Notices
Results 1 to 83 of 83
Like Tree14Likes
  • 3 Post By ballyhoo
  • 1 Post By Markus Hanke
  • 6 Post By fizzlooney
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By Boing3000
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By Boing3000

Thread: CERN physicists report strong evidence of Higgs boson

  1. #1 CERN physicists report strong evidence of Higgs boson 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    132
    CERN physicists report strong evidence of Higgs boson (w/ live video from CERN)

    CERN experiments observe particle consistent with long-sought Higgs boson
    At a seminar held at CERN today as a curtain raiser to the year’s major particle physics conference, ICHEP2012 in Melbourne, the ATLAS and CMS experiments presented their latest preliminary results in the search for the long sought Higgs particle. Both experiments observe a new particle in the mass region around 125-126 GeV.
    “We observe in our data clear signs of a new particle, at the level of 5 sigma, in the mass region around 126 GeV. The outstanding performance of the LHC and ATLAS and the huge efforts of many people have brought us to this exciting stage,” said ATLAS experiment spokesperson Fabiola Gianotti, “but a little more time is needed to prepare these results for publication.”
    "The results are preliminary but the 5 sigma signal at around 125 GeV we’re seeing is dramatic. This is indeed a new particle. We know it must be a boson and it’s the heaviest boson ever found,” said CMS experiment spokesperson Joe Incandela. “The implications are very significant and it is precisely for this reason that we must be extremely diligent in all of our studies and cross-checks."


    pyoko, Ascended and kvskvt like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Saw this earlier. Very exciting!


    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    344
    same here, I heard it on CBC radio. they say earlier they already predicted the exsistence of such a boson, but that only until now with our advanced technology we have finally verified it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Average Human guymillion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    187
    I jumped up and down when I saw this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Higgs the Aether and the Rest 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    I get often confused when scientist explain the Higgs bosons as the quanta of a Higgs field. Or that particles moving through that field get draged-down or more appropriately 'get mass'.

    Does anybody know about a good reference on the web or a book which tackle the problem from another view point ? I can grasp relativity so I am confused by the fact that particles at "rest" from that all pervasive Higgs field should not get dragged-down or have no mass ? Isn't it a kind of Aether 2.0

    In other words:

    If the Higgs is a boson, and that it mediate the 'mass(or energy?) interaction', then is it not the missing link between quantum theory and general relativity ?
    Beside, are there other particles (I mean boson) that interacts with themselves ? How can a Higgs have a mass otherwhise ?
    And back to the aether analogy, why is it needed to speculate that there is a such a Higgs field ? Are there other bosons that are supposed to be "potentially" everywhere so the standard model can hold ?

    I am feeling like a photon, this weak boson, ignored by its furtive Higgs cousin, mass-less despite all that energy, which Albert say should also bent space-time, or not ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    90
    I'm glad we've found it - well, I'm glad we've found what is there, I was kinda hoping that it wasn't there and that the Standard Model would have to be "ripped up" . . . I'd just like the fuss and excitement it would have caused, having to re-asses 'everything'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    272
    As i see it and im not an expert , there no "fild"and no aether , the partical move back and forwed in time so it can fill the "fild" . And the fact that it more anti partical mean that it moves more bacwerd in time . Thanks
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    272
    Sorry for my bad english , fill , fell feel the field how know
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 in melbourne, the most experts scientists have been finding the new subatomic which is known as boson higgs. woow fantastic! 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    28
    we can say if it is true a boson higgs particle, it'll become a new era of the development of the science fiction. we found the missing link in the proton and neutron. what the boson higgs is exatcly used for?.. the benefit for humanity? because as told that is the biggest invention in this century. why?.. what is a boson higgs?.. what is the use for us?..mm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    It's not the biggest invention of the century, since certainly we did not invent it. It MAY be a great discovery, when and if it is confirmed over the next few years...

    BTW, I am going to merge some of these Higgs threads.

    Please look to see if a discussion is underway on the subject before starting a new one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Water Nosfim View Post
    As i see it and im not an expert , there no "fild"and no aether , the partical move back and forwed in time so it can fill the "fild" . And the fact that it more anti partical mean that it moves more bacwerd in time . Thanks
    That's nonsense, there are no particles moving back in time. Anti-particles also move along the normal direction of the arrow of time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    I am also excited, yet I would urge a degree of caution. At the moment all we know is that we have observed something that appears to behave like a boson, and that is roughly inside the mass-spectrum bracket we would expect the Higgs to be in.
    It still needs to be positively identified as actually being the Higgs. Chances seem really good, though
    MeteorWayne likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    I am also excited, yet I would urge a degree of caution. At the moment all we know is that we have observed something that appears to behave like a boson, and that is roughly inside the mass-spectrum bracket we would expect the Higgs to be in.
    It still needs to be positively identified as actually being the Higgs. Chances seem really good, though
    I believe they said the chances of it not being the HB is 1 in 3 million. I'm quite glad how importantly useful these operations turned out, instead of creating a doomsday black hole like so many people speculated.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    272
    You can glims on it when it inhilete
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Like so many scientifically ignorant people speculated
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    951
    And after all that a little humor
    A Higgs Boson walks into the Vatican. A guard says sorry sir we can't let you into this sacred area. Boson says- But without me you can't have Mass.
    happy 4th
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Precisely so,
    so is there some comprehensive ressources where the ACTUAL Higgs role/properties are in regards to its fitting into other model (in the Higgs extended standard model). It is clear enough for me that as usual theorist forsee a particules when there is some hole in the theory, symmetry breaking about particles mass in this case (if I am not mystaken). I know that this theory is correct, they ALL are, the experiment just show if that theory fits reality, and deserve to be kept (for now)

    I am deeply concerned about all explanation given about that Higgs boson, because thoses explanations hardly fits anything I had heard previously, even for quantum mechanics. This Higgs field and the molasses analogy: why ? why is that needed ? why does that aether like field must be introduce ?. Is it only to help dummies like me to understand quantum mechanics ? Feynmam succeed that perfectly with little drawing and no need of aether like explanation.

    Is this because it is the only spin 0 boson, that it could interact with itself ? does it do that btw ? Isn't mass the critical property of matter (and energy, they are supposed to be exchangeable), especially in regards to relativity, and the need of unification of those theories ?
    I have read tons of vulgarization books, I would just like some perspective on those Higgs things.

    There is a lot to think about the CERN experiment, but I am not concerned to discus that here. I've read Read Lee Smolin, and I 've got his perspective on such out of touch experiment...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,418
    I suppose a least now it makes the plot of Angels and Demons a bit more believable.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Water Nosfim View Post
    As i see it and im not an expert , there no "fild"and no aether , the partical move back and forwed in time so it can fill the "fild" . And the fact that it more anti partical mean that it moves more bacwerd in time . Thanks
    That's nonsense, there are no particles moving back in time. Anti-particles also move along the normal direction of the arrow of time.
    The impact back in time and it inhilete or what ever ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    Does anybody know about a good reference on the web or a book which tackle the problem from another view point ? I can grasp relativity ...
    As far as I can tell, unless you understand the full mathematics of the gauge theory approach to quantum field theories, there is no informal description of the Higgs mechanism.

    If the Higgs is a boson, and that it mediate the 'mass(or energy?) interaction', then is it not the missing link between quantum theory and general relativity ?
    No. That would be the (hypothetical) graviton. The Higgs boson doe not "mediate" the mass interaction; rather it "produces" mass (which then causes gravity, which might [hypothetically] be mediated by the graviton).
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Water Nosfim View Post
    im not an expert
    As far as I can tell, that is the only accurate statement you have ever made.

    As you are not an expert, why do you keep making up stories about particles that "move back and forward in time"? Particles do NOT move backwards in time.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,034
    This BBC news story might help explain the Higgs mechanism. Or not.
    Ping-Pong Particles: What the Higgs Does
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    I suppose a least now it makes the plot of Angels and Demons a bit more believable.
    Sorry, but I have to say it. It was antimatter, not the Higgs. But next time I see the scene in CERN, I'll be thinking about today.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by halorealm View Post
    I believe they said the chances of it not being the HB is 1 in 3 million. I'm quite glad how importantly useful these operations turned out, instead of creating a doomsday black hole like so many people speculated.
    Actually, the black hole would have been more fun !!
    It would have immediately sunk into the earth's core, slowly digesting us from the inside...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Thanks for the link.
    But using sugar to represent an all pervasive field is the most sweet description of the aether I've ever tasted. I don't even see why there is any need to mention the big bang, which is one of the most questionable theories of all (If it can be called a "theory" at all). It doesn't even have the quantum ring to it.

    Well I suppose that the era of probability wave collapse function and Feynman diagram are over, and that the new era of this "beautiful mathematics" which require X level of renormalization and other pure mathematical tricks on the mathematics itself before having some real number pops out, has begun. And that topological mathematics, and the beauty of Lie group, and Tera^Tera bytes of data and arrays of computers and wasting budget is the only way to do science.

    I've always admire intellectual feat, and the CERN experiment is one. But what I like more is science, logical things with a connection to real-life. Quantum theory can at least can be a little useful in the future when quantum jump will be used (computer, perfect membrane), like Bose-Einstein condensate are already in use (laser).

    Now that we we know the Higgs exist, it for sure is easy to build a Higgs repulsive, wrap it around my car, get massless, (even so it apparently won't bent space-time inside-out, nor get me instantly moving at light speed like all mass-less well-behaving things should do), and you would be able to push me toward the nearest star (you won't notice it, because I'll be mass-less)

    So long, and thanks for the fish

    I am going to re-read "why E=mC2, and why should I care", especially because of the "caring" arguments which are reality-binding.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    Thanks for the link.
    But using sugar to represent an all pervasive field is the most sweet description of the aether I've ever tasted.
    Although the work aether is often used, metaphorically, for spacetime or the various fields, including the Higgs, it is important to note that this is note the same as the aether that used to be thought to be required for the transmission of light. For example, the "old" aether would have required all sorts of physical attributes (density, stiffness, etc) that none of these fields have.

    I don't even see why there is any need to mention the big bang
    Because the Higgs field results from symmetry breaking as the universe cooled from its initial state.

    , which is one of the most questionable theories of all
    If you want to discuss the evidence supporting the big bang theory, then you should start another thread.

    Well I suppose that the era of probability wave collapse function and Feynman diagram are over, and that the new era of this "beautiful mathematics" which require X level of renormalization and other pure mathematical tricks on the mathematics itself before having some real number pops out, has begun.
    Not really. The Higgs boson is part of the Standard Model. If anything, it would have been more exiting (and time for a new era) if it hadn't been found.

    And that topological mathematics, and the beauty of Lie group, and Tera^Tera bytes of data and arrays of computers and wasting budget is the only way to do science.
    So you don't approve of spending money on scientific research?

    [science fiction speculation skipped]

    I am going to re-read "why E=mC2, and why should I care", especially because of the "caring" arguments which are reality-binding.
    Why you should care? How about nuclear power (fission and fusion)? Or sunshine? Radiotherapy for treating disease? etc.
    kvskvt likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,667
    If scientific research isn't worth the money to spend on... What is?

    Healthcare? No we all die anyway.

    Art? Why bother. It looks like something my sister painted when she was 3.

    Expensive stuff? It breaks anyway. And it costs more money to keep it.

    Our offspring? Others will do it better anyway.

    What's left?

    Scientific research is one of the best ways to put your money.. It'll not always have results, but when it does, it increases our general understanding of the universe and how it all works.
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    I suppose a least now it makes the plot of Angels and Demons a bit more believable.
    Only a bottle of Jack Daniels can make the plot of Angels and Demons more believable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Although the work aether is often used, metaphorically, for spacetime or the various fields, including the Higgs, it is important to note that this is note the same as the aether that used to be thought to be required for the transmission of light. For example, the "old" aether would have required all sorts of physical attributes (density, stiffness, etc) that none of these fields have.
    Not even a density (probability of Higgs encounter) a temperature(everage Higgs momentum), or if something move trough them, a position/direction ?

    If you want to discuss the evidence supporting the big bang theory, then you should start another thread.
    No at all, this is old meat. I don’t understand why this creationist perspective pops up again when we are talking about the actual standard model.
    Not really. The Higgs boson is part of the Standard Model. If anything, it would have been more exiting (and time for a new era) if it hadn't been found.
    You lost me. Why is the success of an experiment (even if just adding some measured numbers to speculated particles) un-exciting? Are you motivated by the search/looking process and not the found/achievement one ?
    The standard model will hold until the end of time (at least while 1+1=2). But turning it into a everlasting questioning process is not at all what I’d call exciting.
    [science fiction speculation skipped]
    Too bad, I was trying to get your perspective on how this Higgs discovery may lead to real impact in everyday life. But apparently, having a mass do not even qualify to be related to inertia or things moving through space/time.

    So you don't approve of spending money on scientific research?
    Quite the opposite. But I would prioritize experiment where discoveries would lead to MORE insight and excitement, like gravitational wave detection/speed, turning grass into benzene, curing cancer, and more importantly whatnot
    Tweaking the standard models is just a waste of time, you can build nothing with it apparently…

    Why you should care? How about nuclear power (fission and fusion)? Or sunshine? Radiotherapy for treating disease? etc.
    Sorry, but there is a causality violation in your statement. Power plant where running in the 50’th and the standard model achieved in the 70’th. Although a little quantum mechanics would help, you don’t need any Higgs, not even the neutrino definition (just postulated, not even discovered by than) to have a light bulb working on nuclear juice.
    Appealing to my human nature is quite on the point because none of the equation of quantum mechanics helps understanding biology. They may help build better magnetic resonance imagery, but again 1930 quantum knowledge is quite enough.

    Anyway, thanks for your input.
    kvskvt likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    Not even a density (probability of Higgs encounter) a temperature(everage Higgs momentum), or if something move trough them, a position/direction ?
    Sorry, not sure what that means.

    I don’t understand why this creationist perspective pops up again when we are talking about the actual standard model.
    I thought you were talking about the science behind the big bang theory, not "creationism" (which appears to be some sort of religious doctrine I don't know too much about). And neither seem to have anything to do with the Standard Model.

    You lost me. Why is the success of an experiment (even if just adding some measured numbers to speculated particles) un-exciting?
    Because the most exciting advances in science come when we discover something unexpected rather than just confirming what we already know. That is a great achievement but, in a sense, doesn't really lead anywhere.

    Sorry, but there is a causality violation in your statement. Power plant where running in the 50’th and the standard model achieved in the 70’th.
    You were talking about e=mc2; this dates back to Einstein's work at the start of the 20th century, which led to the development of nuclear weapons (boo) and nuclear power (hurrah).
    Last edited by Strange; July 5th, 2012 at 11:25 AM.
    John Galt likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,418
    Quote Originally Posted by halorealm View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    I suppose a least now it makes the plot of Angels and Demons a bit more believable.
    Sorry, but I have to say it. It was antimatter, not the Higgs. But next time I see the scene in CERN, I'll be thinking about today.
    Hey no, your right it was antimatter but they also kept banging on about the god particle, that was pretty messed up.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Professor pyoko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,095
    Yes, in Angels and Demons the priest scientist kept muttering on about how his experiment created a particle from nothing, hence some sort of parallel to theism. Good book, though.
    It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,418
    Quote Originally Posted by pyoko View Post
    Yes, in Angels and Demons the priest scientist kept muttering on about how his experiment created a particle from nothing, hence some sort of parallel to theism. Good book, though.
    What is the God particle? | Angels & Demons - The science behind the story
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Erode, India
    Posts
    14
    Propably the greatest discovery of the century- ------- - HIGG'S BOSON
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Erode, India
    Posts
    14
    Higgs boson is a very massive particle and decays almost immediately when created, only a very high energy particle accelerator can observe and record it. Experiments to confirm and determine the nature of the Higgs boson using the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN began in early 2010, and were performed at Fermilab's Tevatron until its close in late 2011. Mathematical consistency of the Standard Model requires that any mechanism capable of generating the masses of elementary particles become visible at energies above 1.4 TeV; therefore, the LHC (designed to collide two 7 TeV proton beams, but currently running at 4 TeV each) was built to answer the question of whether or not the Higgs boson exists
    On 4 July 2012, the two main experiments at the LHC (ATLAS and CMS) both reported independently the confirmed existence of a previously unknown particle with a mass of about125 GeV/c2 (about 133 proton masses, on the order of 10−25 kg), which is "consistent with the Higgs boson" and widely believed to be the Higgs boson. They acknowledged that further work would be needed to confirm that it is indeed the Higgs boson and not some other previously unknown particle (meaning that it has the theoretically predicted properties of the Higgs boson) and, if so, to determine which version of the Standard Model it best supports.
    The Higgs boson is often referred to as the "God particle" by the media after the title of Leon Lederman's popular science book on particle physics, The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question? While use of this term may have contributed to increased media interest, many scientists dislike it, since it overstates the particle's importance, not least since its discovery would still leave unanswered questions about the unification of quantum chromodynamics, the electroweak interaction, and gravity, as well as the ultimate origin of the universe. Higgs is an atheist, and is displeased that the Higgs particle is nicknamed the "God particle", because in Higgs's view the term "might offend people who are religious".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    I am going to re-read "why E=mC2, and why should I care", especially because of the "caring" arguments which are reality-binding.
    I have just found out that Why Does E=mc2?: (and Why Should We Care?) is the title of a book. This statement makes a bit more sense now. But what does "reality-binding" mean?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by kvskvt View Post
    Higgs boson is a very massive particle and decays almost immediately when created, only a very high energy particle accelerator can observe and record it. Experiments to confirm and determine the nature of the Higgs boson using the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN began in early 2010, and were performed at Fermilab's Tevatron until its close in late 2011. Mathematical consistency of the Standard Model requires that any mechanism capable of generating the masses of elementary particles become visible at energies above 1.4 TeV; therefore, the LHC (designed to collide two 7 TeV proton beams, but currently running at 4 TeV each) was built to answer the question of whether or not the Higgs boson exists
    On 4 July 2012, the two main experiments at the LHC (ATLAS and CMS) both reported independently the confirmed existence of a previously unknown particle with a mass of about125 GeV/c2 (about 133 proton masses, on the order of 10−25 kg), which is "consistent with the Higgs boson" and widely believed to be the Higgs boson. They acknowledged that further work would be needed to confirm that it is indeed the Higgs boson and not some other previously unknown particle (meaning that it has the theoretically predicted properties of the Higgs boson) and, if so, to determine which version of the Standard Model it best supports.
    The Higgs boson is often referred to as the "God particle" by the media after the title of Leon Lederman's popular science book on particle physics, The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question? While use of this term may have contributed to increased media interest, many scientists dislike it, since it overstates the particle's importance, not least since its discovery would still leave unanswered questions about the unification of quantum chromodynamics, the electroweak interaction, and gravity, as well as the ultimate origin of the universe. Higgs is an atheist, and is displeased that the Higgs particle is nicknamed the "God particle", because in Higgs's view the term "might offend people who are religious".
    First, When you copy and paste something, at the very least, give a link to the source. They are the rules here, in fact on any forum.

    Secondly, this is a discussion forum, so basically you copied the Wiki listing and enganfed in so discussion.

    MW
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I have just found out that Why Does E=mc2?: (and Why Should We Care?) is the title of a book. This statement makes a bit more sense now. But what does "reality-binding" mean?
    It means "I should care" because it is not only beautiful mathematics and perfect unification. It gives clue about REAL thing. OK I cannot see Mercury precession with my bare eyes no more then I would witness a Higgs bosom. But I can build a Michelson Morley experiment in my garage, maybe also a telescope. No need to spend billions of dollars to get some computer crancks tera^tera bytes of data and spit out 125 (42 would have been much more fun )

    It mean that this experiment is disconnected with reality, it mean also that is is quite un-falsifiable. Naming it the God particle was finally a good thing. Because like God you'll just have to believe it exist even though it has NO predictable consequences whatsoever. Who will be able to reproduce that experiment, just once ?

    I know better that believing that scientist have no good reason to do that. I am just looking for them. The standard model is OK. With or without the Higgs. It nearly is as un-falsifiable as string theory, in that it have so many dials that can be tweaked to match experimental result. But at least, it can account for the proportion of various particles emitted by nuclear fusion/fission, even if it can do that AFTER the reactor has been build (and the bomb launched, and not having the correct neutrino ratio right BTW)

    My first question to this forum was not about ranting like Lee Smolin about the decadence of science mindset in general, although it is too late, unless you've not read this post, meaning that its ranting wave function is still waiting to collapse on its own usefullness-dumbidity duality... NO

    My interrogation was that this Higgs seems to be described NOT like other quantum mechanics bosons (gauge ones). That the Higgs field as snow or as sugar is not at all what quatum FIELD theory seems to meen by field (locality and so forth).

    OK now my head is spinning...
    Last edited by Boing3000; July 5th, 2012 at 04:45 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    It mean that this experiment is disconnected with reality, it mean also that is is quite un-falsifiable.
    You mean it is unfalsifiable because it you can't personally falsify it in your garage. Well, tough. Much of modern science is out of reach of amateurs. It is falsifiable because there could have been no sign of the Higgs. (Now, that would have been exciting.)

    Who will be able to reproduce that experiment, just once ?
    I'm quite sure people will work out alternatives. I have seen proposals for desktop particle colliders that would do the same job as billion dollar systems of the past. People are already planning what to do next: Physicists propose factory to spew out Higgs particles - physics-math - 05 July 2012 - New Scientist

    The standard model is OK. With or without the Higgs.
    Without the Higgs it wouldn't work. It would be (largely) falsified.

    My interrogation was that this Higgs seems to be described NOT like other quantum mechanics bosons (gauge ones).
    As I say, if you understand gauge theory then you will understand the Higgs mechanism. If you don't then there is no explanation possible, apart from silly cocktail party and sugar analogies.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    You mean it is unfalsifiable because it you can't personally falsify it in your garage.
    Not I, not You, not the latest Nobel , not even a Nation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Well, tough. Much of modern science is out of reach of amateurs.
    Bad science is. And I agree with you with your statement about modern ones. Or at least fundamental physics, I don’t think latest discoveries/theories in biology, evolution etc, suffer the same problem. They are simple, elegant, testable, in a word FUNDAMENTAL.
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    It is falsifiable because there could have been no sign of the Higgs. (Now, that would have been exciting.)
    No it is not. No sign of Higgs, would just lead physicists to say: “well, its to big to fail” ahem sorry: “too heavy to be observed”. I don’t see anything exciting. There are many other theories fitting/extending the standard model. But I wouldn’t qualify them as “exciting”, I would say “exotic” .

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I'm quite sure people will work out alternatives. I have seen proposals for desktop particle colliders that would do the same job as billion dollar systems of the past. People are already planning what to do next: Physicists propose factory to spew out Higgs particles - physics-math - 05 July 2012 - New Scientist
    Now that IS science. Thanks for the link. It’s the same people always bashing particles but at least it would be accessible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Without the Higgs it wouldn't work. It would be (largely) falsified.
    It all boils down to what you mean by “work”. In a previous post I said “OK”. OK it works, means for me that you can use it to compute number/property to build things. If the Standard Model is this marvelous achievement (with or without the Higgs) it is because it WORKS. Newtonian physics WORKS. General relativity ALSO. Newtonian one fails ONLY for 1% of things needing to be computed. If not, you switch to relativity (which does not even account for the movement of Stars but who cares ? it is the 1% of 1%).
    You said LARGELY falsified. So my question is: what parts of the result of this great Quantum mechanics would be to be redone/thrown away? How many Nobel prize would be recalled and how many cars would stop working ?(OK it is a silly analogy, you probably build nothing usable out of quantum theory)
    The answer is nothing is false, the scope of the theory has reached an end. And the only one thing outside that scope is the LHC collider …
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    As I say, if you understand gauge theory then you will understand the Higgs mechanism. If you don't then there is no explanation possible, apart from silly cocktail party and sugar analogies.
    Have you ever heard the photon being explained like something trough which electron moves so they can acquire an electric charge? No that would be the Higgs electro-boson. But this fellow is not needed because electric charge is symmetric. This much I get.
    What I don’t get is that solving this symmetry breaking requires adding more un-symmetry to the bosom table. Why only the graviton (boson force carrier) would need a boson force giver companion, and not all the other boson force carrier?
    Gosh, I really need a good book on this topic…
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,034
    Here is a good overview of the meaning and significance of a "5 sigma" result: Physics Buzz: Does 5-sigma = discovery?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    It means "I should care" because it is not only beautiful mathematics and perfect unification. It gives clue about REAL thing. OK I cannot see Mercury precession with my bare eyes no more then I would witness a Higgs bosom. But I can build a Michelson Morley experiment in my garage, maybe also a telescope. No need to spend billions of dollars to get some computer crancks tera^tera bytes of data and spit out 125 (42 would have been much more fun )
    It is the Higgs that gives you your mass - without mass this universe would look very different, and more than likely we wouldn't be here right now to have this discussion.
    How much more "real" can it possibly get ?

    Because like God you'll just have to believe it exist even though it has NO predictable consequences whatsoever.
    See above - it gives you your mass. You want to falsify it ? Jump off the next bridge. If the Higgs is not real you will just float - if it is...ah well.

    Who will be able to reproduce that experiment, just once ?
    Pretty much any future particle accelerator.

    The standard model is OK. With or without the Higgs.
    Err, no. The SM without Higgs lacks an explanation for how and why elementary particles get their mass.

    It nearly is as un-falsifiable as string theory, in that it have so many dials that can be tweaked to match experimental result.
    Also not right. The physical properties of the Higgs were pretty much set in stone by group theoretical arguments prior to the search. We knew what we were looking for.

    That the Higgs field as snow or as sugar is not at all what quatum FIELD theory seems to meen by field (locality and so forth).
    Incorrect yet again. It conforms to all the usual concepts of QFT.
    Where did you get the impression that is different from other "fields" ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    Gosh, I really need a good book on this topic…
    Indeed you do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkusHanke View Post
    It is the Higgs that gives you your mass - without mass this universewould look very different, and more than likely we wouldn't be hereright now to have this discussion.
    How much more "real" can it possibly get ?
    Any particle fits that description. Any slightest change in some oftheir properties and we won't be there, so your argument is barely measurable, in terms of it carrying information.
    Real”means adding something to the equation. Predicting something new.Sorry but I already know I exist. I am past this non-sense, like any multivers were I wouldn't be past it.
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkusHanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    Because like God you'll just have to believe it exist even though it has NOpredictable consequences whatsoever.
    See above - it gives you your mass.You want to falsify it ? Jump off the next bridge. If the Higgs isnot real you will just float - if it is...ah well.
    lol,I look above, twice, and now I see that I can see. So this post is giving me sight. Nice logic.
    BTW even if I had no mass, I am pretty sure I'll still be on the same planet,were everything accelerate at 1g regardless of its mass. Maybe it is why I don't do experiment that won't learn me anything.

    Pretty much any future particle accelerator.
    That means none. Are your aware a the cost of it ? Ah well ... I realize you are talking of the one that we are gona build around Jupiter's belt...

    Err,no. The SM without Higgs lacks an explanation for how and whyelementary particles get their mass.
    Err,yes. Theories are not about explaining anything we know already.Beside SM would still hold even if the LHC would discover nothing. Or even if it would have discover something at a energy level the theory EXCLUDE, it would still be correct. There would just be the discovery of an end to its domain of validity.
    You see SM does not explain anything about the origin of the dozen constant that plage its equations. It does not have to. What it does have to do, is to be useful/real.

    Also not right. The physical properties of the Higgs were pretty much setin stone by group theoretical arguments prior to the search. We knew what we were looking for.
    Ho, is that so ? That is the first time a hear that. But you use the WE. So you arephysicist. You should have ring to those lazy **** in switzer-france to tell about your stone where is engraved 125G. They would have spare a lot on their electric bill.

    Incorrectyet again
    By now, it is a good news. At least your “wrongness” detector is non-random.


    Where did you get the impression that is different from other "fields"?

    I am gona re-read the half dozen book about quantum theory that I have,and try to search for any usage of a all pervasive non-local “field”,of unknown property nor origin.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    36
    If you're willing to entertain the possibility that maybe we shouldn't be celebrating...

    How Much Knowledge Is Too Much?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    Real”means adding something to the equation.
    You are missing the point. Of course we knew already that we existed and had mass - but now we know why.

    BTW even ifI had no mass, I am pretty sure I'll still be on the same planet,were everything accelerate at 1g regardless of its mass.
    No you wouldn't. Without mass neither you nor the planet would be here now.

    Thatmeans none. Are your aware a the cost of it ?
    Yes I am. Yet nuclear physics will continue to advance, and particle accelerators will always be part of it. The next big projects will likely be the upgrading of the LHC to energies of 30+ TeV, and then there is of course the International Linear Collider in the pipeline. All of these will have no difficulties detecting the Higgs.

    I realizeyou are talking of the one that we are gona build around Jupiter'sbelt...
    Not sure what you are trying to imply here. See above.

    That is the first time a hear that.
    Yes, I can tell.

    But you use the WE. So you arephysicist.
    No, I am not.

    You should have ring to those lazy **** in switzer-franceto tell about your stone where were engraved 125G.
    They knew which energy range to expect the Higgs in. Most other properties of the particle where predicted by the theory as well - this only serves as experimental confirmation.

    Iam gona re-read the half dozen book about quantum theory that I have
    You mean quantum field theory.

    and try to search for any usage of a all pervasive non-local “field”
    You mean a field like this one :

    Lagrangian of Higgs field

    of unknown property nor origin.
    See above. Not unknown at all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkusHanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkusHanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    Real”meansadding something to the equation.

    Youare missing the point. Of course we knew already that we existed andhad mass - but now we know
    why.

    Icertainly miss yours. But my point is: nothing is added to theequation, nor about the knowledge about mass. SM has already Higgs inits equation, and all masses are known (well not the one of Higgsitself, now it is done).
    Soif you still don't get it try to give me a link(** see below) to realadded value to the knowledge of science.
    I'llgive you an example so you may want to participate in an active way:when Lorentz add the term square root of 1 minus velocity squareddivided by c squared, to equation of movement, it leads to a lot ofconsequences, of unknown and NEW consequences. Even If Einsten was theone taking them seriously and build special relativity upon them, itleads to this really small thing like E=MC2.
    That'swhat I'd call “adding to the equattion” and even the list ofequations...

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkusHanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    BTW even if I had no mass, I ampretty sure I'll still be on the same planet,were everythingaccelerate at 1g regardless of its mass.
    No you wouldn't.Without mass neither you nor the planet would be here now.

    Soif Ihad no mass, the planet will disappear ? Well that is is quite anassumption ! I am gona tell that to my photon friend.

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkusHanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    That means none. Are your awarea the cost of it ?
    Yes I am. Yet nuclear physics willcontinue to advance, and particle accelerators will always be part ofit. The next big projects will likely be the upgrading of the LHC toenergies of 30+ TeV, and then there is of course the InternationalLinear Collider in the pipeline. All of these will have nodifficulties detecting the Higgs.

    Youmix-up wishful thinking and real life facts like economy, motivation,or even scientific purpose...

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkusHanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    That is the first time a hearthat.
    Yes, I can tell.

    WhatI can tell is that incomplete quoting is not very useful in a discussion.
    Theyknew which energy
    range toexpect the Higgs in. Most other properties of the particle wherepredicted by the theory as well - this only serves as experimentalconfirmation.

    Knownwithin a certain probability. Experiments are not there to confirm atheory, but to falsify it.
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkusHanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    I am gona re-read the half dozenbook about quantum theory that I have
    You meanquantum
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkusHanke View Post
    field theory

    NoI mean quantum theory.


    Youmean a field like this one :
    Lagrangianof Higgs field

    Somethinglike that. Thank you very much(** see above). This link is rich rich, I will diginto this:
    Quote Originally Posted by article
    Someperturbations of the Higgs vacuum can be realized by means of thelocal gauge transformation which do not correspond to physicaldegrees of freedom.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    Gosh, I really need a good book on this topic…
    Indeed you do.
    Thanks for backing up my claims. Now I am thirsty, should I have a drink ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Soif you still don't get it try to give me a link(** see below) to realadded value to the knowledge of science.
    The exact mass of the Higgs - now to be inserted into the SM to make the maths precise. We only knew which range the mass would be in, but now we will know the exact value. A rather similar process took place with many of the other fundamental particles in the past, and it has made the SM into what it is today.
    In my mind that's a lot of added value to the knowledge of science, but maybe that's just me

    Soif Ihad no mass, the planet will disappear ? Well that is is quite anassumption ! I am gona tell that to my photon friend.
    Without mass the planet ( and you ) would never have formed in the first place, because the total energy other than mass wouldn't have been enough to generate enough gravity to hold these bodies together.

    Youmix-up wishful thinking and real life facts like economy, motivation,or even scientific purpose...
    ILC - International Linear Collider - Home Page

    Knownwithin a certain probability. Experiments are not there to confirm atheory, but to falsify it.
    That is true. So in that sense, by way of falsification, we looked at the predicted energy range - and found something.
    So in the end it wasn't falsified, but confirmed.

    NoI mean quantum theory.
    Then you are looking in the wrong place. I recommend the following :

    A.Zee : Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell, 2003, ISBN 0691010196

    You will need to be fairly well versed in maths though, but that's generally true for this area of science.

    Some perturbations of the Higgs vacuum can be realized by means of the local gauge transformation which do not correspond to physicaldegrees of freedom.
    I am not certain why you quoted that. A physical degree of freedom is a free parameter that a system has which contributes to the description of its state. A local gauge transformation is not always equivalent to a degree of freedom, since, given the appropriate symmetries, it can leave the system itself unchanged. That's the beauty of it !
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    Thanks for backing up my claims. Now I am thirsty, should I have a drink ?
    I still do not quite get what your claims actually are. To me it sounds like you are saying the search for the Higgs was a waste of resources, because it has no practical applications. I have three major issues with this :

    1. CERN is there to study all areas of particle physics - it wasn't built to specifically look for the Higgs alone. So are you saying that all quantum physics is a waste of resources ?
    2. While you are quite correct in saying that the Higgs has no practical present day applications, we do not yet understand its full implications. For example, it might ( I'm not saying it will ) one day be possible to manipulate the Higgs field, leading to all sorts of interesting applications. This is what happened with many of the other particles discovered over the years, so e.g. the discovery of the positron eventually lead to the development of PET as a diagnostic tool in medicine. Carl Anderson could not have foreseen this when he first did his cloud chamber experiments, but that did not stop him from going ahead anyway. That is what is called science.
    3. The question of whether or not resources are to be expanded for scientific advancement is a political one. In my mind there is no doubt that the Higgs search did indeed add scientific value, also indirectly via development of new technologies etc. Btw, isn't this how we got to have the Internet ??
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkusHanke View Post
    The exact massof the Higgs - now to be inserted into the SM to make the mathsprecise. We only knew which range the mass would be in, but now wewill know the exact value. A rather similar process took place withmany of the other fundamental particles in the past, and it has madethe SM into what it is today.
    In my mind that's a lot of addedvalue to the knowledge of science, but maybe that's justme
    No,it is not just you, everybody at CERN +- the error margin does.
    Andwhat you say is just the contrary, compared to previous welldocumented discoveries. Without even introducing the cost(measurable)of this small(measurable) measurement. The cost is a divisor not adividend. In your mind, is an experiment great/worthy only if it isexpensive ?

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkusHanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    Soif Ihadno mass, the planet will disappear ? Well that is is quite anassumption ! I am gona tell that to my photon friend.

    Withoutmass the planet ( and you ) would never have formed in the firstplace, because the total energy other than mass wouldn't have beenenough to generate enough gravity to hold these bodies together.
    Thatsis funny, I never said without mass. I said without ME having mass(in a previous post my car also)

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkusHanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    You mix-up wishful thinking andreal life facts like economy, motivation,or even scientificpurpose...
    ILC- International Linear Collider - Home Page

    Sorry,you mix-up science an marketing/propaganda

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkusHanke View Post
    Then you are looking in the wrong place. I recommendthe following :
    A.Zee :
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkusHanke View Post
    QuantumField Theory in a Nutshell,2003, ISBN 0691010196
    You bet I will. Thank you for this reference.
    Last edited by Boing3000; July 8th, 2012 at 07:48 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkusHanke View Post
    I still do not quite get what your claims actuallyare. To me it sounds like you are saying the search for the Higgs wasa waste of resources, because it has no practical applications. Ihave three major issues with this :

    1. CERN is there to study all areas of particle physics - it wasn't built to specifically look for theHiggs alone. So are you saying that all quantum physics is a waste of resources ?
    LHC has ruined CERN and it is my consCERN. Typist has start a new threadabout that HowMuch Knowledge Is Too Much?.
    I sincerely think your input will be valuable.
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkusHanke View Post
    2. While you are quite correct in saying that theHiggs has no practical present day applications, we do not yetunderstand its full implications. For example, it might ( I'm notsaying it will ) one day be possible to manipulate the Higgs field,leading to all sorts of interesting applications.
    So I ask if someone knows about a repository about such hypothesis. The first application for me would be to be able to create/test the socalled gravitational waves. Surely being able to vanish some mass andrecall it at will would be the best waves creator of the time.
    What I suspect (I kindly requires your critical point of view) is that those lists do not exist(or do they?) because the theory itself preclude any kind of tempering with this particle, not because it would violate some law of concervation (I am willing to pour energy into the mass-switcher to match the energy coming out in space/time distortion), but because of conservation of the fragile equilibrium of SM equations.
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkusHanke View Post
    This is what happened with many of the other particles discovered over theyears, so e.g. the discovery of the positron eventually lead to the development of PET as a diagnostic tool in medicine. Carl Andersoncould not have foreseen this when he first did his cloud chamber experiments, but that did not stop him from going ahead anyway. That is what is called science.
    I let this quote, because it is damn right, and everybody know that. I am strangely surprise that you mention it at this point. I think it back up my claims about fertility/real'izability of ANY science.Mathematics is even a way better example. How much of those strangeand purely thought mind-game has turned out to be incredibly USEFULL science/technological tools hundreds of year later ?
    You know the difference with LHC ? No need of an entire power plan, and 20years in the making, and suffocating all other science branches in the process. Some paper and a pencil is enough. Maybe a compass. And especially no computers. It is my field, and I know what computers do to people, they became addict to GAME and virtual and especially their visual cortex. That's not science, that is mirage building.
    Do you think Mandelbrot wait for dummies like me to produce those sweetand hypnotics beautiful fractal picture with computers to get to construct/enhance one of the most insightful piece of human knowledge?
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkusHanke View Post
    3.The question of whether or not resources are to be expanded forscientific advancement is a political one. In my mind there is nodoubt that the Higgs search did indeed add scientific value, alsoindirectly via development of new technologies etc. Btw, isn't thishow we got to have the Internet ??
    NO. We got the Internet because USA scares the crap out of its people somuch they believe they need to build a nuclear proof networking system (arpanet). Networking between death machine children of Turingand Von Neumann and the like (other great war tools).
    You got the Internet because some smart guy rape(sorry privatize) your country telephone system so you won't be able to telephone anymore with it, all that while tripling your bill.
    But hey ! Now you can surf without having seen the sea, or be social without quiting your bedroom...
    Last edited by Boing3000; July 8th, 2012 at 08:06 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    LHC has ruined CERN and it is my consCERN.
    Well, I won't deny it's an expensive little toy. Still, the decision was made to fund it, and in my mind it was a worthwhile investment. But then again, I am a science guy and care little about the economics surrounding it...

    The first application for me would be to be able to create/test the socalled gravitational waves. Surely being able to vanish some mass andrecall it at will would be the best waves creator of the time.
    Interesting idea. Never occurred to me, but you are quite right - it would be a very efficient generator of gravitational waves.

    It is my field, and I know what computers do to people, they became addict to GAME and virtual and especially their visual cortex
    I would agree with you - but then again, everything can be misused in one way or another. That does not mean it should never have been invented in the first place.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    In your mind, is an experiment great/worthy only if it isexpensive ?
    Not at all, and I never said that. Many of the greatest scientific achievements have been done with minimal funding.

    Thatsis funny, I never said without mass. I said without ME having mass(in a previous post my car also)
    Fine then - so if you had no mass ( i.e. wouldn't interact with the Higgs field ), you would of necessity be moving at the speed of light, just like a photon does.
    Nice application of the Higgs btw - suppose it actually was possible to manipulate it, then one could accelerate a particle/object simply by reducing its interaction with the Higgs field. Cool huh ? Not saying it is possible, but then again - we don't know yet !

    Sorry,you mix-up science an marketing/propaganda
    Am I ? Perhaps it would interest you to know that the Technical Design Report for this project is almost complete, and due to be submitted before the end of 2012.
    Call it propaganda if you like, but I happen to know that substantial funds have already flown into the design phase of this project.

    So I ask if someone knows about a repository about such hypothesis.
    Good question, and I'd be interested in the answer just as much as you are.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    85
    I watched it when it live. brilliant
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Not at all, and I never said that. Many of the greatest scientific achievements have been done with minimal funding.
    No you didn’t, I was sneakily trying to lead you to write the second sentences, with which I couldn’t agree more.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    That’s is funny, I never said without mass. I said without ME having mass(in a previous post my car also)
    Fine then - so if you had no mass ( i.e. wouldn't interact with the Higgs field ), you would of necessity be moving at the speed of light, just like a photon does.
    Nice application of the Higgs btw - suppose it actually was possible to manipulate it, then one could accelerate a particle/object simply by reducing its interaction with the Higgs field. Cool huh ? Not saying it is possible, but then again - we don't know yet !
    At last we came to the meat of my questioning.
    As yourself, I cannot relate mass experiment/hypothesis/discovery to anything but general relativity/gravitation. The implication at quantum level does not bother me as much, especially the too few practical applications for my taste. For me, it kind of implies that there is a link between Quatum-SM-Higgs-mass-space/time/gravitation-Relativity. That the Higgs should be at the least called the missing links toward some kind of marriage, if not unification (ok you cannot breed cows and chickens).

    So let’s increase the energy level of our argumentations and collide them inside this forum non-sense detector.
    I think Higgs “field suppressor” won’t make things move. For one because “the things” has no preferred direction to go. Especially at light speed, that’s a kind of acceleration I am pretty sure I would not dare to try (HO wait, I am mass less, so there is no inert mass, so no worry).

    So if I am mass/less, I climb some stairs (with no effort/energy), turn the suppressor off, and jump of that bridge (I know you’d like me too). I bet that by the time I reach something hard, a lot of energies would have been created (out of nothing).
    Everybody knows that it is not possible, so I bet it is a proof that it is also impossible to change the rest mass of anything sitting in a space/time/curvature, that means pretty much everywhere and beyond. So from now on, I will consider that Higgs is space-time, and the other way round.

    I will also consider that this ruthless Higgs, from time to time, get in debts with one of its cousin and go into hiding under a covert identity. So the universe containing less and less of it, get bended less and less, distance increase, red shift and the likes.

    From my understanding of QED, photon does not move at light speed. They go from here to there, passing by every path possible at once, and so appears to be moving like a wave at light speed, so why not say it is a wave?

    I cannot imagine what the photon had done to the Higgs to be kept outside space/time continum and be force to be on the move, nowhere and everywhere at the same time. What a curse, don’t mess with the Higgs !

    I’ll kept my mass/energy conservation questioning at bay for now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    Sorry,you mix-up science an marketing/propaganda
    Am I ? Perhaps it would interest you to know that the Technical Design Report for this project is almost complete, and due to be submitted before the end of 2012.
    Call it propaganda if you like, but I happen to know that substantial funds have already flown into the design phase of this project.
    Do you never got fed-up with “ the next big thing is for 10 years from now?”
    Are you still waiting for the the long life battery, the cure to cancer, man on Mars, and other baloney?
    You must be young, because when I was born men were LEAVING the moon. That is 40 years ago. We are not even able to maintain the Shuttle anymore. Must I do the list of all pre-approved project for new-big-thing ?
    No, it would depress/angry me too much.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Boing - here is a thought. do with it what you will. All I get when I read your posts is a sense of outrage and great emotion. I don't find that convincing. I think your arguments would carry more weight if they were offered with more objectivity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    The naming,s I,ve read are higgs boson, god particle, particle, ghost particle. I wonder "how would skooby do be for a name" ?
    Or cinderella particle. Or LLR for "looks like rice". Because LLR was what I saw was used to explain a sea of LLR.
    What,s in a name.. But what,s a particle. A particle is a piece off... What is it a piece off ? Rice ? Ricepudding ? Or a missing piece for "fysicstheory" and thus for fysics ? Then fysics has found that it,s current theory is missing something. But if it,s a a particle or a gap is not sure. Boson keeps that open but skooby doo and particle don,t. These names fill in a possible gap before it is given further attention. Oops a gap... lets put a cork in it, name it a cork and explain to the public that a cork is a gap and a gap is a cork.
    Last edited by Ghrasp; July 9th, 2012 at 07:53 AM.
    A penguin can,t be half a penguin beit purple or any other colour.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Boing - here is a thought. do with it what you will.
    As usual, I will read it and try to understand/get informations.
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    All I get when I read your posts is a sense of outrage and great emotion.
    I am sometimes told that on forums, even in thoses in my mother language. That's not strange, I rarely goes on forum, and only when I feel interested and concerned by a problem. I prefer serious ones, where quick judment or small-talk are superset by strong argumentations.
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I don't find that convincing. I think your arguments would carry more weight if they were offered with more objectivity.
    Well I do hope I will not convince you to jump of a bridge. Again, the language barrier is perhaps the cause, or my emotivity, but there was (intended at least) a lot of humor and lightness about the hypothesis we could do about Higgs implications. And joke asside, there is two people that allready provide me with their view on the subject, + some very strong reference.

    Did you know of some kind of repository for implications/link between theories and eventual hard/real applications?
    If not, did you find that normal/healty for the scientific community NOT to provide comprehensive access lader to their knowledge without having to ressort to "God" naming particules or "Creation" of the universe ?
    Let's say my own nefew is intriged by science, is it normal that even I cannot find any good link for him to start with (especially in french ?)
    Wiki and Douglass Adams, will do for the time beeing. Sorry, but that makes me sad (or pissed depending of my relative motion towards a glass of beer (gosh I do it again))

    BTW, about objectivity, this will always be relative to our own point of view, agmented by the mutual knwoledge of each other's inner working.
    I would like to start by asking you about what, specifically, I have to be more objective about. I barely sratch surface of things(because I am not an expert) and mainly requires some more informations.
    Am I not on the right forum ? Sorry, but I have read some post here that, even I, would qualify outrageous.
    So help me out there...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    No you didn’t, I was sneakily trying to lead you to write the second sentences, with which I couldn’t agree more.
    There is no need to try and lure me on this, I am already in agreement with you on this point.
    What I am not in agreement with, however, is the assumption that an experiment shouldn't be done just because it is resource intensive.

    At last we came to the meat of my questioning.
    I was working off the assumption that the "meat" of your questioning is whether or not the funds spend on the LHC are justified or not ?

    I think Higgs “field suppressor” won’t make things move.
    Yes it would. That is the reason why photons ( which are not subject to the Higgs mechanism ) always move at the speed of light, and at the same time why massive particle can never accelerate to the speed of light.

    I bet that by the time I reach something hard, a lot of energies would have been created (out of nothing).
    Why do you think that ? I don't follow you. Besides, you would have to first invest that energy anyway, because a "Higgs Shield" would only be possible at very high energies.

    Everybody knows that it is not possible, so I bet it is a proof that it is also impossible to change the rest mass of anything sitting in a space/time/curvature, that means pretty much everywhere and beyond.
    There is no law that forbids a variation in rest mass, so long as the total energy of the system is not affected. Remember, mass and energy are equivalent.

    For me, it kind of implies that there is a link between Quatum-SM-Higgs-mass-space/time/gravitation-Relativity.
    That is more than likely correct.

    From my understanding of QED, photon does not move at light speed. They go from here to there, passing by every path possible at once, and so appears to be moving like a wave at light speed, so why not say it is a wave?
    I can only assume that what you are referring to is the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics. No, that has nothing to do with light speed - the photon does move at the speed of light. In fact, because it doesn't interact with the Higgs, it cannot do anything else.

    I cannot imagine what the photon had done to the Higgs to be kept outside space/time continum and be force to be on the move
    See above. It does not interact with the Higgs, and thus has no rest mass and moves at the speed of light.

    Do you never got fed-up with “ the next big thing is for 10 years from now?”
    Too political a question for me. No, I am not that young anymore, and I just missed that whole moon-thing.
    What would depress me is a future that stagnates because we are too afraid to progress scientifically. Thus your arguments about the LHC being a waste of resources are hardly convincing to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    92
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by askid5 View Post
    what is the use for us?..mm
    I understand that the Higgs boson will help us understand why there is a big bang. It may provide a physical explanation for what used to be the realm of metaphysics.

    Jagella
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    There is no need to try and lure me on this, I am already in agreement with you on this point.<br>
    I need to put smiley now and then. I apologies for the bad vibration
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    What I am not in agreement with, however, is the assumption that an experiment shouldn't be done just because it is resource intensive.
    Then you agree with me again. I write "I would prioritize" over experiment. Then we do not agree because LHC would for sure be at the bottom of the list

    I was working off the assumption that the "meat" of your questioning is whether or not the funds spend on the LHC are justified or not ?
    You got that right

    Yes it would. That is the reason why photons ( which are not subject to the Higgs mechanism ) always move at the speed of light, and at the same time why massive particle can never accelerate to the speed of light.
    That is reverse thinking. The photon moves at light speed because we measure it. and easily so. Explaining why does not need Higgs but some deep inside from a theory called relativity. This theory really add something to even the simplest (well no more) notions like movement or even space or even time.

    Why do you think that ? I don't follow you. Besides, you would have to first invest that energy anyway, because a "Higgs Shield" would only be possible at very high energies.<br>
    It is called potential energy. Having no mass would not lead me to travel at light speed, nor even to fly. But now that my inertia is gone I can go up that bridge with no effort (and then no because...).

    There is no law that forbids a variation in rest mass, so long as the total energy of the system is not affected. Remember, mass and energy are equivalent.
    There are two laws that forbid any particle to change its rest mass, and it is both SM and relativity. Relativity explain why, SM how. SM do that in a particulary difficult and inelegant way, bbut at least it could tell in what some quark can cahnge its mass (that is becoming this an that). Feynman diagram are usefull for peaople like me, unless I got it wrong.

    I can only assume that what you are referring to is the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics. No, that has nothing to do with light speed - the photon doesmove at the speed of light. In fact, because it doesn't interact with the Higgs, it cannot do anything else.
    I take your word at that (I have not read the book you point me to). But QED (we are talking about photon) was not formulated with Higgs inside. Am I right ?

    Too political a question for me.
    I apologies, and retract.

    No, I am not that young anymore, and I just missed that whole moon-thing.
    What would depress me is a future that stagnates because we are too afraid to progress scientifically. Thus your arguments about the LHC being a waste of resources are hardly convincing to me.
    I am outraged and react (emotionally)
    Is it not the definition of stagnation and Inertia that doing again and again the same experiment of bashing particles together, higher energy, or other particles like mesons, or why not the new particles discovered in the mean time ?
    Are you aware that there is no end to this race ? You don't like stagnation but you call for a new accelerator, because the last one is already obsolete. Are you working at Apple ?

