Higgs Bosen

xelasnave · #1 14-10-2009, 03:37 PM

Like so many folk I hear about CERN and the quest to find the Higgs Bosen particle... all I want to know who lost the dam thing in the first place

?

My question is will they find it or wont they

... and dont tell me to wait I have been waiting long enough and feel specualtion is now mandatory

what are the chances of sucess and of failure... if failure how much of the current theory (cold dark matter theory it called I think) will have to go... everything or just rewind back to pe Higgs specualtion er theory (whatever) and substitute an alternative theory which does not require such a particle...

I gather the HB is sort to give mass to matter...is that all matter or to massless particles because they seem wanting...

Does anyone here (many I guess) follow the progress of CERN

alex

sjastro · #2 14-10-2009, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Like so many folk I hear about CERN and the quest to find the Higgs Bosen particle... all I want to know who lost the dam thing in the first place

?

My question is will they find it or wont they

... and dont tell me to wait I have been waiting long enough and feel specualtion is now mandatory

what are the chances of sucess and of failure... if failure how much of the current theory (cold dark matter theory it called I think) will have to go... everything or just rewind back to pe Higgs specualtion er theory (whatever) and substitute an alternative theory which does not require such a particle...

I gather the HB is sort to give mass to matter...is that all matter or to massless particles because they seem wanting...

Does anyone here (many I guess) follow the progress of CERN

alex

Why should there a time frame?

The eightfold way theory of QM (a ridiculously simple mathematical theory) predicted the Omega Minus particle in 1962. The particle was discovered in 1964.

Quantum chromodynamics (an extremely difficult variant of QFT) predicted quarks in 1969. The first quark was discovered over 25 year later.

The moral of the story Alex is patience.

Regards

Steven

Nesti (Mark) · #3 14-10-2009, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sjastro

Why should there a time frame?

The eightfold way theory of QM (a ridiculously simple mathematical theory) predicted the Omega Minus particle in 1962. The particle was discovered in 1964.

Quantum chromodynamics (an extremely difficult variant of QFT) predicted quarks in 1969. The first quark was discovered over 25 year later.

The moral of the story Alex is patience.

Regards

Steven

That's right Alex, manifestation takes time.

Oh sorry Steven, I must have been distracted by the Rhonda Byrnes 'The Secret' post in the other thread.

renormalised (Carl) · #4 14-10-2009, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sjastro

Why should there a time frame?

The eightfold way theory of QM (a ridiculously simple mathematical theory) predicted the Omega Minus particle in 1962. The particle was discovered in 1964.

Quantum chromodynamics (an extremely difficult variant of QFT) predicted quarks in 1969. The first quark was discovered over 25 year later.

The moral of the story Alex is patience.

Regards

Steven

Yep, patience. Several billion dollars/euros worth of equipment, thousands of scientists and engineers, vast amounts of energy and sheer luck

Along with great theoretical insight

Rhino1980 (Ryan) · #5 14-10-2009, 05:39 PM

Is CERN up and running again?

xelasnave · #6 14-10-2009, 06:46 PM

I demand it be done by next Thursday...
Think of the economices...mmm capital investement lets call that "C" er hang on change that (C is near worn out with all the workit got on the light experiments)..have to pick the next available letter...mmm I am sure that D follows C... so lets call that "D" (for dollar)..times the period of capital outlay lets call that O.. hang on O could be confused with zero so lets step back a letter and call that N... times the cost of capital..lets call that C (dam that C is always the letter doing all the work) ..mmm no lets call that..not C but F (to represent funding costs of capital) ..are you with me..so DNF gives us the answer...hang on DNF is race talk for DID NOT FINISH... look forget all that ..when when when... who is the boss? what are the workers doing? Where is the report on why the report on why we are not moving forward ..oh forget it...

What is the big deal here ..we have plenty of protons can we start banging a few together to get the hang of it...

Seriously has anyone any view , with confidential inside knowledge that will be our little secret, as to when they expect something...

AND what if we dont find it what are the ramifications..even if they are too horrible to place in print... how far do we have to go back to get started again?

alex

Robh (Rob) · #7 14-10-2009, 06:57 PM

Seeing that this is in the General Chat section, I'd thought I'd ask the obvious. For us quantum illiterates (keep it simple), what exactly will be the significance of the discovery of this God particle, the Higgs Boson? I've read that it gives other particles mass. So???

Rob.

renormalised (Carl) · #8 14-10-2009, 07:04 PM

Rob, this should make it easy to understand....Higgs Boson

Nesti (Mark) · #9 14-10-2009, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robh

Seeing that this is in the General Chat section, I'd thought I'd ask the obvious. For us quantum illiterates (keep it simple), what exactly will be the significance of the discovery of this God particle, the Higgs Boson? I've read that it gives other particles mass. So???

Rob.

Probably not much. You see, they're already using the theorised Higgs Boson and Field within the Standard Model. So really, apart from knowing a true value (TeV), it comes back to stamp collecting. Nothing much will change.

BUT, if the Higgs Boson is not found, wow, now that will signify that there is a problem in our current understanding of the particle zoo.

There are quite a few scientists at the LHC which, although want to find the Higgs, agree that the most exciting thing that could happen, is to NOT find the Higgs.

