View Full Version here: : Zeroing in on the Higgs Boson
25-07-2011, 05:35 PM
Are they getting closer to a discovery?
25-07-2011, 06:18 PM
I read the comments under the article. Makes global warming look like a linear relationship picnic.
In the good old days you believed the texts and lecturers now the garbo has an opinion!
25-07-2011, 06:42 PM
Very interesting! Thanks for the link.
And by the way, those comments are very entertaining, and enlightening. There must be some serious homework behind some of those comments.
25-07-2011, 07:24 PM
Remember Bert we live in an age where having an opinion is much more important than making educated comments.
The one or two scam posts were more to the point.:lol:
Incidentally the press has gotten hold of the news and are describing the Higg's boson as all but discovered.
From the Independent.
Welcome to the Internet, where anyone with a lot of time on their hands and access to Wikipedia can attempt to pass themselves off as a world expert on absolutely everything.
26-07-2011, 12:37 AM
Interesting findings, but like anything is science, something could come up to throw a spanner in the works. Best thing for them to do is be prepared for anything. If they find the Higgs as expected, great. If not, and something else turns up or their results for the Higgs turn out completely different, also great. Needs a lot more work done, yet.
28-07-2011, 09:24 PM
Our illuminated EU friends who have no understanding of what a Higgs Boson is, have of course dismissed the findings with their brand of "let's try to make ourselves look intelligent by inventing fairy tales" brand of dialogue.
The "technically orientated" posts are utterly ridiculous.
28-07-2011, 10:40 PM
I wonder how many of them even did basic, elementary physics at school. That Komorikid is a complete twit....let alone the others. Obviously took no notice of anything they were taught at school.
29-07-2011, 10:14 AM
I am worried that you guys are spending too much time at thunderbolts...:shrug::D
Steven I looked at the link to be aware of your point but then I went to the CERN site and can say probably that was time better spent.
One can read first hand what it is that they are doing, who is doing it and the quipement and experiments are outlined in a non sensational manner so you can get a reasonable idea of what is going on there..
The news reporting game however dictates all news must be sensationalised and I think such an approach is taken even with the reporting of "scientific" news. Why the Higgs Bosen got the tag "the God particle" probably came about via a sensational approach to news style....
04-08-2011, 05:48 PM
What a great avatar.
04-08-2011, 09:31 PM
Thank you Geoff its my new old look:D
I have been looking at everything CERN for days.
The engineering, the size, the experiments everything. It is an amazing project from any view..scientific, engineering even the politics to get it going.
I cant wait for more news.
I did notice SUSY is hard to find;) who is she anyways?:D
If no SUSY it will be a worry.
24-08-2011, 01:28 AM
24-08-2011, 07:34 AM
More quantitative info here .. (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46935)
So, with this info, I'm not sure where else they can look, yet they seem to concentrating more searches between 110-130 GeV (?). One guy says it'll appear with more data ... then the next guy says the signal might become weaker with more data .. :question:
So, presumably to avoid sending out (more) premature conflicting messages …
And then .. (gotta love this one) …
.."I'm not religious .. but if you insist, here's a religious statement" … "and, what's more, with this statement, I'm going to look good when we don't find it."
So standing back from it all, overall, are scientists way too obsessed with model predictions ?
24-08-2011, 08:27 AM
Well that would make a complete mess of the electroweak theory which is based on the Higgs boson existing.
24-08-2011, 09:22 AM
Another thing I worry about is this "new physics". That's a horribly ambiguous and loaded term. Just about everything and anything can and has been thrown into the mix so far as this is concerned. Everything from the mundanely plausible to the utterly ridiculous and just about everyone that hasn't a clue about physics to begin with has jumped on the bandwagon of its use as a catch-all term to describe anything they don't understand.
I don't even think some of the scientist know what they're saying at times. They may understand where they're coming from, but don't realise just how ambiguous and loaded their pronouncements are.
24-08-2011, 09:54 AM
I think a lot has to do with the reporter, I have read other of his articles and he seems to have a particular focus...somewhat negative with a touch of sensationalism...
I do think it is odd to have someone up high who is not passionate about the hunt...at least for the publics sake... and how would you feel if you were one of the workers on the job.
And to use the term "new physics" can only do damage as it hints that we start again and provides a cherry for folks who want to offer their "new" physics... silly term.
I can not imagine a day where at a press conference they say we have proved it is not there and here is a copy of "The New Physics" which is going out to schools and Universities.
24-08-2011, 10:02 AM
Yes I agree that the term "new physics" might be more designed to imply that progress has been made, and there is more to 'discover', rather than there actually being any "new physics".
I mean particle physicists don't really regard the HB as "new physics" and yet, it has never actually been demonstrated. If it isn't discovered, and someone comes up with a new theory of particle physics that doesn't call for a Higgs, or any other experimentally undemonstrable things, then it shouldn't be viewed as "new physics" should it ?
24-08-2011, 10:12 AM
If it's a new theory that extends what we already know, with some added new stuff thrown in for good measure, then no. But if it's a theory that tosses everything, or most of everything, we know out on its ear, then yes.
It's either evolutionary or revolutionary:)
24-08-2011, 10:14 AM
Good name for a textbook!!!:):)
24-08-2011, 10:20 AM
Yes .. for example, SR was never really "new physics" .. it is more likely the only theory that doesn't require "new physics" (at the moment)
… And the only way SR might be incorrect, is if there were "new physics" presently not recognised.
24-08-2011, 10:41 AM
That it would....it means you're going to have to find another cause for inflation, for a start. Considering it was the supposed appearance of the Higgs which broke the EW symmetry and drove inflation, not having the Higgs will mean they'll have to find something else to explain inflation and why anything has mass, at all.
Maybe one of the Higgsless models??
24-08-2011, 10:57 AM
The EW theory has successively predicted neutral currents, and the W and Z bosons, all based on a Higgs mechanism for symmetry breaking.
If the Higgs mechanism is wrong, the theory has been able to fluke the predictions.
That is more incomprehensible than the theory itself, considered to be one of the most mathematically challenging theories around.
24-08-2011, 11:04 AM
Another article reflects that their data to establish HB has dropped from 2.8 sigma to 2 sigma. That means the odds of what they "see" being the real Higgs have fallen to 95%,... or 5% chance of being wrong???
That is hardley a close the file situation.
24-08-2011, 11:05 AM
If it is a fluke, then it's an incredibly lucky one. But then again, sometimes a guess is as good as an experimentally expected prediction. Gotta give the guys a chance at pulling rabbits out of the hat sometimes:):P
24-08-2011, 11:11 AM
Still it's a worrying trend. Signals have disappeared at 4 sigma, as more data is added for analysis.
24-08-2011, 11:16 AM
It is highly unlikely.
If the Higgs mechanism is however shown not to exist then Messrs. Salam, Glashow and Weinberg, should hand back their Nobel Prizes they won in 1979 for the Electroweak theory.
24-08-2011, 11:21 AM
Agreed Steven but not perhaps as worrying as some reporters suggest. One gets a feeling reading various reports they are about ready to close shop which is clearly not the case...
I bet they have found it but wont tell until their new employement contracts are finalized;)
24-08-2011, 11:31 AM
Highly unlikely, but not out of the realms of possibility. Something I don't think having to hand back a Nobel Prize is called for. They didn't deliberately falsify their work or make any other misrepresentations. They may have the general premise of the EW Theory correct, just not the specifics in so far as the Higgs mechanism is concerned .
24-08-2011, 11:41 AM
The theory is completely wrong if the Higgs mechanism doesn't exist.
The Electroweak theory is built on a Higgs mechanism for symmetry breaking.
The masses of the W and Z bosons could not be predicted without a Higgs mechanism.
24-08-2011, 12:22 PM
As it stands, you're right. However there are a couple of ways of looking at this. Either the Higgs mechanism exists but they've gotten all the maths wrong for the expected energy level at which it appears. Or, it doesn't exist and they need a new EW Theory. There's even another way...there might be something in the Higgsless models which preserves EW Theory but does it without the Higgs. The mass of the W and Z bosons must be predictable in the Higgsless and Technicolor models, otherwise they wouldn't mesh with the Standard Model and it, itself, would be called into question as well.
24-08-2011, 01:58 PM
Does this also mean that Peter Higgs would have to change his family name and go into hiding?
How embarrassing it would be, to have one's name attached to something which gets debunked … expensively, also .. !
24-08-2011, 02:19 PM
They'll make him pay for the interest on the bank loan they took out to fund the LHC:):P:P
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.