    You win, and science is dead. I am out of this thread.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    The photon moves at light speed because we measure it. and easily so. Explaining why does not need Higgs but some deep inside from a theory called relativity.
    Relativity is only one side of the equation; it cannot explain why some particles have mass and others don't. Relativity explains why photons move at the speed of light in terms of space-time ( they follow null-geodesics ), whereas SM explains it in terms of QFT ( the Higgs ).

    Having no mass would not lead me to travel at light speed,
    You are contradicting yourself. Above you talk about relativity - it is easy to show that all objects with vanishing rest mass follow null-geodesics through space-time, and they can only do so if they move at the speed of light.

    There are two laws that forbid any particle to change its rest mass, and it is both SM and relativity.
    Not at all. Relativity does not deal with rest mass of particles at all - there is no law in SR or GR that forbids anything from changing its rest mass, so long as conservation of energy is fulfilled.
    SM now includes the Higgs mechanism, and that means that in the early universe all particles had vanishing rest mass; the universe then underwent electroweak symmetry breaking, and particles started to interact with the Higgs field to varying degrees, thus acquiring mass. In other words - their rest masses changed. Given enough energy input that symmetry breaking may well be reversible.

    Feynman diagram are usefull for peaople like me, unless I got it wrong.
    Not sure what Feynman diagrams have to do with that; if you are interested in the FD describing electroweak symmetry breaking, then have a look here :

    http://www-atlas.desy.de/theses/Goebel_dipl.pdf

    It's a good basic summary of the Higgs mechanism, well worth a read.

    But QED (we are talking about photon) was not formulated with Higgs inside. Am I right ?
    No, it wasn't formulated with the Higgs in it. QED is a relativistic quantum field theory describing charged particles interacting via the exchange of photons. It deals with no other phenomena. If you are asking why, under this theory, those photons move at light speed, then the answer is because it is a relativistic QFT.

    You don't like stagnation but you call for a new accelerator, because the last one is already obsolete. Are you working at Apple ?
    I don't know where you get this impression from, but no, I never called for a new accelerator, and no, CERN is not at all obsolete yet. I specifically said that CERN has goals other than finding the Higgs. I merely pointed out to you that there are other accelerator projects in the pipeline in response to your assertion that the Higgs experiment will not be repeatable any time soon.
    No, I do not work for Apple - what does that have to do with anything ?

    You win, and science is dead. I am out of this thread.
    Petty that you feel that way. I wasn't aware that you perceive this as a competition. For me it was merely a discussion.
    And why science would be dead now because of a discussion someone had an some forum is genuinely beyond me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    132
    So, it isn't clear to me why photons do not interact with higgs particles but all other matter particles do? Is there some mathematical feature or measured properties that all other particles share except the photon? What is it, if so?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Relativity is only one side of the equation;(see below **)
    That's what I wrote, word for word. And the other is...
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    it cannot explain why some particles have mass and others don't.
    Why on earth should it do that ? Higgs still do not either, because what give the Higgs its property ? What gives electron their charges ? Why on earth that notion of symmetry breaking as anything to do with science ? It's art if it's beautiful. It's science if it is useful. Sometimes they could be both, by chance.
    You do not need Higgs to work with masses nor energy, relativity works much better, and is even more beautiful and simpler to compute.

    The sad irony, is that QFT WOULD (please please someone tell me when or how) be useful to micro^micro application. One of it is LHC. Did I need to tell you how BIG is ATLAS ? Will I ever needs megatons of hardware to marvel at the beautiful symmetries of quatum mechanics (with or without field) ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Relativity explains why
    how

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Having no mass would not lead me to travel at light speed,
    You are contradicting yourself. Above you talk about relativity - it is easy to show that all objects with vanishing rest mass follow null-geodesics through space-time, and they can only do so if they move at the speed of light.
    No, you are contradicting me. Having no mass for anything is never going to happens apart by muting into photon. So again, having no mass will not make me travel at light speed, it will utterly disintegrate me, or not never happens (hopefully, for warlike minded scientist do exist)

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    There are two laws that forbid any particle to change its rest mass, and it is both SM and relativity.
    Not at all.
    You are contradicting yourself, (see above **)
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Relativity does not deal with rest mass of particles at all
    What is M in E= MC2 again ?
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    - there is no law in SR or GR that forbids anything from changing its rest mass, so long as conservation of energy is fulfilled.
    That is the law, and it is called conservation. It is testable, and tested, in thousand of really practical ways.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    SM now includes the Higgs mechanism,
    I am happy for it, but it does not change anything to the known universe

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    and that means that in the early universe all particles had vanishing rest mass; the universe then underwent electroweak symmetry breaking, and particles started to interact with the Higgs field to varying degrees, thus acquiring mass. In other words - their rest masses changed. Given enough energy input that symmetry breaking may well be reversible.
    You should no better, in a science discussion, than to speak about science fiction (or past fiction)
    "Particules started", who told them to ?
    "Given enough energy", in what shape or form ?
    Was it before or after the inflation ?
    Was it with or without the black matter ?
    Was it conveniently not early enough, that all the matter/energy of the universe mysteriously escape from a region of space so small that relativity defines it as an un-escapable back whole ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Feynman diagram are usefull for peaople like me, unless I got it wrong.
    Not sure what Feynman diagrams have to do with that;
    Look at the extract from your own document. It shows one in manifold ways for two W something particles to change there mass by becoming another Z one. (page10)
    Mass2Mass.GIF
    And then got fed up an resume their business (of scatering).
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    if you are interested in the FD describing electroweak symmetry breaking, then have a look here :

    http://www-atlas.desy.de/theses/Goebel_dipl.pdf
    It is already on my laptop, thanks once again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    No, I do not work for Apple - what does that have to do with anything ?
    With any modern appliance, little IPhone, the days you get the IThing 2.0 you already wait for the 3.0 to be released.
    That is digging once head in the sand by calling the future to get some un-mesurable progress

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    You win, and science is dead. I am out of this thread.
    Petty that you feel that way.
    I stop joking right now. I hope that I still have enough anti-self-irony energy left.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    I wasn't aware that you perceive this as a competition. For me it was merely a discussion.
    Both are the same, and unlike wave or particle, they could be both at the same time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    And why science would be dead now because of a discussion someone had an some forum is genuinely beyond me.
    Ask that to some black cat in a box, if you are cold hearthed enough.
    I really begin to think that you may be to humour what photons are to Higgs. Or because I like self criticism, my humor field may be quite hypothetical.

    Or both
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Why on earth that notion of symmetry breaking as anything to do with science ?
    You know, I am just wondering, why are you discussing the Higgs mechanism if - as clearly evidenced in the above statement - you really do not understand even the most basic principles underlying it, like spontaneous symmetry breaking ?
    No offence Boeing3000, but at this point I really do feel like I am wasting my time here. May I suggest you go and read up about the physics involved, and then come back for a proper, informed discussion.

    Besides, did you not say that were out of this thread, anyway ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    Why on earth should it do that ? Higgs still do not either, because what give the Higgs its property ? What gives electron their charges ? Why on earth that notion of symmetry breaking as anything to do with science ? It's art if it's beautiful. It's science if it is useful. Sometimes they could be both, by chance.
    You apparently have no idea how central the notion of symmetry is to the entire standard model. The mathematical notion of symmetry, not the colloquial notion of looking pretty.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by ballyhoo View Post
    So, it isn't clear to me why photons do not interact with higgs particles but all other matter particles do? Is there some mathematical feature or measured properties that all other particles share except the photon? What is it, if so?
    anyone know?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Photons aren't particles.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    132
    I thought they displayed particle wave duality. Also, to elaborate; I read a book that says the higgs field does not affect particles in constant velocity which might explain why photons are not affected as they move at c always. But this does not explain why it continues to affect other particles with mass which supposedly could be made to move at a constant velocity in the vacuum of space.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by ballyhoo View Post
    I read a book that says the higgs field does not affect particles in constant velocity
    That is incorrect, it does affect particles at constant velocity also.
    The thing is, the Higgs interacts differently with different particles, that is why some particles are more massive than others. The reason why the photon does not get mass through the Higgs mechanism has to do with symmetry breaking; the electromagnetic force and the weak force are two aspects of the same underlying fundamental force, the electroweak force. When symmetry breaking happens at lower energies, the Higgs mechanism leads to the presence of three massive gauge bosons ( W+, W-, Z ) carrying the weak force, plus one massless boson ( photon ) for EM.
    The underlying maths are really quite complicated, but this is the gist of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ballyhoo View Post
    I read a book that says the higgs field does not affect particles in constant velocity
    That is incorrect, it does affect particles at constant velocity also. The thing is, the Higgs interacts differently with different particles, that is why some particles are more massive than others. The reason why the photon does not get mass through the Higgs mechanism has to do with symmetry breaking; the electromagnetic force and the weak force are two aspects of the same underlying fundamental force, the electroweak force. When symmetry breaking happens at lower energies, the Higgs mechanism leads to the presence of three massive gauge bosons ( W+, W-, Z ) carrying the weak force, plus one massless boson ( photon ) for EM. The underlying maths are really quite complicated, but this is the gist of it.
    well, perhaps I worded it poorly but I checked the passages again and what the book says (popular science book) is that when you try to speed a particle up or slow it down then the Higgs field make its' presence known by the force exerted. It says too that the photons pass unhindered through the higgs 'ocean'. CAn you elaborate on why the photon does not have a mass due to symmetry breaking?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by ballyhoo View Post
    well, perhaps I worded it poorly but I checked the passages again and what the book says (popular science book) is that when you try to speed a particle up or slow it down then the Higgs field make its' presence known by the force exerted.
    I think what is referred to here is inertia, which is a result of mass, which in turn is the result of the Higgs. It takes more energy to accelerate a massive particle than it is to accelerate a lighter one.

    CAn you elaborate on why the photon does not have a mass due to symmetry breaking?
    In popular science terms : the photon does not interact with the underlying Higgs field.
    The exact reason is really quite complicated, and has to do with the underlying maths that define the mechanism. It goes along the lines that there are two operations within the symmetry groups involved here which leave the vacuum invariant; the combination of generators of these operations form a gauge group themselves, called the electric charge group Q. The part of the field which aligns with this group remains unaffected by the Higgs mechanism, and thus forms a massless particle, the photon.
    Sorry, but I really don't know how to break it down any simpler. Like I said before, the maths behind this aren't easy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Photons aren't particles.
    Incorrect. Sometimes you do talk crap Wayne.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Photons aren't particles.
    Incorrect. Sometimes you do talk crap Wayne.
    So what exactly is a photon?
    Wiki says "like all elementary particles, photons are currently best explained by quantum mechanics and exhibit wave-particle duality, exhibiting properties of both waves and particles."
    I thought this meant the photon could behave like either of these, but, in reality, was neither a wave nor a particle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by TheObserver View Post
    You apparently have no idea how central the notion of symmetry is to the entire standard model. The mathematical notion of symmetry, not the colloquial notion of looking pretty.
    That is a very unwise thing to write. Nobody can ignore that. That credo is so much important to the average physicist type (the standard one) that he must repeat that 10 times every night before going to bed (or the theory monster will come and eat their funding)

    What you have no idea of, is that science is not the standard model alone. Given that fact, re-read my statement and please notice the words I choose, not yours.

    When sciences turns into the mathematics of the groups of operators applied on groups of other mathematical objects (dixit Markus)
    quite complicated, and has to do with the underlying maths that define the mechanism
    , it is no more science, it is mathematics.
    They may be even beautiful or pretty, I am sure that with a little lip-stick, we would make those equations into the top 1024 of best ideas ever.
    I will let you play with them, because you know them 2 order of magnitudes better that I, which happens to know them 1 order better that Joe the plumber.

    So next time, try to associate some added knowledge to this symmetry breaking notion, or you will just sound like a cleric rehearsing its credo (which I think you are not). This is not science, not even good forum practice.
    Ghrasp likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    So next time, try to associate some added knowledge to this symmetry breaking notion, or you will just sound like a cleric rehearsing its credo (which I think you are not). This is not science, not even good forum practice.
    I don't get you. Why are you so opposed to everything in theoretical physics ? It seems like no matter what topic we bring up, you loudly announce your opposition.
    If you have such a huge problem with the way modern day science is done, then perhaps you are on the wrong forum - perhaps a philosophy forum would be more suited.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    I don't get you. Why are you so opposed to everything in theoretical physics ?
    You don't get me, because I am NOT oppose to everything in theoretical physics. Like you, I got my like and dislike, at various degree, I voice them quite clearly (although it seems to be relative), and I even would like to think better of the SM (I beg for any experimental evidence of its usefulness).

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    It seems like no matter what topic we bring up, you loudly announce your opposition.
    No quite. But then writing that just blow my case, isn't it ?
    Like you I am competing for the correctness and added value of the things asserted on the forum. Unlike you, I am not assuming I am alone to follow this process.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    If you have such a huge problem with the way modern day science is done, then perhaps you are on the wrong forum - perhaps a philosophy forum would be more suited.
    Do you really feel that way ? I personally was educated into thinking that to solve problem in field A I should deepen my knowledge in field A.
    Although that I would learn a lot from other fields. The philosophical one is definitively close enough, because it is suppose to address the logical process of thoughts as well as techniques of communications.

    But won't they told my to go to a science forum to talk about science, which I am interested into here and now ?

    That's the last time I respond to you. I know that I am an annoyance to some of your point of view, and you've told me many times to go to **** (well in nice polite ways).
    I am quitting because even I begin to feel that I sound like a broken records. I do not add anything to this thread, I made no progress, I even use so strange notion, that is is turning philosophical on you.
    So as a scientific minded person, I recognize the sterility of this particular path/thread, and will try another one.

    Even if you wont believe me, I thank you for your inputs
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    You don't get me, because I am NOT oppose to everything in theoretical physics.
    Unfortunately though you came across that way, even if it might have been unintended.

    Do you really feel that way ?
    Actually I do. I believe science ( as in the accumulation of knowledge ) is a pursuit deeply ingrained in our being human. We want to know.
    The application of science to everyday life, and its usefulness to the average Joe Public, and thus all decisions as to the expenditure of resources to the pursuit of science, are political and philosophical in nature.

    I know that I am an annoyance to some of your point of view
    Annoyance is not the right word. A puzzle is probably better suited.

    (well in nice polite ways).
    Hopefully.

    Even if you wont believe me, I thank you for your inputs
    Same here, and best of luck to yourself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Bachelors Degree dmwyant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    456
    Just a little something fun to relax the tension: Large Hadron Rap - YouTube
    Not all who wander are lost... Some of us just misplaced our destination.

    I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet. The proper function of a man is to live, not to exist.
    -Jack London
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Photons aren't particles.
    Incorrect. Sometimes you do talk crap Wayne.
    So what exactly is a photon?
    Wiki says "like all elementary particles, photons are currently best explained by quantum mechanics and exhibit wave-particle duality, exhibiting properties of both waves and particles."
    I thought this meant the photon could behave like either of these, but, in reality, was neither a wave nor a particle.
    If it talks like a duck, walks like a duck, etc it is a duck. That does not prevent the duck from also being an entertaining after dinner speaker. Rather than being neither, it is both.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    If it talks like a duck, walks like a duck, etc it is a duck. That does not prevent the duck from also being an entertaining after dinner speaker. Rather than being neither, it is both.
    I seem to have this wrong then.
    I always thought we knew rather a lot about the behaviour of objects, such as the photon, but absolutely nothing about their physical "structure" or appearance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    If it talks like a duck, walks like a duck, etc it is a duck. That does not prevent the duck from also being an entertaining after dinner speaker. Rather than being neither, it is both.
    Not a physicist, but I don't agree. It is not both, but neither. From what I've read, fundamental *whatever you want to call them* cannot be properly described using words meaningful to us like "waves" or "particles".

    Okay. Imagine you're an explorer to the New World. So far, you've discovered ducks, otters, and beavers. But then, you run into something odd. You're not sure what it is, but you've surprisingly ran into what would be known as the duck-billed platypus (who would ever think of that?!). It's unsettlingly strange, so you try to describe it using what's already familiar to you. Okay. It looks like a duck... sort of. Just parts of it. Some parts of it also look like a beaver, or an otter. What? What is this thing?! (I claim credit for this analogy! I think it's quite helpful :P)

    In the same sense, we are only familiar to what we ordinarily observe. We understand waves, and we understand particles. But what are these *things* that seem to show properties of both at various times?! Truth is, they cannot be properly described using either of these. Reality at the fundamental level is extremely alien to us. The only thing we can use to properly describe anything is, well, mathematics (as abstract as it already is). They're just, a bunch of equations, as far as we know. But, we're humans. We attempt to explain and visualize everything. And wave-particle duality is the result of this attempt.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Higgs Boson
    By albert2 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: February 29th, 2012, 06:57 AM
  2. The First Evidence Of The Higgs Boson Particle?
    By The_Seeker in forum Physics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: January 7th, 2012, 06:31 PM
  3. What exactly IS the Higgs Boson?
    By Matt Lee in forum Physics
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: May 26th, 2008, 05:47 PM
  4. The Higgs Boson
    By leohopkins in forum Physics
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: February 11th, 2007, 12:33 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •