I am not qualified to opine on whether the CERN announcement on July 4 2012 validates the existence of the elusive particle, although the statistical significance at a level of 5.1 sigma is above the 5 mark – a threshold that is commonly assumed to qualify for a scientific discovery.

The existence of such a particle is predicted by what is known as the Standard Model of the Universe. Peter Higgs, an outstanding British physicist present at the announcement, offered the suggestion for the hypothetical construct of a particle in 1964 while working on the Standard Model.

Here is the rub: we know that the Standard Model is wrong. So much so, that three scientists (Saul Perlmutter from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Brian P. Schmidt of Australian National University and Adam G. Riess of Johns Hopkins University) received the Nobel Prize in physics in 2011 for proving that the Universe is expanding at an accelerating rate – a violent disagreement with the predictions of the Standard Model. An expanding universe hypothesis has been scientifically topical since 1998 and much work has been done to try to explain it. So-called dark energy and dark matter (don’t we all love catchy names: “dark”=”mysterious”=”sexy”) were offered to (1) account for between 75 and 90% of all matter in the universe, and (2) counteract the force of gravity.

As often happens in science, a model, the Standard Model of the Universe in this case, that looks complete, wholesome, and (some would say) beautiful, ends up being another bridge to a new level of understanding.

Question: if the Standard Model is fundamentally wrong, should its predictions be meaningless? Why should anyone be excited about finding a chunk of matter predicted by this dead-beat theory?

Not surprisingly, (read the CERN press announcement in the attachment), what physicists hoped for – and what they so far discovered – was a particle “like Higgs.” Within the limits set by the experiments to-date the discovered particle does not follow the mathematically predicted pattern of tau-decay of the Higgs boson although matching it on most other metrics. Watch for the countless ensuing experiments try to determine whether this deviation from theory is a statistical fluke, or – indeed – what we have is a different particle.

The best result for the physicists would be the discovery of a family of Higgs bosons – something that potentially could build the foundation for the explanation of dark matter. A discovery like this would keep everyone in business, both the theoreticists and experimentalists. Doubtless, all concerned (check with the physicist near you) secretly hope for it.

GOD PARTICLE?

And so be it! Regardless of the implications – the discovery is meaningful, fundamental, and conducive to further research – all constituents of good science.

What on earth makes this particle a “God particle”? Leon Lederman, a Nobel neutrino physicist, offered this misnomer in his 1993 book in order to bump the sales up (most pseudo intellectuals are easily tricked with godly names of common objects) but most people in the trade of physics resent the name passionately. “God” can mean many things depending on what is discussed, but divinity first and foremost implies a purpose to the existence of something, in this case the particle itself or to the existence of whatever it is that it spawns (mass of objects for the Higgs boson). It emphatically does no such thing!

The prediction for its existence was not revealed in anyone’s dream or during a Buddhist chant – it was a result of a rigorous calculation of a formally trained mathematical phycisist, a professor at the University of Edinburgh. Its experimental proof was not miraculously imbued into the heads of the people working at CERN either – it followed on the back of four years of hard work and 12 billion US dollars-worth of equipment.

To be fair, science does not rule out the existence of God.  The scientific method, however,  advances on the premise that no creator exists. Physicists do not look for purpose in their discoveries, which is typically a necessary attribute in theological pursuits. What they do instead is formulate physical laws and try to set up the experiments yielding results to support the claims of these laws. That’s it. Full stop. There is no god lurking around in the snares of the Higgs field.

New York, July 5, 2012

CERN Press Release:  HG CERN PR