Describe this moon that is no moon: Well, imagine the Death Star is like a ball of cake . . .
That’s no moon … oh wait, Star Wars is off the table for this description? F R A C
Being a science and technology writer for an audience of limited time and mental space can be a challenge. That is why there is the ever present Twinkie, cake and ocean of stars descriptions that bring howls from actual scientists.
Writers craft a description to oversimplify things like the Higgs-Boson Particle for the masses. The Higgs-Boson, which England’s Mr. Higgs – and his apparent lesser partner who was left off the title of the Higgs-Boson, Mr. Francois Englert, of Belgium – just won a Nobel prize in physics for the discovery of a particle that shows how mass forms and bonds via electron particles in molecules.
Enter the description of “The God Particle.” That should do it right. That show exactly what this Higgs-Boson thing is that we have absolutely no art or photo to depict. G O D that should say it all. The particle that G O D himself struck down like a thunderbolt from the heavens and made all things sticky to come together in some shape or form.
Except it is not true.
It is not a “God Particle.”
It is now just another part of physics. A somewhat answer to particle existence that, more than likely, within a teenager of today’s lifespan will change. The Hubble Constant, or how the universe expands throughout space, has changed about every decade or so since I have been alive.
The one thing constant about Edwin Hubble’s math and theory of constant expansion is that it is constantly being revised.
If anybody has ever tried to craft these explanations from the big brains who theorize the concepts it comes down to … mostly cake. Yep, the sweet goodness of cake. That is the shorthand way of explaining all things scientific – eggs, butter, flour, sugar, and stirring the universe’s pot.
Editor: Give me 500 words on what this God Boson means to common people and explain how it all relates to the universe as a whole.
Reporter (looking at watch thinking of dinner): Sure.
“Imagine the universe is a giant sheet cake with a thin layer of chocolate and red velvet applied on top and the spongy opening parts of the cake are galaxies then imagine that cake … (insert some incredible number given to you by an MIT type) and before you can pop off to the coffee shop you understand how incredibly large the universe is to good ole Earth.
Add electrical impulses to this and BOOM there is mass. That 1964 theory is what will net Mr. Peter Higgs, and his lesser partner from Belgium Mr. Francois Englert a Noble Prize.”
This proves one thing: Journalists think constantly about food and drink.
Here’s what I would want to write: “Say the universe is spread before you like a chasm of waiting electrical vibrations. Then imagine that moment when thrust collides with the power greater than that of the universe to insert a blast of white hot plasma, and then imagine that endorphic feel every millisecond and that is what the God Particle is – creation at the subatomic level binding atoms from babies to cakes and zebras.”
This proves I would be thinking about cake, food and sex.
Forming descriptions to simply impart major concepts like time and space and dimensions is awful. Writers do it daily, and most fail.
The truth is the universe is not bound together by electrons, it is held together by a wand of bright light on top of a multiverse tower somewhere which is in itself part of a fiery ring of power.
It is just that nobody knows that, yet.