JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Tags cern , higgs boson , physics

Reply
Old 8th July 2012, 04:05 PM   #201
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,206
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
When they go for a ride, he should be careful not to take his mate for less than a whole spin.
The electron joined them. He wasn't invited but he lepton.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2012, 05:28 PM   #202
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,083
Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
The electron joined them. He wasn't invited but he lepton.
But didn't he fall off when their spin was only half done?
__________________
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
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2012, 04:55 AM   #203
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 31,840
Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
The electron joined them. He wasn't invited but he lepton.
That was a quarky thing to do.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2012, 06:21 AM   #204
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,206
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
If the boson got married the significant other would be a boson's mate.

If the marriage went well they'd be superpartners.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2012, 07:41 AM   #205
TjW
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: up in the air
Posts: 10,932
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
Next time they go looking for a new particle how can they go one better?

I predict the Beatles particle.
With a Yoko particle to split it?
__________________
TjW

People like TjW -- Kelly
TjW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2012, 08:19 AM   #206
Cuddles
Decoy
Moderator
 
Cuddles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies
Posts: 17,920
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
If we don't know what dark matter is, maybe it is one of the existing particles?
No. We know enough about how it behaves, and what we can infer about how it behaves, to know that the vast majority can't be any known particle (machos and neutrinos can explain a small fraction).

Quote:
Could gravity be explained with the existing set of particles, but we just don't know it yet?
No. The standard model simply doesn't cover gravity in any way. There might be a way of adding it, but it can't be done with what we have so far.

Quote:
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?
We don't call the standard model a failure either. It's a useful tool that's helped enormously in advancing our understanding of the universe. However, we know that it simply doesn't work in many places where it's supposed to. Where Newtonian mechanics and GR need a bit of touching up around the edges when they struggle with extreme conditions, the holes in the SM are so big and so numerous that we're increasingly thinking it's just not possible to patch it up and are trying to come up with a total replacement instead.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
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.
Theories like the standard model don't just predict that a particle exists, they also make predictions about various properties, including how it will decay. If it turns out that this particle doesn't decay in the way the standard model predicts, that would likely be important evidence pointing to which alternative theory is likely to replace the SM, since almost all alternatives include the Higgs mechanism and predict something similar but not quite identical. Or it could even mean that it's not the Higgs particle at all and all the alternatives are completely wrong as well.

As an analogy, look at Pluto. People looked at the orbit of Uranus, realised out that it wasn't consistent with what we expected and figured out that there must be another planet even further from the Sun. They then promptly found Neptune with the right mass in the right place. People then looked at Neptune's orbit and realised that it wasn't quite consistent either and exactly the same could be done again. They looked where they expected and found Pluto right there waiting for them. Job done. Except that after a little more observation it was obvious that Pluto wasn't actually the planet they predicted at all, being orders of magnitude too small. In fact it turns out that the discrepancies were probably not real after all and finding Pluto there was a complete coincidence.

The point being that just because you find something where you expect to find something doesn't mean that it must be the thing you were actually looking for. The discovery of a new particle could be confirmation that we're at least thinking along the right lines, but if it turns out not to agree with predictions it could completely overthrow all of our best theories that expected it to be something else.
__________________
If I let myself get hung up on only doing things that had any actual chance of success, I'd never do anything!
Cuddles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2012, 09:38 AM   #207
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shifting through paradigms
Posts: 43,019
Thanks, Cuddles. That was a useful explanation.
__________________
(*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.)
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2012, 07:37 AM   #208
sackett
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 3,900
A Short Dialogue From the Days of Sail

“Captain Higgs! Ahoy!”
“Ahoy, Admiral! What would ye?”
“Bid your bosun put out the longboat, that the Catholic hands may go ashore for divine service.”
“Aye aye, Admiral, and wiv a right good will! For we all knows that wivout Higg’s bosun they cannot have ma-“
“Aw fer Christ’s sake, Capting, will ye not make that tired old joke again!”
__________________
The great thing about absurd logic is that it fits any situation. -- Dogbert
sackett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2012, 08:13 PM   #209
Eggs Ackley
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 184
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
Btw, does anyone know when we could expect to see the official, scientific journal article on this discovery published? I would very much like to read that article.
Did you see this one? Not exactly what you are asking for, but cool nonetheless.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.7114

