Higgs boson: CERN scientists 99.999% sure new particle has been found

[BigApplePi]

No, a static field does not pulsate. Ever used a compass? Played with a magnet? Used anything with an electric motor in it? Magnetic fields can also pulsate, which my wife appreciated as she needed an MRI scan. Luckily the machine behaved as physics predicted it would.

This might be a matter of language. I googled "Electromagnetic Field."

From a classical perspective, the electromagnetic field can be regarded as a smooth, continuous field, propagated in a wavelike manner; whereas from the perspective of quantum field theory, the field is seen as quantized, being composed of individual particles.[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_field

I'm sorry but you're obfuscating and making simple things opaque.

Unfortunately I tend to do that ... until I can find a way to reverse it.

 

[MissQuote]

CHEERS CHEERS CHEERS to this!

You guys are silly with your arguing about it, btw. I didn't read all the posts but you are all still silly.

I can't wait to read all the stuff about it all. I'm not surprised that people cried at all, I was thrilled myself and not expecting this to happen for quite a while longer, just on my own speculations of the odds.

.........

 

[MissQuote]

Also, did somebody ask about why it is called "The God particle?"

Did anybody answer that?

Here is an answer:

The God Particle

Author(s) Leon M. Lederman, with Dick Teresi
Country United States
Language English
Genre(s) Physics
Publisher Dell Publishing
Publication date 1993
Media type Print (Hardback & Paperback)
ISBN ISBN 0-385-31211-3 (Original hardcover)
The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What is the Question? is a 1993 popular science book by Nobel Prize-winning physicist Leon M. Lederman and science writer Dick Teresi.
The book provides a brief history of particle physics, starting with the Pre-Socratic Greek philosopher Democritus, and continuing through Isaac Newton, Roger J. Boscovich, Michael Faraday, and Ernest Rutherford and quantum physics in the 20th century.
Lederman said he gave the Higgs boson the nickname "The God Particle" because the particle is "so central to the state of physics today, so crucial to our final understanding of the structure of matter, yet so elusive," but jokingly added that a second reason was because "the publisher wouldn't let us call it the Goddamn Particle, though that might be a more appropriate title, given its villainous nature and the expense it is causing."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Particle:_If_the_Universe_Is_the_Answer,_What_Is_the_Question?

 

[NinjaSurfer]

[...I'm not surprised that people cried at all,[...]

I would have laughed so hard

to see a scientist cry

 

[MissQuote]

Why?

 

[NinjaSurfer]

Why?

maybe I have what would be normally considered:

"a sick twisted sense of humor"

like watching Justin Bieber break his leg would bring me joy

although I will admit to liking some of his songs

yes, I said it.

 

[MissQuote]

I, too, have a sick and twisted sense of humor. But I think it may be sick and twisted in a very different direction than yours.

Breaking my own leg would be funny. Running out of gas and being stranded alone on a spooky mist filled highway at midnight with no phone would be absurdly amusing. Passionately confessing my love after over thinking myself into the idea that it must be done and being brutally rejected would be (was) hysterically hilarious.

My own errors, pretty much. Funniest things in the world.

 

[NinjaSurfer]

I, too, have a sick and twisted sense of humor. But I think it may be sick and twisted in a very different direction than yours.

Breaking my own leg would be funny. Running out of gas and being stranded alone on a spooky mist filled highway at midnight with no phone would be absurdly amusing. Passionately confessing my love after over thinking myself into the idea that it must be done and being brutally rejected would be (was) hysterically hilarious.

My own errors, pretty much. Funniest things in the world.

what a coincidence

your errors are rather hilarious to me as well



but how can one seriously be so self destructive? only in hindsight I imagine?

but it appears as though you are hoping for the occurrence of these things!?

no wai, I dun belief.

I can relate that looking on my misfortunes in hindsight are rather funny, but there is no way I really hope to be repeating them.

let's see-- I once chased a homeless man around the block because I was in a paranoid schizophrenic state of mind, I honestly thought the NSA was monitoring me and mistook the dumpster diver for an NSA agent. True story. It was really unwise of me to do so, but paranoia is very hard to explain when it seems so logical in the moment.

 

[BigApplePi]

Disgraced members of the 0.001% find themselves in a taxing situation.

 

[ummidk]

If I dropped enough apples, would one eventually fall up?

Yea

 

[Architect]

OK if we can stop trolling the thread for a moment ... a couple of points. First, notice that we haven't blown up the Earth or apparently created any black holes from the LHC. Plus one for science, minus one for ignorance.

Two, in case you were wondering what comes next, you can hopefully look forward to the ILC, now in the planning stages. Still needs funding, and we'll see what appetite people have for big science, but it looks interesting.

My first question was 'why a linear accelerator'? SLAC (Stanford Linear Accelerator) is the only linear I knew of, and that is old tech. We've predominantly used circular accelerators. I found the answer and answers to other interesting questions on this page.

 

[scorpiomover]

It means that in 100 years we went from understanding about atoms to their constituent parts and behaviors. This has been a remarkable run for science, the scope of what we know about matter now is really remarkable. To be able to peek into the quantum world, as impossible seeming and as strange as it is, to this degree of sophistication is wonderful. And it means that mankind, despite budget cuts and other priorities, is still pushing the limits of our knowledge and scope.

On the face of it, it doesn't seem that grand. But you have to put it in a little context and step back to understand how remarkable this is and how far we've come.

I understood all that.

We've also found that gastric bands seem to almost completely cure diabetes in many patients. That has got hardly any coverage, and certainly not in the first week of its discovery.

We are applauding an increase in understanding of a very microscopic of reality, and that's a good thing. But we are choosing to applaud it, when we ignore real major benefits to 346 million people world-wide.

Our priorities are out of whack, and when our priorities are out of whack, we normally don't use what we know successfully.

 

[Architect]

I understood all that.

We've also found that gastric bands seem to almost completely cure diabetes in many patients. That has got hardly any coverage, and certainly not in the first week of its discovery.

We are applauding an increase in understanding of a very microscopic of reality, and that's a good thing. But we are choosing to applaud it, when we ignore real major benefits to 346 million people world-wide.

Our priorities are out of whack, and when our priorities are out of whack, we normally don't use what we know successfully.

Sorry but I don't get it. You're unhappy that a 10 billion dollar machine which has worked and pushed the limits of our knowledge gets more press than gastric bands? I don't know what you expect of people. We hear about medical advances every day. Medical science is an information technology and I expect the information age is hitting with a vengeance in biology starting yesterday. The LHC is novel, and we primates seek out novelty.

Further I don't buy an ounce of it that this means our priorities are out of whack (we could discuss the economic theory behind that if you wish), and certainly not the sour-grapes attitude that somehow that means we'll misapply our findings. To be fair I used to have an attitude similar to this when I was younger. As I got older I found that view to be ... less useful.

Anyhow ... anybody hear about the other physicists who claim this might be a Higgs impostor? Attention grabbers, I say ...

 

[BigApplePi]

@SpaceYeti. Damn. I found my one page proof of that theorem I mentioned. I'll be damned if I understand myself what it says. The page is dated December 1957. Let's give it a try. Although there may be a way to state it informally and clearly, I'll start with the formal and try to translate it.

Formal: If X, a metric space is separable, C is a set in X which is closed, then there exists a perfect set P and another set A which is at most countable such that C = the union of P and A. That's it. I will have to look up some terms because I forget what they mean.

Metric space = think of it as, say, ordinary two dimensional space.

Closed set = a set containing all points such that no matter how close you get to that point, there is another point in that range in the set. Think of all points on and inside a circle.
Open set = every point in any range of a member is a member. Think of just the inside of the circle.
(Theorem: a set can't be both open and closed.)
Perfect set = a set equal to a closed set with no "stray" members.
Stray members are called isolation points which means no matter how close you get to that member, you won't find other members inside that range.

Separable set = every open (not closed) set inside has an element in common with some other set that can be matched up with the positive integers.
At most countable set = it's either finite or can be matched with the positive integers.

Informal: In space if you have a set that includes its boundaries, the worst that can happen is you have a solid set plus one that you can count. At this point one can ask, what's the big dea?. Apparently it is a big deal because in the proof I cited Lindelof's theorem twice and another theorem from page 22 of what book(?) as part of the proof.

If you think these proofs are easy, here's a theorem easy to understand: Every closed curve has an inside and an outside. Understandable? Yes, but the proof ain't easy. I've never read it. It's called the "Jordan Curve Theorem."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_curve_theorem

 

[BigApplePi]

OK if we can stop trolling the thread for a moment ... a couple of points. First, notice that we haven't blown up the Earth or apparently created any black holes from the LHC. Plus one for science, minus one for ignorance.

Re: New black holes. So far, so good. The ignoramuses trail by only two.

Two, in case you were wondering what comes next, you can hopefully look forward to the ILC, now in the planning stages. Still needs funding, and we'll see what appetite people have for big science, but it looks interesting.

Re: Funding. We can contribute our two cents.

My first question was 'why a linear accelerator'? SLAC (Stanford Linear Accelerator) is the only linear I knew of, and that is old tech. We've predominantly used circular accelerators. I found the answer and answers to other interesting questions on this page.

"A new era of discovery in particle physics has opened in September 2008 with the start-up of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, in Geneva, Switzerland. The LHC, a circular proton-proton synchrotron, will operate at the highest energies any particle accelerator has ever achieved. The International Linear Collider will explore the same energy range using a different approach. By colliding electrons with positrons, the International Linear Collider would provide results with extraordinary precision, enabling the exploration of unknown regions of science – the "Terascale""

 

[s0cratus]

In which reference frame the Higgs boson was found ?

 

[s0cratus]

Physics World: Planning the world's next collider
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/indepth/2012/jul/26/planning-the-worlds-next-collider

Comment.

The Sad Truth
If you cannot resolve the vacuum energy crisis,
if you cannot explain the fine structure constant,
if you cannot identify the dark matter,
if you cannot predict the masses of fundamental particles,
if you cannot explain why galaxies exist, or come in radically
different flavors like ellipticals and spirals,

then you do not know diddely-squat about the cosmos.

High-energy physicists are making it up as they go.
Here's a nice example: If you cannot find a free quark,
make it a "law" that they are hidden inside other particles (just so!).

It's all Ptolemaic epicycles in high-energy physics,
no matter how vociferously they sell it to a credulous public.

Robert L. Oldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity


==.

 

[BigApplePi]

Comment.

The Sad Truth
It's all Ptolemaic epicycles in high-energy physics,
no matter how vociferously they sell it to a credulous public.

Is there an alternative?

 

[s0cratus]

‘ In which reference frame the Higgs boson was found ? ‘
=.
Comment by Gary
=.
Hi Israel,

THAT is an excellent question. As members of this board,
we understand that there is no absolute reference frame.
But quantum mechanics assumes there is. I believe QM
is wrong in that respect. If the Higgs existed in an absolute
frame, then rest mass would vary with its speed relative
to that frame because of the Higgs field.

The same problem exists with virtual particles. The average
momentum of all those particles popping in and out of existence
must be zero, yes? So how could an observer in another frame
see virtual particles with zero average momentum, too?

There aren't any easy solutions to these problems.

Gary

 

[Jedi]

I'm sure the good people of Darfur would love to hear of this news.

Fuck science.

 

[Architect]

I'm sure the good people of Darfur would love to hear of this news.

Fuck science.

Ah yes, brilliant.

• LHC is why Darfur suffers
• If LHC wasn't operating, Darfur would be a modern paradise
• If only we didn't do science, we wouldn't have humanitarian crisis
• Science only leads to the degradation of humanity, not the opposite
• Science only leads to the poverty of humanity, it doesn't contribute to its wealth
• Rich scientists and engineers, such as Bill Gates, don't give their wealth to humanitarian causes

Und so weite ... idiot.

 

[Jedi]

Ah yes, brilliant.

• LHC is why Darfur suffers
• If LHC wasn't operating, Darfur would be a modern paradise
• If only we didn't do science, we wouldn't have humanitarian crisis
• Science only leads to the degradation of humanity, not the opposite
• Science only leads to the poverty of humanity, it doesn't contribute to its wealth
• Rich scientists and engineers, such as Bill Gates, don't give their wealth to humanitarian causes

Und so weite ... idiot.

Calm down moron, I was as interested in this elusive 'god particle' as much as the next guy, until every pseudo-intellectual came out of the woodwork to remind me of this next great leap forward in science without any real knowledge of the subject at hand. Perhaps if the average American were as interested in genocide as they were in the latest yahoo news article the world wouldn't be so fucked. Perhaps if science focused more on feeding the malnourished with genetically modified foods instead of proving a half century old theory so many people wouldn't be dead.

And so on...

 

[s0cratus]

I wrote my opinion about LHC in 2008.
==.

- The mad CERN’s way.
14 Sep 2008 16:14 GMT

by Israel Sadovnik Socratus
http://www.spacekb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/astronomy/13338/The-mad-CERN-s-project
====..

 

[BigApplePi]

Guys. If you compliment me I will be pleased. If you give me a derogatory name, there is a risk I will take offense and it will distract me from the real topic.

Science and humanities hopefully operate together. If they don't, one is not likely to lead to the demise of the other as these are separate interests. If they do conflict with each other, that might be examined on an individual basis.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Perhaps if science focused more on feeding the malnourished with genetically modified foods instead of proving a half century old theory so many people wouldn't be dead.

And so on...

I agree in terms of capital and labor, though funds don't come from just one source so it's hard to really argue against such a thing.

The different interest groups really decide where efforts are driven and where progress will be made.

 

[s0cratus]

The Higgs Boson May Have 'Five Faces'

And they've come up with a doozy:
maybe there isn't just one Higgs boson
(the as-yet-undiscovered subatomic particle believed to impart mass);
maybe, instead, there are five different versions,
with similar masses but different electric charges.

http://news.discovery.com/space/the-higgs-boson-may-have-five-faces.html

==.
Maybe now we have 5 bosons , . . . . maybe more . . .?
==.

 

[s0cratus]

Physicists searched for one boson and found 5 different bosons.
Who will say now: ‘God Does Not Play Dice’ ?
=.

 

[Lostwitheal]

I find it hilarious when people start spouting stuff like:

"They're making it up as they go along! It's all BS!"
"That's all well and good, but it's useless. (In Bono voice) Think of the starvin' children!!"
"They may have found this, but it doesn't explain that. They don't know WTF they're talking about!!!"

Firstly, it's the nature of science to constantly refine itself as new data comes in. It's not dogmatic. It's not like every time they discover something new there's a huge backtrack and an "Ermagerd, we were so wrong!" They mostly just tweak the theory a bit so it fits the new data and move on. The end result is a more accurate model of reality. Note that I said more accurate, not absolutely accurate. We don't know anywhere near everything yet, which is why we're trying to learn. Newton's interpretation of gravity being wrong didn't stop us being able to send men to the moon using his equations. Hell, even his equations are wrong, but they're still accurate enough to be able to do that.

Secondly, useless? I'm not sure any knowledge about how reality works can be useless. I suppose if a sufficiently accurate model of the universe and a unified theory of gravity lead to functional fusion reactors, giving humanity practically limitless, cheap energy, then they'd still be useless? Think of all the sea water you could desalinate and give to people to drink. Nah, I guess you're right, Africa wouldn't be interested. Detroit, on the other hand..

Lastly, everyone's fully aware that there's stuff we don't yet understand. That's why we're spending huge amounts of money on mahoosive particle colliders in order to get more data and a better understanding, I imagine.

Just my 2 cents. Am looking forward to the next breakthrough

 

[s0cratus]

Concerning CERN:
Cliff Burgess on the discovery of the Higgs boson
http://phys.org/news/2012-07-cern-cliff-burgess-discovery-higgs.html
===…
My comment.
Dirac was one of the first who said how vacuum is important.
" The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t correctly
describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description
of something more complex? "
/ Paul Dirac ./
And Cliff Burgess ( himself a theoretical particle physicist
and professor of physics and astronomy ) forgot Dirac name.

In 1928 Dirac said that ‘ virtual particles’ exist in vacuum
but until now we don’t know their essence.
Why?
Because as ‘a theoretical particle physicist and professor
of physics and astronomy’ said :
‘Suppose you were interested in the properties of fish and how
they move and why some fish move faster than others given
the same amount of effort. This would be very hard if you
did not understand what water was.
In order to understand properly the motion of fish, you must first
also understand the environment through which they move.’
=.
It means that to know properties of fish- particles at first we need
to understand environment – VACUUM through which the
fish- particles move.
=.
But today.
Today physicists refuse to take vacuum as a real conception
as a fundament of Universe.
Book : ‘Dreams of a final theory’
by Steven Weinberg. Page 138.
‘ It is true . . . there is such a thing as absolute zero; we cannot
reach temperatures below absolute zero not because we are not
sufficiently clever but because temperatures below absolute zero
simple have no meaning.’
/ Steven Weinberg. The Nobel Prize in Physics 1979 /
=.
Therefore theoretical physics full with abstractions and puzzles.
P.S.
The most fundamental question facing 21st century physics will be:
What is the vacuum? As quantum mechanics teaches us, with
its zero point energy this vacuum is not empty and the word
vacuum is a gross misnomer!
/ Prof. Friedwardt Winterberg /
==.

 

[Lostwitheal]

Kinda reminds me of this which I wrote a while ago. Just posted it on the forum for easy reading:

http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?p=304107#post304107

 

[Jedi]

I find it hilarious when people start spouting stuff like:

"They're making it up as they go along! It's all BS!"
"That's all well and good, but it's useless. (In Bono voice) Think of the starvin' children!!"
"They may have found this, but it doesn't explain that. They don't know WTF they're talking about!!!"

Yes, quite hilarious. (In regular voice)

 

[Polaris]

http://flowingdata.com/2012/07/04/higgs-boson-explained-by-phd-comics/

Just found this great little PhDcomic on the FlowingData website recommended by Esc.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

http://flowingdata.com/2012/07/04/higgs-boson-explained-by-phd-comics/

Just found this great little PhDcomic on the FlowingData website recommended by Esc.

Someone already linked it:
http://intpforum.com/showpost.php?p=298517&postcount=31

 

[s0cratus]

Higgs particle + Higgs Field = Higgs Ocean.

The Ocean Of Spacetime And The Higgs
http://www.science20.com/big_science_gambles/the_ocean_of_spacetime_and_the_higgs

Swimming in the Higgs Ocean
http://www.cosi.org/cosi-blog/item/swimming-in-the-higgs-ocean

==..
‘ Higgs Ocean ‘ is a Frame of Reference.
Is ‘ Higgs Ocean ‘ an ‘open’ or ‘closed’ system ?
Is ‘ Higgs Ocean ‘ a ‘hot’ or ‘cold’ system ?
Does ‘ Higgs Ocean ‘ have the cosmic microwave background
radiationparameter T=2,7K ?

 

[walfin]

Now that the LHC has outlived its usefulness some other thing is gonna have to be built...

 

[redbaron]