Higgs Causes Inflation?

[CraigS]

Could the Higgs boson explain the size of the Universe?

The Universe wouldn't be the same without the Higgs boson. This legendary particle plays a role in cosmology and reveals the possible existence of another closely related particle.
…
To arrive at this conclusion, the physicists applied a mathematical principle known as scale invariance – starting with the Higgs boson, they were able to determine the existence of the dilaton, a close cousin, as well as its properties.
And it turns out that this new and as yet purely theoretical particle happens to have the exact characteristics to explain the existence of dark energy. This energy explains why the expansion of the current Universe is once again accelerating, but its origins are not understood. This theoretical advance – a completely unexpected result – is reassuring the scientists that they may be on the right track.

… if only the Higgs boson would appear ! .. dammit ..!..
This one certainly appears to 'up the stakes' !

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Someone should "salt" the results at the LHC

What if they never find the Higgs. That's going to throw a rather large spanner in their works as they stand at present. Just think, they spend several billion dollars on a new accelerator designed specifically to look for the Higgs particle (amongst other things) and they don't find it. Some pollies would love that....an excuse to shut it down.

[renormalised (Carl)]

The other problem with this is that theoretical particle physics is all too fond of pulling rabbits out of a hat in order to explain things they don't really understand in the first place. You can use the maths to come up with any number of "imaginary" particles that will do exactly what you need and want them to do. The big bogeyman in that equation is actually finding them and proving they exist. It's quite easy to understand why some people wonder about funding things like this. You or I know what comes of research like this, but a great many people don't. Finding the Higgs, or any other new particle or phenomenon for that matter, is more than just a scientific curiosity. This all boils down to the raison detre of particle physics, and even theoretical (and possibly experimental) science itself. With the way things are, unless there's some concrete results, quite a few things in science are going to suffer.

[xelasnave]

Carl you mentioned the importance of imagination. May I ask how should we imagine space in a particle approach using the Higgs, nuetrinos etc and all the stuff really that is rushing about. Does it all rush about?..does dark matter rush about or is it seen as a stationary sort of thing?


alex

[renormalised (Carl)]

Think of space as being a stage upon which the actors (the particles) are doing their stuff. Only, in this play, the actors actually interact with the floorboards

Since they're actors, they're doing all sorts of things...rushing about, sitting at rest, moving on and off the stage. Even when they're standing still at rest, because of the Uncertainty Principle you can never know whether they're truly at rest or just jiggering around on the spot. That's where your zero point energy comes from. Dark energy is probably either a component of, or in actual fact, the ZPE (we don't know, yet). Or, it could be something else entirely different.

[CraigS]

The chances of finding the particle under controlled laboratory (LHC) conditions is predicted by theory. If the particles are not found, then the theory will require revision, and will then be subject to scrutiny under the principles of self-consistency. Progress in science is certain.

There may be other ways of looking for the particles in the real system (aka: the universe). The same criteria would apply to this approach. Progress in science is less certain.

The laboratory exercise is probably way less expensive, when compared with exploring the universe, and leads to less arguable results, because it is a controlled environment, and the results should be able to be replicated. It has cost efficiency in its favour, and a less arguable outcome.

Not looking at all, is likely to lead to non-discovery, and an ever increasing research costs (from a non-naive perspective of the funded research 'business'). No progress in science is certain.

Cheers

[xelasnave]

Thank you Carl
Thank you Craig

Its all very interesting.
CERN had some sucess with the cloud experiment.

alex

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

The chances of finding the particle under controlled laboratory (LHC) conditions is predicted by theory. If the particles are not found, then the theory will require revision, and will then be subject to scrutiny under the principles of self-consistency. Progress in science is certain.

Yes, it is. But that still doesn't mean they're going to find it. It's progress, but not how they would like it to be

Originally Posted by CraigS

There may be other ways of looking for the particles in the real system (aka: the universe). The same criteria would apply to this approach. Progress in science is less certain.

No less certain than the above, just taking a different path.

Originally Posted by CraigS

The laboratory exercise is probably way less expensive, when compared with exploring the universe, and leads to less arguable results, because it is a controlled environment, and the results should be able to be replicated. It has cost efficiency in its favour, and a less arguable outcome.

I don't know, the LHC wasn't built on chicken feed!!!!. Admittedly, it's less expensive than, say, a trip to Alpha C' at present, but way more expensive than putting a particle detector on a satellite up in orbit or blasted out into space. I also wouldn't say the results are less arguable. They maybe in a state of better control of the conditions, but as for the results being less arguable....hardly. You only have to read the journals to see the varying opinions amongst the researchers. The only way they're less arguable is in the ease of control and replication of the results an earth bound experiment is afforded...as you have pointed out.

Originally Posted by CraigS

Not looking at all, is likely to lead to non-discovery, and an ever increasing research costs (from a non-naive perspective of the funded research 'business'). No progress in science is certain.

Cheers

Well, that's a given, over time. The longer you leave it, the more expensive it gets. But that's not a function of the actual research or the science, per se. That's entirely the fault of the mindless and reckless economic system under which we labour ourselves.

[CraigS]

The mid 1990s-to-present day 'economic systems' initiated and have sustained the LHC project to the present day.

The many different minds who consider research investments, have obviously found it to be justified and it represents the preferred option, over the myriad of considered alternatives.

The scientists and engineers who have developed it, are more than likely to embrace the data it produces, given that there is nothing else which can produce the same data.

This is reality and the real world .. like it or not.

Cheers

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Someone should "salt" the results at the LHC

What if they never find the Higgs. That's going to throw a rather large spanner in their works as they stand at present. Just think, they spend several billion dollars on a new accelerator designed specifically to look for the Higgs particle (amongst other things) and they don't find it. Some pollies would love that....an excuse to shut it down.

Not finding the Higgs would be a major scientific "discovery".

Either way the LHC serves a purpose.

Regards

Steven

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Not finding the Higgs would be a major scientific "discovery".

Either way the LHC serves a purpose.

Regards

Steven

I totally agree, but it's not up to the scientists as to who funds it. If the pollies think it's a waste of money, well you know what will happen.

[avandonk]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Thank you Carl
Thank you Craig

Its all very interesting.
CERN had some sucess with the cloud experiment.

alex

Yes the conclusion was that extra galactic particles (cosmic rays) have no effect on cloud formation so far.

Bert

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Not finding the Higgs would be a major scientific "discovery".

Either way the LHC serves a purpose.

Regards

Steven

What might be the next steps if it is discovered that the Higgs is not found (within conclusive significance levels) ?
Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

The mid 1990s-to-present day 'economic systems' initiated and have sustained the LHC project to the present day.

The many different minds who consider research investments, have obviously found it to be justified and it represents the preferred option, over the myriad of considered alternatives.

The scientists and engineers who have developed it, are more than likely to embrace the data it produces, given that there is nothing else which can produce the same data.

This is reality and the real world .. like it or not.

Cheers

Only because to have pulled out of the project back then (mid 90's) would've been financial suicide...all those contracts that would've had to have been paid out wouldn't have gone down too well. Try and do the same thing now....fund a LHC. You wouldn't get the money for it. In any case, the LHC has been on the cards since the early 80's. The US cancelled its own SSC back in the early 90's because it was going to cost them too much. These projects aren't on the solid ground you might believe they are. The LHC itself was touch and go for a time.

Of course the scientists and engineers who built it have a stake in what data it produces....that's a given. However, I'm not talking about the data it puts out. I'm talking about how it's interpreted and what the general theoretical physics community thinks of it. Whilst most would be happy to see what comes out of it, not everyone is going to agree with all the results that come from the experiments. Nothing is cut and dried.

Reality....rather subjective word, don't you think.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

What might be the next steps if it is discovered that the Higgs is not found (within conclusive significance levels) ?
Cheers

Have a look at some of the Higgsless models to see if they fit the data. If none of them do, that will be interesting

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by CraigS

What might be the next steps if it is discovered that the Higgs is not found (within conclusive significance levels) ?
Cheers

The first step would be to revise Electroweak theory which successively predicted the existence of the W and Z bosons based on a Higgs mechanism.

The theory of symmetry breaking to produce the W and Z bosons with mass is probably correct except for the Higgs mechanism.

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by sjastro

The first step would be to revise Electroweak theory which successively predicted the existence of the W and Z bosons based on a Higgs mechanism.

The theory of symmetry breaking to produce the W and Z bosons with mass is probably correct except for the Higgs mechanism.

Regards

Steven

Gotta chuckle at the use of the term 'Higgs Mechanism', in the light of our recent thread on Quantum Mechanics "Vs" Classical … and the significance of phenomenological theories.

… Especially seeing as the term implies the same status as QM (ontologically speaking).

Cheers

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Gotta chuckle at the use of the term 'Higgs Mechanism', in the light of our recent thread on Quantum Mechanics "Vs" Classical … and the significance of phenomenological theories.

… Especially seeing as the term implies the same status as QM (ontologically speaking).

Cheers

For many Particle Physicists, the "Higgs mechanism" is not a mechanism at all but an ad hoc construction to produce the required mass. Going through the maths behind the Higgs mechanism, there is nothing intuitive about the construction.

It would not be surprising if there was relief if the Higgs was never found.

On the other hand the theory behind Goldstone bosons which predated the Higgs is quite the opposite, unfortunately it produces massless particles or particles with very little mass after the symmetry is broken.

Regards

Steven

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

The first step would be to revise Electroweak theory which successively predicted the existence of the W and Z bosons based on a Higgs mechanism.

The theory of symmetry breaking to produce the W and Z bosons with mass is probably correct except for the Higgs mechanism.

Regards

Steven

Should've thought of that myself....some of the Higgsless models I believe do account for the W and Z.