I personally believe that the best discovery would be Super Symmetry...that really would be something.

xelasnave · #10 14-10-2009, 07:20 PM

Jeez Mark I reckon it is easier to believe in God than to believe in SS... in fact I think one could muster more proof to prove God than SS.

I know math etc etc..but really I find the afront to common sence huge.
AND in fairness maybe I have misinterpreted the premise of SS but does it not propose a "super" partner for all particles in a "parrallel universe??? Put me straight please this is one case I hope I really have misinterpreted what I have read.
But I would be happy to have my views changed if there is any reasonable evidence besides what math running wild seems to have produced here.

alex

Nesti (Mark) · #11 14-10-2009, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Jeez Mark I reckon it is easier to believe in God than to believe in SS... in fact I think one could muster more proof to prove God than SS.

I know math etc etc..but really I find the afront to common sence huge.
AND in fairness maybe I have misinterpreted the premise of SS but does it not propose a "super" partner for all particles in a "parrallel universe??? Put me straight please this is one case I hope I really have misinterpreted what I have read.
But I would be happy to have my views changed if there is any reasonable evidence besides what math running wild seems to have produced here.

alex

No, you don't have to have parallel universes at all. Super Symmetry is simply that for every particle in the current zoo (excluding the photon), we have a sister particle. Yes, they are expected to be super-massive, and as such decay very rapidly. If we create high enough energies, we should see super-massive particles emerge.

What they provide, is circumstantial evidence that we're looking in the right direction, as to which way to advance certain theories in particle physics.

I'm hoping that they find a Graviton/Gravitino pair.

xelasnave · #12 14-10-2009, 07:39 PM

Thanks Mark I cant figure out whats going on in this Universe so I dont want to worry about any others.
alex

Nesti (Mark) · #13 14-10-2009, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Thanks Mark I cant figure out whats going on in this Universe so I dont want to worry about any others.
alex

Well, it's a good thing that you raised the point actually. I feel that most multiple (or parallel) universe theories are mostly coined so as to mute-out all of the possible quantum states (the super-position of all states) within the Schrodinger Wave Equation, and that also gets rid of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, in which a probability must be assigned to each and every outcome. Effectively killing two birds with one stone.

Put simply, multiple universe theories, or even Feynman's 'Sum Over Paths', try to remove the probability and super-positioning out of quantum measurement, so that we are left with an intuitively friendly deterministic path for every event.

Quantum computers contain an element of this.

Robh (Rob) · #14 14-10-2009, 08:16 PM

OK, according to the Standard Model, the fundamental forces of nature are mediated by gauge bosons (Photons, W & Z bosons, Gluons), all of which have been confirmed. Mass is hypothesised to be created by the Higgs Boson and gravity mediated by the graviton. How does dark matter fit into all this?

Rob.

renormalised (Carl) · #15 14-10-2009, 08:24 PM

Dark matter doesn't fit as there is no known particle predicted by the SM that fits the bill. So, DM is the spanner in the works

Nesti (Mark) · #16 14-10-2009, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robh

OK, according to the Standard Model, the fundamental forces of nature are mediated by gauge bosons (Photons, W & Z bosons, Gluons), all of which have been confirmed. Mass is hypothesised to be created by the Higgs Boson and gravity mediated by the graviton. How does dark matter fit into all this?

Rob.

It doesn't. Dark Matter is something completely different...nobody knows...everyone is guessing.

Robh (Rob) · #17 14-10-2009, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renormalised

Dark matter doesn't fit as there is no known particle predicted by the SM that fits the bill. So, DM is the spanner in the works

Nice one! Thanks, Carl.
Makes things rather interesting.

Regards, Rob.

renormalised (Carl) · #18 14-10-2009, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robh

Nice one! Thanks, Carl.
Makes things rather interesting.

Regards, Rob.

Glad to be of assistance

xelasnave · #19 15-10-2009, 01:03 AM

I was thinking..not drinking...and how about this...
Maybe dark matter is just little black holes..why.. because neither radiate er radiation..both can only be "seen" by drawing a gravitational conclusion (unless we agree that B H have Hawking radiation ...but a little one probably would not...)
So the Dark matter mystery is solved..what next?

Anyways it is nice to hear dark matter is a spanner in the works I never believed in it from an unconventional approach and to hear it is not within the current scheme of things makes me feel more confident in bagging it...
In fact may as well bag it a bit now... dark matter is a myth created to keep attraction in employment and that is one myth built upon another in my opinion....
alex

sjastro · #20 15-10-2009, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xelasnave

I was thinking..not drinking...and how about this...
Maybe dark matter is just little black holes..why.. because neither radiate er radiation..both can only be "seen" by drawing a gravitational conclusion (unless we agree that B H have Hawking radiation ...but a little one probably would not...)
So the Dark matter mystery is solved..what next?

Anyways it is nice to hear dark matter is a spanner in the works I never believed in it from an unconventional approach and to hear it is not within the current scheme of things makes me feel more confident in bagging it...
In fact may as well bag it a bit now... dark matter is a myth created to keep attraction in employment and that is one myth built upon another in my opinion....
alex

Alex,

It's like groundhog day with you.

(1) What happens when the mini black holes merge?
(2) Explain the result of the Cavendish experiment of 1798 if gravity is not a force of attraction.

Here is the detail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

Regards

Steven