worldview of the Slicer. If you want to *criticise* (remember, not "critique" - you could try that some day if you like, but you'll need to do more work) people like Dawkins or Dennett, you need to address the actual arguments they make, not dribble out a pile of sophistry that explains why *you* personally continue to believe in gods and devils and angels and demons and pixies and dryads and Santa and the like.

[The Slicer]

Sorry shanemuk, it is you who hasn't got the point. Slicer HAS understood (demonstrated by your 2nd paragraph which attempts to explain the issue to me in the very terms which Slicer has actually stated explicitly himself in the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph of his last comment). You continue to define the "real world" as being limited to that which we have tools to measure (or perhaps think we will have tools to measure), and determined by our logic/reason. (Slicer finds your suggestion, that we modify our reason in the light of science, to be incoherent - we modify our material worldview or 'model,' in the light of science but neither our scientific methods nor our scientific conclusions are independent of our faculty of reason). Slicer has addressed the issue repeatedly - in that as long as you define the "real world" this way you exclude faith routes from the outset. This definition of "real" is based on your underlying assumption/assertion that the only thing that is real is that which is accessible to demonstrate in terms of what "works" and what doesn't. Until you acknowledge that, there is no point in continuing this conversation. Slicer has been patient with your attempts to patronise and self-declare superiority of position, but he marvels at the extent of your pity - since you state that this is why you keep coming back to this, rather than any other motivation. Slicer suggests you look again at what drives you to keep coming back to it. (Your tone does not suggest pity, so you may be deluding yourself there too).

Slicer hasn't stated that a scientific worldview is circular - a truly scientific approach recognises the weakness of the method. Slicer aspires to such an approach. He is surprised that you don't recognise this basic tenet. What he HAS stated is that a confident atheism, based on an assumption/assertion that science/reason can discern all there is to discern, is a circular argument (because of the arbitrary definition of what is "real"). Which faith position is (more) correct compared to others is a different argument, since (i) it pertains to the substance of the belief and you state this irrelevant and (ii) to reject all because some are demonstrably incorrect is not plausible, and has been dealt with in Slicer's drugs analogy.

As for insight, and "rubbish" arguments, you mistake Slicer's acceptance of the fact that no-one can win this argument definitively, and that Slicer would take no pleasure in you being ultimately wrong, for an acceptance of weakness of Slicer's position. Not at all. It is arguably a more vulnerable position in any situation to remain blind (willfully?) to one's fundamental assumptions and assume one's method/argument/position has no weakness, as you persist in doing.

[Shanemuk]

OK. You're incapable of understanding my point. I'm wasting my time here, and your silly illeism is tedious. Beam me up, Scotty. Kirk out.

[The Slicer]

Energise.

[The Slicer]

Hearty congratulations to Peter Higgs and Francois Englert on being awarded the 2013 Nobel Prize for Physics.