BBC R4 had an interview this morning with two prof-types, prior to the LHC startup, and in a nod to the science they were asked for an analogy about how the Higgs particle (wot I don't believe in) produces mass. So they said (apparently this is a familiar idea): its like a cocktail party; if someone famous, for example Thatcher, moves through the guests, they get slowed down - given mass, effectively - as the guests, the Higgs, congregate around them. "Ah thank you", said the science reporter. "And good luck in your search for Margaret Thatcher". ""The guests, actually" said an aggrieved prof. Demonstrating that the science reporter hadn't understood a word of what they were saying. All he had understood is that Thatcher is famous, so is the Higgs, so they must the analogous bits.
Stoat
Taking science by the throat... climate, rowing, and misc.
Profile
My family and me.
More...
Make sure you're familiar with the Comment Policy
Confused by my constant use of abbreviations? Then you need the Glossary
Search
Recent Posts
- Amerika headed for theocracy?
- Grauniad hangwringing
- A testable prediction by a nutter
- Cold in Cambridge
- Chris Huhne
- Justice and Injustice
- Black to play
- RFS 9: Kill Hollywood
- Plan 8 from outer space
- I feel dirty
Recent Comments
- Phil Hays on Amerika headed for theocracy?
- David B. Benson on Amerika headed for theocracy?
- Steve Bloom on A testable prediction by a nutter
- Doug Cotton on Amerika headed for theocracy?
- JBL on A testable prediction by a nutter
- Eli Rabett on Grauniad hangwringing
- Steve Bloom on Amerika headed for theocracy?
- Hank Roberts on Amerika headed for theocracy?
- Sesli Chat on A testable prediction by a nutter
- Martin Vermeer on Grauniad hangwringing
Archives
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
Blogroll
- My personal blog
- Back Seat Driving
- Bryan's Blog
- CIP
- QS/DA
- Deltoid
- Eli t Rabett
- Jeb
- John Fleck
- Only In It For The Gold
- Real Climate
- RP Sr
- RP Jr
- Sagredo
- Some are Boojums
- My view on climate change (Bart)
- Science of Doom
- Timmy
Other Information
| Co-moderator of globalchange mailing list | Subscribe to globalchange |
| Browse at groups.google.com | |
« Nierenberg | Main | Inspired by the LHC switch-on »
Chasing God, or Margaret Thatcher
Category: implausible connections
Posted on: September 10, 2008 3:28 AM, by William M. Connolley
Find more posts in: 
Physical Science
Physical ScienceTrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/80770
Comments
To the reporters defense, I must say that the analouge suggests that the guest are given mass by Thatcher. As far as I know (as well as most of my unversed friends), the Higgs particle is supposed to "cause" mass , so to me aswell it sounds like Thatcher would be the Higgs particle.
I think the confusion is over more than fame here. Could some one perhaps clarify where I've gone wrong?
Posted by: stormen_per | September 10, 2008 4:27 AM
It took me a second read through to get it, but I think the main point of the anology is that the Thatcher is being given mass by the guests. In the same way that a partical is given mass by the Higgs partical.
It was a bit of a tricky one to get though.
Posted by: Lab Rat | September 10, 2008 5:41 AM
Analogies! Pah! It's not clear (to me) whether the guests are meant to be the Higgs boson or the Higgs field.
Anyway, if the guests were Labour Party activists on a freebie lunch in some House of Commons room set aside for such things, then there would be no interactions/talk (Higgs boson exchanges) between Thatcher (the fundamental particle) and the guests (who would then be a non-existent Higgs field as far as the fundamental particle was concerned) as she continued her journey from entrance to exit at the fastest possible velocity.
Posted by: P | September 10, 2008 6:19 AM
Drat! P is me.
And double drat!! You can't post again immediately!
Posted by: P. Lewis | September 10, 2008 6:21 AM
Of course! What you have are two Higgs fields. A zero Higgs field and a non-zero Higgs field. You can all work out the rest.
Posted by: P. Lewis | September 10, 2008 6:26 AM
I'm still trying to work out why they've got Andrew Marr to report from CERN, considering that he's a political journalist. I did wonder if he was out of his depth when he announced that there 'are lost of thirsty, hungry science people here'.
On the other hand - Torchwood is just starting, so who cares!
Posted by: MikeB | September 10, 2008 9:19 AM
MikeB: obviously a heavyweight politician requires a heavyweight political journo.
The BBC obviously mistakenly thought that MT was going to appear at CERN. Thing is, even if she (MT) does appear (well the "guests" actually -- but they are confused), it won't be until some time next year.
Posted by: P. Lewis | September 10, 2008 9:34 AM
I presume the italics were a direct quote, so the Higgs particles were explicitly stated as being the guests & giving mass to Thatcher.
Short of not paying attention, there's little to excuse the reporter, nor the above posters.
Posted by: rpsms | September 10, 2008 10:36 AM
No rpsms. It is not clear to me whether the people are the field or the boson (but then my knowledge of this is imperfect). I'd hold that "conversation" would be the boson and the people/guests are just representations of points in the field. Analogies, as always, are imperfect.
As to mistaking "guests" for "Thatcher", that is another matter.
Anyway, that wasn't really the point of my initial comment.
Posted by: P. Lewis | September 10, 2008 10:53 AM
Try "candidate" and "voters" -- each voter contributes one unit of mass to the candidate they choose?
That might explain why the political reporter's covering the Higgs -- to assess its gravitas.
Posted by: Hank Roberts | September 10, 2008 1:14 PM
Hmm... looks like an ambiguous pronoun antecedent to me.
Since Thatcher is neither royal not big enough to be plural, it's maybe more natural for "they" to refer to "guests".
[Good pedanting, well done. However I was just paraphrasing - the original was not ambiguous -W]
Posted by: pough | September 10, 2008 10:15 PM
Particle wave duality means that the guests are both higgs particles and the field that generates them.
Evil baby-eating bitch monster is given (black) mass.
Posted by: eddie | September 11, 2008 12:41 AM
pough; Ok. That was the problem for me, the fact that "they" referred to the "someone famous", not Thatcher, nor the guest.
Posted by: stormen_per | September 11, 2008 2:40 AM