Higgs Boson Discovered?! - Page 5

MattusMaximus · 4th July 2012, 08:57 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/co...5806418_n.jpeg

Wowbagger · 4th July 2012, 10:29 PM

I joke I stole from Slashdot:

The Superconducting Super Collider in Texas probably would have found the Higgs Boson first, if only it was funded as the "God Particle Gun", instead.

Lennart Hyland · 5th July 2012, 02:16 AM

http://www.idolol.com/pictures/fec33...a1feb8e6b7.jpg

ynot · 5th July 2012, 02:17 AM

The Higgs Boson lives - All hail the Higgs Boson

xtifr · 5th July 2012, 02:46 AM

Ok, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the thing that makes the Higgs so important simply that it's the only particle predicted by the SM that hadn't yet been found? And this discovery basically elevates SM to the same status as GR--a theory that's withstood every test we could throw at it?

I mean, it's nice to know that it has something to do with some form of mass, but that's not really why this is such a big discovery, is it? It's not the HB itself; it's the fact that it's the last piece of the puzzle. (At least within the domain the SM covers.)

Cuddles · 5th July 2012, 07:35 AM

Originally Posted by xtifr

Ok, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the thing that makes the Higgs so important simply that it's the only particle predicted by the SM that hadn't yet been found?

Sort of. Ultimately, it's not actually about a specific particle at all, but about symmetries. The standard model in it's basic form has certain symmetries which result in predictions that don't actually agree with observations. In order to get the theory to match things like the mass of certain particles, you need to add some way that the symmetry is broken. The Higgs mechanism adds an extra field (the theory is actually made up of fields, see here) into the SM which allows breaking of the symmetry in the correct way to get the masses for the W and Z gauge bosons that we actually observe.

So it's not just a question of there being a missing particle, this is essentially a test of the fundamental basis of the whole theory. Without the Higgs mechanism the entire standard model just makes no sense at all, so if we don't see the extra particle it also predicts the whole thing pretty much falls apart.

Quote:

And this discovery basically elevates SM to the same status as GR--a theory that's withstood every test we could throw at it?

Sadly not. Even with the Higgs, the standard model is known to be seriously flawed. The standard model doesn't even attempt to cover gravity, it can't explain dark matter, it fails badly at explaining dark energy, it fails at explaining the matter/antimatter imbalance, and so on. In fact, it's not even proven to be mathematically consistent. Relativity has some trouble at certain extreme scales, but the rest of the time it seems to be pretty much a perfect match to reality. The standard model just plain doesn't work. It's the best we can do so far, but we know it's not even close to complete.

Quote:

I mean, it's nice to know that it has something to do with some form of mass, but that's not really why this is such a big discovery, is it? It's not the HB itself; it's the fact that it's the last piece of the puzzle. (At least within the domain the SM covers.)

Discovering new fundamental particles is pretty big news that tends to result in Nobel prizes. The W and Z resulted in Nobel prizes, neutrinos resulted in Nobel prizes, the tao resulted in Nobel prizes, quarks resulted in Nobel prizes. In fact, the only ones that didn't are photons and electrons, since we already knew about them, and muons, where one of the discoverers had only just got a Nobel prize that year anyway. So yeah, discovering a new fundamental particle really is pretty important stuff just on its own.

Belz... · 5th July 2012, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Oz

Many bosons died to bring us this information.

Star Wars jokes are always the best.

Tubbythin · 5th July 2012, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by Cuddles

The W and Z resulted in Nobel prizes, neutrinos resulted in Nobel prizes, the tao resulted in Nobel prizes, quarks resulted in Nobel prizes. In fact, the only ones that didn't are photons and electrons, since we already knew about them, and muons, where one of the discoverers had only just got a Nobel prize that year anyway. So yeah, discovering a new fundamental particle really is pretty important stuff just on its own.

I don't think one was awarded for the discovery of the gluon.

xtifr · 5th July 2012, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by Cuddles

Sadly not. Even with the Higgs, the standard model is known to be seriously flawed. The standard model doesn't even attempt to cover gravity, it can't explain dark matter, it fails badly at explaining dark energy, it fails at explaining the matter/antimatter imbalance, and so on.

But GR doesn't explain any of those things either (with the possible exception of dark energy). It seems to me that all of those (with the possible exception of the matter/antimatter imbalance) are outside the domain of the standard model. And yes, we'll need a new model at some point to explain all that, but then we'll most likely need a quantum gravity model to supercede GR at some point as well, and GR may need some adjustments to deal with dark energy.

There's a difference, in my mind at least, between being incomplete and being incorrect. GR and the standard model both seem incomplete to me (the degree isn't so much of an issue--incomplete is incomplete), but both seem to be basically confirmed now within their domains.

Quote:

In fact, it's not even proven to be mathematically consistent.

Ah, well, that's more of an issue, I suppose. Of course, GR's more classical model, which actually makes it more dubious as a theory, is easier to achieve mathematical consistency with. It doesn't have anywhere near as many fiddly little arbitrary numbers that are hard to measure precisely. But GR still has problems with dividing by zero (singularities) and with increasing acceleration (Dark Energy).

But that's still a good point.

BobK · 5th July 2012, 02:36 PM

Stephen Wolfram has an interesting article at The Reference Frame giving his thoughts on the progression of particle physics and where he thinks it might be going.

not_so_new · 5th July 2012, 03:25 PM

My personal favorite joke to come out of this....

http://boingboing.net/2012/07/05/its...Boing+Boing%29

ben m · 5th July 2012, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by BobK

Stephen Wolfram has an interesting article at The Reference Frame giving his thoughts on the progression of particle physics and where he thinks it might be going.

Yikes. Here's my reading of that article:

Originally Posted by Shorter Wolfram

In my youth, I myself made modest contributions to the Standard Model, but I ultimately found the whole business somewhat beneath me. I'm glad that some people stuck with it, and I congratulate them on their old-fashioned and basically-non-visionary grunt work. In the meantime, my giant self-published manifesto, A New Kind Of Science, is clearly deeper and more important than any of this and may have already replaced all of science.

anduin · 5th July 2012, 04:27 PM

Every time a journalist says "God Particle", Schrödinger maybe kills a kitten.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6...e6zto1_400.jpg

Orphia Nay · 5th July 2012, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by not_so_new

My personal favorite joke to come out of this....

http://boingboing.net/2012/07/05/its...Boing+Boing%29

Love it!

Orphia Nay · 5th July 2012, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by Tubbythin

Can I bet on who will win this/next year's Nobel prize in physics?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-18702455

Quote:

Prof Stephen Hawking joined in with an opinion on a topic often discussed in hushed tones.

"This is an important result and should earn Peter Higgs the Nobel Prize," he told BBC News.

BirdyBuddy · 5th July 2012, 08:35 PM

My apologies if it's already been posted...

Orphia Nay · 5th July 2012, 08:47 PM

Awww.

a_unique_person · 6th July 2012, 02:55 AM

An 'explanation' of mass said that there are Higgs Bosons everywhere, creating the Higgs field that creates mass. However, the Higgs Boson has an incredibly short life span, before it 'transmutates' into other particles.

How does that work?

Turgor · 6th July 2012, 03:23 AM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

An 'explanation' of mass said that there are Higgs Bosons everywhere, creating the Higgs field that creates mass. However, the Higgs Boson has an incredibly short life span, before it 'transmutates' into other particles.

How does that work?

I am a layman, but it's my understanding that it is the interactions with the Higgs field that give particles mass. A free Higgs boson can only come about by exciting the Higgs field with enough energy to produce one.

a_unique_person · 6th July 2012, 05:17 AM

Originally Posted by Turgor

I am a layman, but it's my understanding that it is the interactions with the Higgs field that give particles mass. A free Higgs boson can only come about by exciting the Higgs field with enough energy to produce one.

Is it the field that creates the bosons? I thought that the particles, like the electron, created the field.

Is the Higgs field like some kind of aether?

Farsight · 6th July 2012, 05:29 AM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

An 'explanation' of mass said that there are Higgs Bosons everywhere, creating the Higgs field that creates mass. However, the Higgs Boson has an incredibly short life span, before it 'transmutates' into other particles.

How does that work?

It doesn't. The Higgs mechanism is said to do be responsible for mass, but take a look at A Zeptospace Odyssey: A Journey into the Physics of the LHC. It’s by Gian Francesco Giudice, a CERN physicist. There's a search-inside on Amazon. If you search on Higgs sector you can read pages 173 through 175. He starts by saying: “The most inappropriate name ever given to the Higgs boson is 'The God particle'. The name gives the impression that the Higgs boson is the central particle of the Standard Model, governing its structure. But this is very far from the truth.” He also says the Higgs mechanism is “the toilet” of the standard model, and is “frightfully ad-hoc”. On page 174 he says: “It is sometimes said that the discovery of the Higgs boson will explain the mystery of the origin of mass. This statement requires a good deal of qualification.” He ends up saying “In summary, the Higgs mechanism accounts for about 1 per cent of the mass of ordinary matter, and for only 0.2 per cent of the mass of the universe. This is not nearly enough to justify the claim of explaining the origin of mass.”

The CERN press office don't correct the garbage you read because it suits them if you think this is something more important than it is. E=mc² is responsible for mass. If you heat a container of gas, you increase its mass. If you trap a massless photon in a box, you increase the mass of the system.

a_unique_person · 6th July 2012, 05:53 AM

It's hardly ad hoc if it's pretty well what they predicted it would be.

Perpetual Student · 6th July 2012, 06:21 AM

Farsight:
It's sad. First you make a very reasonable statement, while quoting Francesco Giudice's reasoned comments. Then conclude with the absurd comment that "E = mc² is responsible for mass." An equation is responsible for mass? Energy is responsible for mass? Does that comment have any meaning? Is sinθ₁/sinθ₂= n responsible for refraction?

sol invictus · 6th July 2012, 06:49 AM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Is it the field that creates the bosons? I thought that the particles, like the electron, created the field.

There's a sense in which the background Higgs field is a collection of Higgs particles in a Bose condensate. But it's probably better to think of it as a sort of aether, except that it's an aether that has no rest frame (i.e. it looks the same to all observers, regardless of their state of motion).

The Higgs particles that LHC produced are like excitations (waves, or ripples) of that aether. They decay quickly to other particles.

Cuddles · 6th July 2012, 08:39 AM

Originally Posted by xtifr

But GR doesn't explain any of those things either (with the possible exception of dark energy). It seems to me that all of those (with the possible exception of the matter/antimatter imbalance) are outside the domain of the standard model. And yes, we'll need a new model at some point to explain all that, but then we'll most likely need a quantum gravity model to supercede GR at some point as well, and GR may need some adjustments to deal with dark energy.

There's a difference, in my mind at least, between being incomplete and being incorrect. GR and the standard model both seem incomplete to me (the degree isn't so much of an issue--incomplete is incomplete), but both seem to be basically confirmed now within their domains.

The difference is that GR doesn't try to explain any of those things. GR is basically a theory of gravity and motion. It says nothing whatsoever about what things might exist to obey its rules, it just says what those rules are. The standard model, on the other hand, is basically a theory that tells us what particles should exist. Dark matter is presumed to be made of particles, but the SM tells us there shouldn't be any more particles left. Gravity is often presumed (or at least hoped) to behave similarly to the other forces and therefore be described as a field with associated particles, but the SM just can't do it. Matter/anti-matter imbalance is a big one, because that's exactly the sort of thing all the symmetries and symmetry breaking should predict, but we just can't get a prediction that matches the amounts we actually see.

The standard model simply doesn't predict, or gets badly wrong, many of the things that it absolutely should predict. It's not a question of not quite being complete or not giving answers to things it's not designed to answer, it's just very much a broken theory that can't deal with many of the big questions in particle physics. It's good enough to be fairly useful up to a point, but it goes way past the "might need a bit of refining in extreme cases" of something like GR.

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Is it the field that creates the bosons? I thought that the particles, like the electron, created the field.

Is the Higgs field like some kind of aether?

See here. The standard model is a field theory. The Higgs field is nothing special, it's just one of many fields that make up the theory. It's no more aether than electromagnetism or the strong force.

lionking · 6th July 2012, 09:32 PM

The big guy puts things in context:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-particle.html

Quote:

First off, they’re all My particles, OK? I made every last one of them, from the hunky handsome proton to the waifish, Starbucks-named neutrino. So when you attach My name only to the Higgs boson you insult the decillions of quarks, leptons, gluons, and all the other “little particles” without whose hard work and collaborative spirit the universe would cease to exist, at least with the same brio.

Off topic, but funny.

Orphia Nay · 6th July 2012, 09:43 PM

That makes me feel better.

BowlOfRed · 6th July 2012, 10:32 PM

Originally Posted by Ocelot

And Comic Sans

Since it was mentioned...
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/sh...s-at-cern.html

a_unique_person · 7th July 2012, 01:55 AM

Originally Posted by Cuddles

The difference is that GR doesn't try to explain any of those things. GR is basically a theory of gravity and motion. It says nothing whatsoever about what things might exist to obey its rules, it just says what those rules are. The standard model, on the other hand, is basically a theory that tells us what particles should exist. Dark matter is presumed to be made of particles, but the SM tells us there shouldn't be any more particles left. Gravity is often presumed (or at least hoped) to behave similarly to the other forces and therefore be described as a field with associated particles, but the SM just can't do it. Matter/anti-matter imbalance is a big one, because that's exactly the sort of thing all the symmetries and symmetry breaking should predict, but we just can't get a prediction that matches the amounts we actually see.

The standard model simply doesn't predict, or gets badly wrong, many of the things that it absolutely should predict. It's not a question of not quite being complete or not giving answers to things it's not designed to answer, it's just very much a broken theory that can't deal with many of the big questions in particle physics. It's good enough to be fairly useful up to a point, but it goes way past the "might need a bit of refining in extreme cases" of something like GR.

See here. The standard model is a field theory. The Higgs field is nothing special, it's just one of many fields that make up the theory. It's no more aether than electromagnetism or the strong force.

If we don't know what dark matter is, maybe it is one of the existing particles? Could gravity be explained with the existing set of particles, but we just don't know it yet? Do we call Newtonian physics a failure because it doesn't include relativity, or was it just an iteration in our progress of advancing knowledge?

lionking · 7th July 2012, 02:15 AM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Could gravity be explained with the existing set of particles, but we just don't know it yet?

Isn't that the postulated graviton? I would like to know the progress in discovering this particle.

Tubbythin · 7th July 2012, 02:18 AM

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-18702455

I don't think I'm sticking my neck out with that prediction.
Incidentally, I wonder what would have happened if a CMS/ATLAS scientist had put on such a bet just before the announcement?

ben m · 7th July 2012, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by lionking

Isn't that the postulated graviton? I would like to know the progress in discovering this particle.

We can invent the name "graviton", we can say "to explain gravity it has to be massless, spin-2 and couple to mass", and ... well, things sort of peter out there. There's no single coherent theory of the graviton, not like there is for Higgs or photon or gluon interactions.

Insofar as we can guess what the graviton's properties are, no one is searching for it. It's utterly inaccessible to experiments as far as I know.

Interestingly, there *are* sensible hypotheses which combine supersymmetry---an extension of the Standard Model---with gravity, generally in a string-theory context. In these theories, the graviton has a stable, heavy superpartner, called the gravitino, which might be amenable to searches at the LHC, and could be a component of the dark matter.

Skeptic Ginger · 7th July 2012, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w...sflowchart.jpg

That makes me feel better.

That's hilarious.

Skeptic Ginger · 7th July 2012, 12:57 PM

Can anyone answer another lay person's question in lay language: I'm reading now that the "measurements seem to diverge slightly from what would be expected". Having only the vaguest clue why drag matters, I can't make sense of the Net explanations on just what differs and why it matters.

Puppycow · 8th July 2012, 02:26 AM

I'm sure that everyone here has been waiting with bated breath for Deepak Chopra to weigh in on the significance of the Higgs boson. So without further ado:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

sol invictus · 8th July 2012, 05:13 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Can anyone answer another lay person's question in lay language: I'm reading now that the "measurements seem to diverge slightly from what would be expected". Having only the vaguest clue why drag matters, I can't make sense of the Net explanations on just what differs and why it matters.

"drag"?

tsig · 8th July 2012, 06:42 AM

Originally Posted by bpesta22

The father, the boson, and the holy spirit.

The boson of god has a nice ring to it.

If the boson got married the significant other would be a boson's mate.

tsig · 8th July 2012, 06:49 AM

Originally Posted by anduin

Every time a journalist says "God Particle", Schrödinger maybe kills a kitten.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6...e6zto1_400.jpg

Actually he refuses to open the box thereby condemning the cat to an eternal half-life.

Skeptic Ginger · 8th July 2012, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by sol invictus

"drag"?

That's how the action of the boson is being described. Feel free to correct me.

Perpetual Student · 8th July 2012, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by tsig

If the boson got married the significant other would be a boson's mate.

When they go for a ride, he should be careful not to take his mate for less than a whole spin.

4th July 2012, 08:57 PM	#161
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 14,175	Originally Posted by Puppycow http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/co...5806418_n.jpeg
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher The Times They Are A-Changin'

4th July 2012, 10:29 PM	#162
Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space) Posts: 13,524	I joke I stole from Slashdot: The Superconducting Super Collider in Texas probably would have found the Higgs Boson first, if only it was funded as the "God Particle Gun", instead.
	__________________ WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ An open conference on science and skepticism, where *you* could be a presenter! By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!

5th July 2012, 02:16 AM	#163
Lennart Hyland Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 349	http://www.idolol.com/pictures/fec33...a1feb8e6b7.jpg
	__________________ L.H 1919 - 1993 R.I.P Unfortunately the 911truth movement web site does not allow any opinions contrary to their own, or I would have presented my views. David Scott - CTBUH Chairman

5th July 2012, 02:17 AM	#164
ynot Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 4,650	The Higgs Boson lives - All hail the Higgs Boson
	__________________ Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. My post are all (IMO) unless stated otherwise.

5th July 2012, 02:46 AM	#165
xtifr Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Sol III Posts: 563	Ok, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the thing that makes the Higgs so important simply that it's the only particle predicted by the SM that hadn't yet been found? And this discovery basically elevates SM to the same status as GR--a theory that's withstood every test we could throw at it? I mean, it's nice to know that it has something to do with some form of mass, but that's not really why this is such a big discovery, is it? It's not the HB itself; it's the fact that it's the last piece of the puzzle. (At least within the domain the SM covers.)
	__________________ "Those who learn from history are doomed to watch others repeat it." -- Anonymous Slashdot poster "The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore." -- James Nicoll

5th July 2012, 07:35 AM	#166
Cuddles Decoy Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies Posts: 16,586	Originally Posted by xtifr Ok, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the thing that makes the Higgs so important simply that it's the only particle predicted by the SM that hadn't yet been found? Sort of. Ultimately, it's not actually about a specific particle at all, but about symmetries. The standard model in it's basic form has certain symmetries which result in predictions that don't actually agree with observations. In order to get the theory to match things like the mass of certain particles, you need to add some way that the symmetry is broken. The Higgs mechanism adds an extra field (the theory is actually made up of fields, see here) into the SM which allows breaking of the symmetry in the correct way to get the masses for the W and Z gauge bosons that we actually observe. So it's not just a question of there being a missing particle, this is essentially a test of the fundamental basis of the whole theory. Without the Higgs mechanism the entire standard model just makes no sense at all, so if we don't see the extra particle it also predicts the whole thing pretty much falls apart. Quote: And this discovery basically elevates SM to the same status as GR--a theory that's withstood every test we could throw at it? Sadly not. Even with the Higgs, the standard model is known to be seriously flawed. The standard model doesn't even attempt to cover gravity, it can't explain dark matter, it fails badly at explaining dark energy, it fails at explaining the matter/antimatter imbalance, and so on. In fact, it's not even proven to be mathematically consistent. Relativity has some trouble at certain extreme scales, but the rest of the time it seems to be pretty much a perfect match to reality. The standard model just plain doesn't work. It's the best we can do so far, but we know it's not even close to complete. Quote: I mean, it's nice to know that it has something to do with some form of mass, but that's not really why this is such a big discovery, is it? It's not the HB itself; it's the fact that it's the last piece of the puzzle. (At least within the domain the SM covers.) Discovering new fundamental particles is pretty big news that tends to result in Nobel prizes. The W and Z resulted in Nobel prizes, neutrinos resulted in Nobel prizes, the tao resulted in Nobel prizes, quarks resulted in Nobel prizes. In fact, the only ones that didn't are photons and electrons, since we already knew about them, and muons, where one of the discoverers had only just got a Nobel prize that year anyway. So yeah, discovering a new fundamental particle really is pretty important stuff just on its own.
	__________________ I am not a little teapot.

5th July 2012, 09:11 AM	#167
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,511	Originally Posted by Robert Oz Many bosons died to bring us this information. Star Wars jokes are always the best.
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

5th July 2012, 09:50 AM	#168
Tubbythin Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,206	Originally Posted by Cuddles The W and Z resulted in Nobel prizes, neutrinos resulted in Nobel prizes, the tao resulted in Nobel prizes, quarks resulted in Nobel prizes. In fact, the only ones that didn't are photons and electrons, since we already knew about them, and muons, where one of the discoverers had only just got a Nobel prize that year anyway. So yeah, discovering a new fundamental particle really is pretty important stuff just on its own. I don't think one was awarded for the discovery of the gluon.
Tubbythin Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,206

5th July 2012, 11:56 AM	#169
xtifr Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Sol III Posts: 563	Originally Posted by Cuddles Sadly not. Even with the Higgs, the standard model is known to be seriously flawed. The standard model doesn't even attempt to cover gravity, it can't explain dark matter, it fails badly at explaining dark energy, it fails at explaining the matter/antimatter imbalance, and so on. But GR doesn't explain any of those things either (with the possible exception of dark energy). It seems to me that all of those (with the possible exception of the matter/antimatter imbalance) are outside the domain of the standard model. And yes, we'll need a new model at some point to explain all that, but then we'll most likely need a quantum gravity model to supercede GR at some point as well, and GR may need some adjustments to deal with dark energy. There's a difference, in my mind at least, between being incomplete and being incorrect. GR and the standard model both seem incomplete to me (the degree isn't so much of an issue--incomplete is incomplete), but both seem to be basically confirmed now within their domains. Quote: In fact, it's not even proven to be mathematically consistent. Ah, well, that's more of an issue, I suppose. Of course, GR's more classical model, which actually makes it more dubious as a theory, is easier to achieve mathematical consistency with. It doesn't have anywhere near as many fiddly little arbitrary numbers that are hard to measure precisely. But GR still has problems with dividing by zero (singularities) and with increasing acceleration (Dark Energy). But that's still a good point.
	__________________ "Those who learn from history are doomed to watch others repeat it." -- Anonymous Slashdot poster "The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore." -- James Nicoll

5th July 2012, 02:36 PM	#170
BobK Muse Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: State of confusion Posts: 913	Stephen Wolfram has an interesting article at The Reference Frame giving his thoughts on the progression of particle physics and where he thinks it might be going.
	__________________ A mind is like a parachute. It works best when open.

5th July 2012, 03:25 PM	#171
not_so_new Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,544	My personal favorite joke to come out of this.... http://boingboing.net/2012/07/05/its...Boing+Boing%29

5th July 2012, 04:02 PM	#172
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,649	Originally Posted by BobK Stephen Wolfram has an interesting article at The Reference Frame giving his thoughts on the progression of particle physics and where he thinks it might be going. Yikes. Here's my reading of that article: Originally Posted by Shorter Wolfram In my youth, I myself made modest contributions to the Standard Model, but I ultimately found the whole business somewhat beneath me. I'm glad that some people stuck with it, and I congratulate them on their old-fashioned and basically-non-visionary grunt work. In the meantime, my giant self-published manifesto, A New Kind Of Science, is clearly deeper and more important than any of this and may have already replaced all of science.
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,649

5th July 2012, 04:27 PM	#173
anduin Thinker Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Paris, France Posts: 211	Every time a journalist says "God Particle", Schrödinger maybe kills a kitten. http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6...e6zto1_400.jpg
	__________________ "Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign of a diseased mind." Terry Pratchett

5th July 2012, 07:22 PM	#174
Orphia Nay Penguilicious Spodmaster. Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables). Posts: 28,369	Originally Posted by not_so_new My personal favorite joke to come out of this.... http://boingboing.net/2012/07/05/its...Boing+Boing%29 Love it!
	__________________ Are you an ex-Truther? Please share your story. ~ The Australasian Skeptics Forum.

5th July 2012, 07:26 PM	#175
Orphia Nay Penguilicious Spodmaster. Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables). Posts: 28,369	Originally Posted by Tubbythin Can I bet on who will win this/next year's Nobel prize in physics? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-18702455 Quote: Prof Stephen Hawking joined in with an opinion on a topic often discussed in hushed tones. "This is an important result and should earn Peter Higgs the Nobel Prize," he told BBC News.
	__________________ Are you an ex-Truther? Please share your story. ~ The Australasian Skeptics Forum.

5th July 2012, 08:35 PM	#176
BirdyBuddy Terrorized by 'tiels Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: 127.0.0.1 Posts: 5,784	My apologies if it's already been posted...
	__________________ "I don’t know quite what we’ll be selling yet. Maybe niches. I’ve heard the niche market is doing really well." ______ ^( ;,,; )^ What the Fhtagn? Status: Playing Words with Friends, Cthulhu Edition...

5th July 2012, 08:47 PM	#177
Orphia Nay Penguilicious Spodmaster. Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables). Posts: 28,369	Awww.
	__________________ Are you an ex-Truther? Please share your story. ~ The Australasian Skeptics Forum.

6th July 2012, 02:55 AM	#178
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,327	An 'explanation' of mass said that there are Higgs Bosons everywhere, creating the Higgs field that creates mass. However, the Higgs Boson has an incredibly short life span, before it 'transmutates' into other particles. How does that work?
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

6th July 2012, 03:23 AM	#179
Turgor Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Amsterdam Posts: 277	Originally Posted by a_unique_person An 'explanation' of mass said that there are Higgs Bosons everywhere, creating the Higgs field that creates mass. However, the Higgs Boson has an incredibly short life span, before it 'transmutates' into other particles. How does that work? I am a layman, but it's my understanding that it is the interactions with the Higgs field that give particles mass. A free Higgs boson can only come about by exciting the Higgs field with enough energy to produce one.

6th July 2012, 05:17 AM	#180
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,327	Originally Posted by Turgor I am a layman, but it's my understanding that it is the interactions with the Higgs field that give particles mass. A free Higgs boson can only come about by exciting the Higgs field with enough energy to produce one. Is it the field that creates the bosons? I thought that the particles, like the electron, created the field. Is the Higgs field like some kind of aether?
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes Last edited by a_unique_person; 6th July 2012 at 05:33 AM.

6th July 2012, 05:29 AM	#181
Farsight Suspended Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Poole, UK Posts: 1,956	Originally Posted by a_unique_person An 'explanation' of mass said that there are Higgs Bosons everywhere, creating the Higgs field that creates mass. However, the Higgs Boson has an incredibly short life span, before it 'transmutates' into other particles. How does that work? It doesn't. The Higgs mechanism is said to do be responsible for mass, but take a look at A Zeptospace Odyssey: A Journey into the Physics of the LHC. It’s by Gian Francesco Giudice, a CERN physicist. There's a search-inside on Amazon. If you search on Higgs sector you can read pages 173 through 175. He starts by saying: “The most inappropriate name ever given to the Higgs boson is 'The God particle'. The name gives the impression that the Higgs boson is the central particle of the Standard Model, governing its structure. But this is very far from the truth.” He also says the Higgs mechanism is “the toilet” of the standard model, and is “frightfully ad-hoc”. On page 174 he says: “It is sometimes said that the discovery of the Higgs boson will explain the mystery of the origin of mass. This statement requires a good deal of qualification.” He ends up saying “In summary, the Higgs mechanism accounts for about 1 per cent of the mass of ordinary matter, and for only 0.2 per cent of the mass of the universe. This is not nearly enough to justify the claim of explaining the origin of mass.” The CERN press office don't correct the garbage you read because it suits them if you think this is something more important than it is. E=mc² is responsible for mass. If you heat a container of gas, you increase its mass. If you trap a massless photon in a box, you increase the mass of the system.

6th July 2012, 05:53 AM	#182
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,327	It's hardly ad hoc if it's pretty well what they predicted it would be.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

6th July 2012, 06:21 AM	#183
Perpetual Student Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 3,707	Farsight: It's sad. First you make a very reasonable statement, while quoting Francesco Giudice's reasoned comments. Then conclude with the absurd comment that "E = mc² is responsible for mass." An equation is responsible for mass? Energy is responsible for mass? Does that comment have any meaning? Is sinθ₁/sinθ₂= n responsible for refraction?
	__________________ _{It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman} ξ

6th July 2012, 06:49 AM	#184
sol invictus Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Nova Roma Posts: 8,419	Originally Posted by a_unique_person Is it the field that creates the bosons? I thought that the particles, like the electron, created the field. There's a sense in which the background Higgs field is a collection of Higgs particles in a Bose condensate. But it's probably better to think of it as a sort of aether, except that it's an aether that has no rest frame (i.e. it looks the same to all observers, regardless of their state of motion). The Higgs particles that LHC produced are like excitations (waves, or ripples) of that aether. They decay quickly to other particles.

6th July 2012, 08:39 AM	#185
Cuddles Decoy Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies Posts: 16,586	Originally Posted by xtifr But GR doesn't explain any of those things either (with the possible exception of dark energy). It seems to me that all of those (with the possible exception of the matter/antimatter imbalance) are outside the domain of the standard model. And yes, we'll need a new model at some point to explain all that, but then we'll most likely need a quantum gravity model to supercede GR at some point as well, and GR may need some adjustments to deal with dark energy. There's a difference, in my mind at least, between being incomplete and being incorrect. GR and the standard model both seem incomplete to me (the degree isn't so much of an issue--incomplete is incomplete), but both seem to be basically confirmed now within their domains. The difference is that GR doesn't try to explain any of those things. GR is basically a theory of gravity and motion. It says nothing whatsoever about what things might exist to obey its rules, it just says what those rules are. The standard model, on the other hand, is basically a theory that tells us what particles should exist. Dark matter is presumed to be made of particles, but the SM tells us there shouldn't be any more particles left. Gravity is often presumed (or at least hoped) to behave similarly to the other forces and therefore be described as a field with associated particles, but the SM just can't do it. Matter/anti-matter imbalance is a big one, because that's exactly the sort of thing all the symmetries and symmetry breaking should predict, but we just can't get a prediction that matches the amounts we actually see. The standard model simply doesn't predict, or gets badly wrong, many of the things that it absolutely should predict. It's not a question of not quite being complete or not giving answers to things it's not designed to answer, it's just very much a broken theory that can't deal with many of the big questions in particle physics. It's good enough to be fairly useful up to a point, but it goes way past the "might need a bit of refining in extreme cases" of something like GR. Originally Posted by a_unique_person Is it the field that creates the bosons? I thought that the particles, like the electron, created the field. Is the Higgs field like some kind of aether? See here. The standard model is a field theory. The Higgs field is nothing special, it's just one of many fields that make up the theory. It's no more aether than electromagnetism or the strong force.
	__________________ I am not a little teapot.

6th July 2012, 09:32 PM	#186
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,653	The big guy puts things in context: http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-particle.html Quote: First off, they’re all My particles, OK? I made every last one of them, from the hunky handsome proton to the waifish, Starbucks-named neutrino. So when you attach My name only to the Higgs boson you insult the decillions of quarks, leptons, gluons, and all the other “little particles” without whose hard work and collaborative spirit the universe would cease to exist, at least with the same brio. Off topic, but funny.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

6th July 2012, 09:43 PM	#187
Orphia Nay Penguilicious Spodmaster. Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables). Posts: 28,369	That makes me feel better.
	__________________ Are you an ex-Truther? Please share your story. ~ The Australasian Skeptics Forum.

6th July 2012, 10:32 PM	#188
BowlOfRed Muse Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Silicon Valley Posts: 534	Originally Posted by Ocelot And Comic Sans Since it was mentioned... http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/sh...s-at-cern.html

7th July 2012, 01:55 AM	#189
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,327	Originally Posted by Cuddles The difference is that GR doesn't try to explain any of those things. GR is basically a theory of gravity and motion. It says nothing whatsoever about what things might exist to obey its rules, it just says what those rules are. The standard model, on the other hand, is basically a theory that tells us what particles should exist. Dark matter is presumed to be made of particles, but the SM tells us there shouldn't be any more particles left. Gravity is often presumed (or at least hoped) to behave similarly to the other forces and therefore be described as a field with associated particles, but the SM just can't do it. Matter/anti-matter imbalance is a big one, because that's exactly the sort of thing all the symmetries and symmetry breaking should predict, but we just can't get a prediction that matches the amounts we actually see. The standard model simply doesn't predict, or gets badly wrong, many of the things that it absolutely should predict. It's not a question of not quite being complete or not giving answers to things it's not designed to answer, it's just very much a broken theory that can't deal with many of the big questions in particle physics. It's good enough to be fairly useful up to a point, but it goes way past the "might need a bit of refining in extreme cases" of something like GR. See here. The standard model is a field theory. The Higgs field is nothing special, it's just one of many fields that make up the theory. It's no more aether than electromagnetism or the strong force. If we don't know what dark matter is, maybe it is one of the existing particles? Could gravity be explained with the existing set of particles, but we just don't know it yet? Do we call Newtonian physics a failure because it doesn't include relativity, or was it just an iteration in our progress of advancing knowledge?
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

7th July 2012, 02:15 AM	#190
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,653	Originally Posted by a_unique_person Could gravity be explained with the existing set of particles, but we just don't know it yet? Isn't that the postulated graviton? I would like to know the progress in discovering this particle.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

7th July 2012, 02:18 AM	#191
Tubbythin Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,206	Originally Posted by Orphia Nay http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-18702455 I don't think I'm sticking my neck out with that prediction. Incidentally, I wonder what would have happened if a CMS/ATLAS scientist had put on such a bet just before the announcement?
Tubbythin Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,206

7th July 2012, 09:50 AM	#192
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,649	Originally Posted by lionking Isn't that the postulated graviton? I would like to know the progress in discovering this particle. We can invent the name "graviton", we can say "to explain gravity it has to be massless, spin-2 and couple to mass", and ... well, things sort of peter out there. There's no single coherent theory of the graviton, not like there is for Higgs or photon or gluon interactions. Insofar as we can guess what the graviton's properties are, no one is searching for it. It's utterly inaccessible to experiments as far as I know. Interestingly, there are sensible hypotheses which combine supersymmetry---an extension of the Standard Model---with gravity, generally in a string-theory context. In these theories, the graviton has a stable, heavy superpartner, called the gravitino, which might be amenable to searches at the LHC, and could be a component of the dark matter.
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,649

7th July 2012, 12:54 PM	#193
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,566	Originally Posted by Orphia Nay http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w...sflowchart.jpg That makes me feel better. That's hilarious.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

7th July 2012, 12:57 PM	#194
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,566	Can anyone answer another lay person's question in lay language: I'm reading now that the "measurements seem to diverge slightly from what would be expected". Having only the vaguest clue why drag matters, I can't make sense of the Net explanations on just what differs and why it matters.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

8th July 2012, 05:13 AM	#196
sol invictus Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Nova Roma Posts: 8,419	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Can anyone answer another lay person's question in lay language: I'm reading now that the "measurements seem to diverge slightly from what would be expected". Having only the vaguest clue why drag matters, I can't make sense of the Net explanations on just what differs and why it matters. "drag"?