The Higgs particle
It was misleading of The Times to entitle an article on the Higgs particle God Particle Found (July 5). Nowhere in the article do the words “God” or “God particle” occur. All the article deals with is the Higgs boson.
A sidebar in the same article has as a heading What Is The Higgs Boson? It simply explains what the Higgs boson is. There’s no mention of God whatsoever.
The Times has a responsibility to be accurate in its reporting. The headline of the article should have been Higgs Particle Found because that’s all that has actually been discovered at the Cern laboratories in Switzerland.
The origin of the phrase “god particle” goes back to 1993 when the American physicist Leon Lederman called the “Higgs particle” the “goddamn particle” because it was so hard to discover whether there was such a particle or not. Prof. Lederman’s publisher then went ahead and substituted the phrase “goddamn particle” with the phrase “god particle” as a sales-boosting title for Prof. Lederman’s book.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
8 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Gerry Cowie
Jul 28th 2012, 11:00
Thank you, edward. Again, more clarity would have avoided misunderstanding.
Gerry Cowie
Jul 27th 2012, 19:08
Edward Mallia, I am amused at your amusement.
What you wrote was what I commented on - any misunderstanding of your point is unfortunate.
The put down of Peter to which you refer was not because of his declaration of who Jesus was but at his attempt to prevent Jesus with going through with his death, hencde "Get behind me Satan!". If this is what you were referring to - and I suspect it was - then I have again commented based on what you have said.
Your advice is, I am sure, given for the kindest reasons and perhaps my advice to you would be to be a little more clear in what you are saying and why. Perhaps you wrote with tears of laughter in your eyes!
Edward Mallia
Jul 27th 2012, 22:23
Sorry Gerry, the put down started as Peter ended his declaration. Christ immediately pointed out that Peter's declaration had not been a result of some flash of genius on Peter's part, but came from His Father's inspiration. Peter heard only the first part - Blessed are thou Simon bar Jonah, but not the real reason for that blessedness. Which is why only a little later he was dictating to Christ what his future course of action should NOT be. Hence the final put-down. Your "suspicion" is therefore misplaced.
As for your comments coinciding with what I wrote, I did not write anything that could be interpreted by any stretch of a normal imagination that I was the disciple of Guillaumier. Nor did I 'attribute' the capital letter to somebody else; I simply said who had used it. I am not convinced that one's belief in God is really tested by one's use or misuse of capital letters. There are other more credible touchstones.
Am Camilleri
Jul 27th 2012, 17:23
The title may have been inaccurate but is wasn't misleading (and neither was the reporting inaccurate) - because those who have heard about the Higgs boson will know the phrase 'god particle' refers to it, even if they are not happy about that. Whilst I would bet it was more widely read by people who had not heard of the Higgs boson than if it had the title you suggest. Considering the content of the article, surely that was a good call by the reporters?
Gerry Cowie
Jul 27th 2012, 13:51
I would add that John Guillaumier's letter is in itself misleading - in that it is attempting to lead people away from the existence of God!
Gerry Cowie
Jul 27th 2012, 10:13
Thank you John! Well done for once again shoring up the beliefs of the Catholic population of Malta! You can always be relied upon to write against the God who made you. I feel sorry for you however that you have devoted your life to denying God!
Your disciple Edward Mallia is clearly mesmerized by your words! He quotes the name of GOD and then tries to attribute the capital letter to somebody else! How amusing! That is God making sure that He is not excluded from His own creation!
Let us continue to pray for athiests and secularists and humanists who continue to deny the existence of God and who are as incapable as any scientist of proving that there is no God!
Edward Mallia
Jul 27th 2012, 16:10
Dear Gerry --- I am hugely amused by your labelling me a disciple of John Guillaumier; I am not sure Guillaumier would take the same view, however. May I just point out that if one is commenting on any piece of writing one has to comment on what is actually written and not on what would have preferred or not preferred to be written. I quoted the name of g(G)od in the fashion quoted by Lederer and his publisher, given that I was commenting on just that point. By all means "continue to pray for atheists and secularists and humanists (where do I fit in this?) who continue to deny the existence of God and who are as incapable as any scientist of proving that there is no God!". But please remember that no Cowie, least of all one who lacks any sense of humour, can "prove" (in the ordinary meaning of that word) that there is a God. Given certain evidence and personal experience a Cowie or a Mallia or even a Guillaumier may come to believe ( again in the ordinary meaning of the word) in God, but belief and personal conviction is not proof. You may consider the palpable put-down of Peter at Cesarea Philippi after his declaration of who Christ was.
Edward Mallia
Jul 27th 2012, 09:18
Well done Mr. Guillaumier for telling us all we knew. To be consistent I suggest you write to both Leon Lederer and to his publisher: to Lederer to order him to stop taking the name of a non-existent god in vain, and by so doing give silly people the idea that there might be a god after all; to his publisher that he may stop using this non-existent God (publisher's capitals not mine) as a very clever sales pitch, designed to appeal to both the godly and the godless. The letters should be copied to Peter Higgs of course, as evidence that Guillaumier is giving credit where credit is due.
Please choose the reason of your report below: