Lederman wanted to call it "the goddamn particle," but the publisher wouldn't let him.
Dreaded Anomaly Send a noteboard - 15/06/2010 06:26:56 AM

i once pointed out to a guy i was in school with about how every time particle physicists can't quite explain something, they decide it must be done by an as-yet-to-be-discovered particle. he said there have been a few of those that were right so the theory must be working but i always found it to be kind of a cop-out. yeah, the math describes *something* but i can't believe that every damn thing has to have a particle (or multiple particles) attached to it. meh, if they find all 5 particles i'll be supremely impressed with them. but i'm sure they'll get close to finding one or two then decide that there are a few more particles that describe the particles they haven't found yet 

It worked the first couple times, so it became a panacea. If the detectors aren't finding it, we need a bigger detector; it doesn't prove the thing doesn't exist, because you can't prove a negative. But we know it's there because the theory requires it; you just have to have fai--oh crap, this may not be science any more....

You have to admit, the "God particle" is aptly named.

US experiment hints at 'multiple God particles'
15/06/2010 04:04:14 AM
- 812 Views
I minored in modern physics, which means, I have enough knowledge to be.....
15/06/2010 04:45:35 AM
- 407 Views
this has always bothered me about particle physicists....
15/06/2010 05:32:26 AM
- 439 Views
Yeah, always been my problem, too.
15/06/2010 05:44:30 AM
- 376 Views
Lederman wanted to call it "the goddamn particle," but the publisher wouldn't let him.
15/06/2010 06:26:56 AM
- 399 Views

Well, we've been pretty bad at name stuff
15/06/2010 08:52:09 AM
- 409 Views
"Giant radiating dyke swarms"?!!!
15/06/2010 05:57:11 PM
- 401 Views

It's more than a few right answers.
15/06/2010 06:26:35 AM
- 517 Views
did you go to school in wisconsin? cause you sound just like that guy
15/06/2010 07:07:49 AM
- 383 Views

Yet, when determining the measure for what a planet is, Pluto vanished from the list!
15/06/2010 07:14:28 AM
- 414 Views

right, but it's still out there in the same orbit with the same momentum and positioning
15/06/2010 08:45:43 AM
- 511 Views

It had to lose its status or you'd have to memorize several more planets
15/06/2010 08:57:20 AM
- 428 Views
y'all are screwing up my "uncertainty principle" joke dammit!
*NM*
15/06/2010 09:19:11 AM
- 170 Views

I was disappointed they didn't make all the dwarf planets into planet planets.
16/06/2010 01:00:51 PM
- 425 Views
As a physicist, I find this quite interesting.
16/06/2010 09:08:15 PM
- 519 Views
Not quite.
16/06/2010 09:57:18 PM
- 502 Views
Re: Not quite.
16/06/2010 10:22:14 PM
- 518 Views