Origins of Mass

Frank Wilczek

(Submitted on 29 Jun 2012)

Newtonian mechanics posited mass as a primary quality of matter, incapable of further elucidation. We now see Newtonian mass as an emergent property. Most of the mass of standard matter, by far, arises dynamically, from back-reaction of the color gluon fields of quantum chromodynamics (QCD). The equations for massless particles support extra symmetries - specifically scale, chiral, and gauge symmetries. The consistency of the standard model relies on a high degree of underlying gauge and chiral symmetry, so the observed non-zero masses of many elementary particles ($W$ and $Z$ bosons, quarks, and leptons) requires spontaneous symmetry breaking. Superconductivity is a prototype for spontaneous symmetry breaking and for mass-generation, since photons acquire mass inside superconductors. A conceptually similar but more intricate form of all-pervasive (i.e. cosmic) superconductivity, in the context of the electroweak standard model, gives us a successful, economical account of $W$ and $Z$ boson masses. It also allows a phenomenologically successful, though profligate, accommodation of quark and lepton masses. The new cosmic superconductivity, when implemented in a straightforward, minimal way, suggests the existence of a remarkable new particle, the so-called Higgs particle. The mass of the Higgs particle itself is not explained in the theory, but appears as a free parameter. Earlier results suggested, and recent observations at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) may indicate, the actual existence of the Higgs particle, with mass $m_H \approx 125$ GeV. In addition to consolidating our understanding of the origin of mass, a Higgs particle with $m_H \approx 125$ GeV could provide an important clue to the future, as it is consistent with expectations from supersymmetry.


(I haven't read the whole thread yet, so apologies if this has already been linked.)

Last edited by Eggs Ackley; 11th July 2012 at 08:22 PM.
Eggs Ackley is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2012, 09:59 PM   #210
Bill Thompson
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Redmond, Washington
Posts: 6,176
Maybe I should read this whole discussion.

What good does the discovery of the Higgs Boson do us?
Bill Thompson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2012, 10:28 PM   #211
Craig B
Philosopher
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,218
Originally Posted by Bill Thompson View Post
Maybe I should read this whole discussion.

What good does the discovery of the Higgs Boson do us?
Bill, that's interesting. How can we know what the effect of a discovery will be until it has been made and, if possible, exploited?

Or do you mean that discovering new things if of no use, in and of itself, and that people should therefore not seek new information?
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2012, 04:13 AM   #212
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 35,746
Originally Posted by Bill Thompson View Post
Maybe I should read this whole discussion.

What good does the discovery of the Higgs Boson do us?
What good is anything?
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2012, 09:34 AM   #213
uruk
Philosopher
 
uruk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: In the land of the Shatner stealing Mexico touchers
Posts: 5,313
Originally Posted by Bill Thompson View Post
Maybe I should read this whole discussion.

What good does the discovery of the Higgs Boson do us?
It gives mankind a new thing to give Bill Thompson irritation.
__________________
Fourscore and seven years ago I tapped yo mama in a log cabin!

Abe Lincoln

Last edited by uruk; 16th July 2012 at 09:37 AM.
uruk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2012, 11:50 PM   #214
Farsight
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Poole, UK
Posts: 2,367
Originally Posted by Bill Thompson View Post
Maybe I should read this whole discussion.

What good does the discovery of the Higgs Boson do us?
What discovery? All I see is a bump on a graph. And as for five sigma, the skeptic within me drily observes that there are lies, damn lies, and then there's statistics.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2012, 02:11 AM   #215
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,206
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
What discovery? All I see is a bump on a graph. And as for five sigma, the skeptic within me drily observes that there are lies, damn lies, and then there's statistics.
That's not really being sceptical. Not in a scientific sense any way. A scientific sceptic would point to an alternative cause of a 5 sigma bump or at least suggest where the analysis might have gone wrong to produce such a bump. Simply repeating a famous sceptical quote does not make you a sceptic.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2012, 05:37 AM   #216
Farsight
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Poole, UK
Posts: 2,367
Yes, that's being skeptical. So is pointing to CERN physicist Gian Giudice's Zeptospace Odyssey where he tells us that the Higgs mechanism is responsible of only 1% of the mass of matter. Doesn't square too well with all the mystery of mass hype, does it? Wise up Tubby. When a church needs a miracle, a church gets a miracle.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2012, 07:11 AM   #217
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 35,746
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Yes, that's being skeptical. So is pointing to CERN physicist Gian Giudice's Zeptospace Odyssey where he tells us that the Higgs mechanism is responsible of only 1% of the mass of matter. Doesn't square too well with all the mystery of mass hype, does it? Wise up Tubby. When a church needs a miracle, a church gets a miracle.
As usual, not only are you rude and arrogant but that passage does not say what you think, the fact that the Higgs sector gauge boson does not account for the effects of QCD does not mean that it does not account for what the Higgs boson is supposed to account for.

So besides your vague thinking you are creating a false dichotomy that Giudice did not. In fact Giudice does not say anything like what you are pretending.

The hype about the mystery of mass does not come from Tubbythin, and you again make your arguments look worse through your rudeness, strawmen and fallacies.

You are the one who seems to engage in magical and religious thinking of confirmation bias and false impression management.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2012, 08:14 AM   #218
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,083
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
What discovery? All I see is a bump on a graph. And as for five sigma, the skeptic within me drily observes that there are lies, damn lies, and then there's statistics.
This could be a poster child for "argumentum ad ignorantiam."
__________________
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
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2012, 08:32 AM   #219
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,206
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Yes, that's being skeptical. So is pointing to CERN physicist Gian Giudice's Zeptospace Odyssey where he tells us that the Higgs mechanism is responsible of only 1% of the mass of matter.
Providing a hyperlink to a book definitely does not constitute scepticism.

Quote:
Doesn't square too well with all the mystery of mass hype, does it?
What are you talking about? Whether the importance of the Higgs boson has been over-hyped in the media or not does not tell us anything whatsoever about whether the signals observed correspond to the Higgs boson or not. That should be obvious to scientists, lay(wo)men, children and internet cranks alike.

Quote:
Wise up Tubby. When a church needs a miracle, a church gets a miracle.
The LHC didn't need a miracle and it didn't get one. Your ability to repeat popular phrases is of no interest to me or, I'd imagine, anybody else in science.
As I said in my previous post, simply repeating a famous sceptical quote does not make you a sceptic. What on Earth made you think repeating a second notable quote would change this? Handy piece of advice: don't bother printing a third. I suggest you either back up your claims with evidence or retract them.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2012, 11:00 AM   #220
Farsight
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Poole, UK
Posts: 2,367
I'm backing up what I say. Take a look at the physicsworld article "picture of a new particle" at this url and it's no such thing. It's just a bump on a graph. And take a look at A Zeptospace Odyssey: A Journey into the Physics of the LHC by Gian Francesco Giudice. If you search on Higgs sector you can read pages 173 through 175. He says 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. 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 gives a good explanation, and finishes by 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.. This absolutely does not square with the hype that CERN nourishes and does not correct.

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student
This could be a poster child for "argumentum ad ignorantiam."
No it couldn't. I'm not ignorant. Not is Giudiuce.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2012, 11:23 AM   #221
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 35,746
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
I'm backing up what I say. Take a look at the physicsworld article "picture of a new particle" at this url and it's no such thing. It's just a bump on a graph. And take a look at A Zeptospace Odyssey: A Journey into the Physics of the LHC by Gian Francesco Giudice. If you search on Higgs sector you can read pages 173 through 175. He says 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. 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 gives a good explanation, and finishes by 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.. This absolutely does not square with the hype that CERN nourishes and does not correct.

No it couldn't. I'm not ignorant. Not is Giudiuce.
Funny how your argument rests on the nonsense of media hype, not the discovery of teh Higgs boson, so where is the mystery of mass issue? In the media?

Are you just engaging in false dichotomy and a non sequiter?

Considering your original statement to Tubbythin, you still are making yet more straw.

I doubt however that you posses the honesty to see that you statement to Tubbythin is unrelated to anything that they said.

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Originally Posted by Bill Thompson View Post
Maybe I should read this whole discussion.

What good does the discovery of the Higgs Boson do us?
What discovery? All I see is a bump on a graph. And as for five sigma, the skeptic within me drily observes that there are lies, damn lies, and then there's statistics.
This is a ridiculous statement, the energy bump is indicative of a particle matching that parameters of the Higgs bosn, so what the fred do you think you are talking about?

What exactly makes you sceptical of that bump being related to the Hiigs boson, not GR, not SR, not some media hype about the god particle, but exactly about that bump and particle physics.

Where the fred is the lie in it?

Do not derail into some silly side track of some delusional nature tangentially related to the bump.

Explain why you are sceptical of the bump.

As usual nothing Giudice says supports any reason to be sceptical of the bump, I know you can be rational and coherent and that you can actually discuss this topic if you choose to do so. The topic of the bump and your scepticism that it a Higgs particle.

So rise to the challenge, prove that you are not just a crank, answer the specific question.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

Last edited by Dancing David; 19th July 2012 at 11:33 AM.
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2012, 12:33 PM   #222
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,206
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
I'm backing up what I say. Take a look at the physicsworld article "picture of a new particle" at this url and it's no such thing. It's just a bump on a graph. And take a look at A Zeptospace Odyssey: A Journey into the Physics of the LHC by Gian Francesco Giudice. If you search on Higgs sector you can read pages 173 through 175. He says 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. 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 gives a good explanation, and finishes by 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.. This absolutely does not square with the hype that CERN nourishes and does not correct.
DD has already responded to this with pretty much what I would have said.
None of the above or what is said in your hyperlink casts any doubt whatsoever on the statistical significance of the ATLAS/CMS observations. Obviously the book you linked to doesn't and cannot tackle this issue because it was written circa 2009. The only conclusion I can really come to is that you have no semblance of an argument in relation to the statistical significance of the ATLAS/CMS observations and that your comments regarding "lies" and miracles were a pathetic cry for attention.
Now, I don't care about your opinions in relation to the media hype. I doubt that anybody else here does either. What I care about is arrogant, loud-mouthed crackpots crying for attention and effectively accusing competent scientists of lying and fabricating results when they have zero evidence to back up their claims. If you don't want to be considered one such crackpot then its time to put forward your evidence. No more bs distractions about media-hype. Plain and simple for the forum to see:


What evidence do you have to suggest that the five-sigma significance bump observed in the ATLAS/CMS experiments has been wrongly-interpreted by the scientists at CERN?



Aside:
Out of interest, what kind of picture of a discovery of the Higgs boson were you expecting?

Last edited by Tubbythin; 19th July 2012 at 12:39 PM.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2012, 01:27 PM   #223
not_so_new
Graduate Poster
 
not_so_new's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,552
Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post

Aside:
Out of interest, what kind of picture of a discovery of the Higgs boson were you expecting?


I mean, it is the "God Particle" right..... or did CERN lie about that too?
not_so_new is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2012, 03:57 PM   #224
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 12,799
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
What discovery? All I see is a bump on a graph. And as for five sigma, the skeptic within me drily observes that there are lies, damn lies, and then there's statistics.
Unfortunately this comment just exposes your ignorance of the physics.
The discovery of a new particle in particle physics is defined as finding it with 5 or more sigma.
Most of the particles diccovered in the past 30 years (e.g. the W boson) are a "bump on a graph".
The skeptic in you would not rely on a quote from one person. The skeptic in you would research the science and find that when you are looking for specific events in a complex environment, stats are vital.
__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520)
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2012, 04:02 PM   #225
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 12,124
Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
That's not really being sceptical. Not in a scientific sense any way. A scientific sceptic would point to an alternative cause of a 5 sigma bump or at least suggest where the analysis might have gone wrong to produce such a bump. Simply repeating a famous sceptical quote does not make you a sceptic.
Maybe there was a problem with the machine. Have the scientists checked their machine?

angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2012, 04:07 PM   #226
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 32,986
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
The skeptic in you would not rely on a quote from one person. The skeptic in you would research the science and find that when you are looking for specific events in a complex environment, stats are vital.
Assertion not supported by evidence.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2012, 05:16 PM   #227
Acleron
Master Poster
 
Acleron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: In a beautifully understandable universe
Posts: 2,290
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
What discovery? All I see is a bump on a graph. And as for five sigma, the skeptic within me drily observes that there are lies, damn lies, and then there's statistics.
You should have skeptically observed that your quote, while fine rhetoric is very inaccurate.

Statistics cannot lie, it's the people who misuse them who can lie.
Acleron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2012, 07:56 AM   #228
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 31,840
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
What discovery? All I see is a bump on a graph. And as for five sigma, the skeptic within me drily observes that there are lies, damn lies, and then there's statistics.
Statistically you don't exist.

(tsig drily points out)
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2012, 07:59 AM   #229
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 31,840
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Yes, that's being skeptical. So is pointing to CERN physicist Gian Giudice's Zeptospace Odyssey where he tells us that the Higgs mechanism is responsible of only 1% of the mass of matter. Doesn't square too well with all the mystery of mass hype, does it? Wise up Tubby. When a church needs a miracle, a church gets a miracle.
The HB is the equivalent of the BVM on toast?
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2012, 08:04 AM   #230
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 31,840
Originally Posted by Acleron View Post
You should have skeptically observed that your quote, while fine rhetoric is very inaccurate.

Statistics cannot lie, it's the people who misuse them who can lie.
Figures don't don't lie but liars can figure.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2012, 08:05 AM   #231
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,206
I thought I'd bump this thread, seeing as Farsight seems to be back on the scene.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2012, 06:44 PM   #232
Roboramma
Philosopher
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 7,532
Seeing as this thread was bumped, it's a good opportunity to post this lecture by leonard Susskind explaining the Higgs boson I thought it was very illuminating:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqNg819PiZY
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2012, 01:38 PM   #233
Farsight
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Poole, UK
Posts: 2,367
Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
I thought I'd bump this thread, seeing as Farsight seems to be back on the scene.
Noted Tubby. Do you want me to talk about it? Like how the Higgs mechanism contradicts E=mc² and needs to come out of the Standard Model to be replaced by a symmetry? You can trace the problem back to QED you know. When the penny drops it's kind of an Ohmygawd! moment.

Edit: I've sat through Demystifying the Higgs Boson with Leonard Susskind. Does anybody actually buy that stuff? Is anybody the wiser? Even Susskind doesn't believe in it. You can tell. Zilch, LOL! OK, thinking caps on. Susskind referred to E=mc² and light in a box. Another form of light in a box is a standing wave in a cavity. Now go and look at atomic orbitals on wikipedia and see if you can suss out why the electron really has mass.

Last edited by Farsight; 29th October 2012 at 03:20 PM.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2012, 04:24 PM   #234
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 12,799
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Noted Tubby. Do you want me to talk about it?
...

There seems to be all sorts of unsupported assertions in this post, so Farsight:
  • Can you cite the published papers that show that the Higgs mechanism "contradicts E=mc²"?
  • Can you cite the published papers that show that the Higgs mechanism can be removed from the Standard Model and replaced by a symmetry (in the SM?)?
  • Can you cite the published papers that show that there is a problem in QED related to the Higgs mechanism that is so obvious that people have a "Ohmygawd! moment"?
FYI: The Standard Model is a relativistic quantum field theory, i.e. nothing in it contradicts E=mc² !

I've sat through Demystifying the Higgs Boson with Leonard Susskind.
Great explanation of it which was his purpose!
__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520)
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

Last edited by Reality Check; 29th October 2012 at 04:26 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2012, 05:09 PM   #235
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,206
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Noted Tubby. Do you want me to talk about it? Like how the Higgs mechanism contradicts E=mc² and needs to come out of the Standard Model to be replaced by a symmetry? You can trace the problem back to QED you know. When the penny drops it's kind of an Ohmygawd! moment.
We can get on to that when you've answered my question from above: "What evidence do you have to suggest that the five-sigma significance bump observed in the ATLAS/CMS experiments has been wrongly-interpreted by the scientists at CERN?"
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2012, 05:12 PM   #236
Farsight
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Poole, UK
Posts: 2,367
There are no unsupported assertions, RC. And published papers have got nothing to do with it. We don't let other people tell us what to think, do we? Not on a skeptics forum. We don't have published-paper or textbook bibles here, do we? Instead we examine the evidence and the logic, and discuss things as we feel fit. Dont we?
I can explain this to you real easy. So simply that you cannot refute it. Would you like to discuss it? It is after all a discussion forum. And if you don't, please feel free to summarise Susskind's explanation as to how the electron gets its mass.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2012, 05:57 PM   #237
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 12,799
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
There are no unsupported assertions, RC.
They are unsupported assertions because you asserted them and did not support them!
That just screens the need for a

You also have a strange idea about what skeptics want. Skeptics do not accept unsupported assertions from people ("Big foot exists", "there is a fire-breathing dragon in my garage", etc.).
Skeptics want assertions to be backed up by evidence. In a section on science the best evidence is published papers or textbooks. The next level down is pre-prints. The next level down is your own work supporting the assertion.

Farsight: Can you cite the evidence for your unsupported assertions?
First asked 30 October 2012
__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520)
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2012, 06:14 PM   #238
smartcooky
Master Poster
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 2,026
Here's some completely unscientific, totally unverifiable, and completely anecdotal evidence for you...

On the day of the Higgs Boson announcement, I was following Prof. Brian Cox on Twitter. He was ticking off key points as the press conference carried on, and near the end, he made this statement to the effect that "a lot of money will be changing hands today"

Knowing what a parsimonious bunch of tight-wads most scientists are, I took that a general supporting statement that the discovery of the Higgs Boson has indeed been confirmed
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2012, 01:42 AM   #239
Farsight
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Poole, UK
Posts: 2,367
RC: no, textbooks and papers aren't evidence. Don't fall into the bible mindset. Evidence is provided by scientific experiment.

Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
We can get on to that when you've answered my question from above: "What evidence do you have to suggest that the five-sigma significance bump observed in the ATLAS/CMS experiments has been wrongly-interpreted by the scientists at CERN?"
Two-photon physics, electron diffraction, and atomic orbitals. They provide clear evidence that the electron does not get its mass from the Higgs mechanism, meaning the bump can't be the Higgs boson. Would you like me to elaborate? It's all horribly simple plain-vanilla physics. It might help if you watched Susskind's lecture. Pay attention to what he said about radiation in a box.

Smartcooky: yes, that's a supporting statement. A lot of physicists are extremely skeptical of the Higgs mechanism, and have bet that the Higgs boson wouldn't be discovered. With the announcement of its discovery they either have to pay up or cry foul, which they're reluctant to do because it would be very bad publicity for physics. For example see above re Gian Guidice, a CERN physicist who calls the Higgs mechanism "frightfully ad hoc" and "the toilet of the standard model". These guys are in a really difficult position.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2012, 02:28 AM   #240
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by Bill Thompson View Post
Maybe I should read this whole discussion.

What good does the discovery of the Higgs Boson do us?
When the Prime Minister asked of a new discovery, 'What good is it?', Faraday replied, 'What good is a new-born baby?'
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:51 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.