Higgs Boson Discovery Questioned

Lars Mooseantlers wrote to regarding a recent article in the New York Times (reg. req. *sigh*) that questioned last year's now-under-scrutiny discovery of the particle believed to be the source of mass and weight.

Comments

c'mon, bill . . .

[hawk]

This is nothing new. Windows 93 barely made it out in 95. Bob still doesn't work. After more than 15 years,the bug that leaves more than half a blank page for a small footnote is still around.

we weren't going to buy your car this year, anyway. First we'll wait for your new OS based on a *bsd. Then, once apple ships a flying car, we'll try to figure out when version 3 of your knock-off will ship . . .

:)

hawk

Am I the only one...

[NewWazoo]

that initially read that as the "Higgs Bogon"? I read the rest of the summary before I reread the actualy name of the particle, so the comic effect was quite good.

TheNewWazoo
(Bored on a Saturday)

Re:Am I the only one...

[unitron]

Current fortune at the bottom of the page:

The bogosity meter just pegged.

Coincidence or conspiracy?

So is the earth going to shrink to pea size?

[Vermifax]

I mean that's what the crazy professor dude that Kai runs into says hopefully we'll be able to get off planet next week. :)

--To the moderator who would mark this down as OFF topic, you missed this weeks Lexx--

Vermifax

Re:This "science" is complete garbage.

[unitron]

He only said to pick it up. Didn't say a thing about opening it up and reading. Maybe the truth is hiding underneath it.

Re:You all have it wrong

[unitron]

So are we all bozos on this bus or all bosuns on this boat?

No, we didn't discover it

[mcelrath]

...but we saw hints that it might be there. The community never claimed to have discovered it either, so the "discovery" is not in question. See, in physics we require "five sigma" to claim a discovery. What does that mean? If you have a bell curve (gaussian), the data you see has to be five standard deviatiations away from what you would expect in the absence of the higgs. We didn't get there, the latest review of the CERN data puts it around three sigma. It's worth noting that three-sigma statistical fluctuations aren't uncommon in physics. In fact, the search for the Higgs boson has seen three sigma excesses before that turned out to be nothing.

Compare that to your sociologists and political pollsters who claim that 55% agreement is profoundly important. Five sigma corresponds to a probability of 0.02% that what you saw could have been background (non-higgs) rather than signal (higgs).

It's just painful to wait because the LEP2 accelerator at CERN was very clean (electron-positron collisions), and extracting the higgs signal was relatively straightforward. At Fermilab, they will be able to see it if the mass is where CERN says it is, but it will be much more difficult (proton-antiproton collisions -- very messy). In any case, it will be several more years before we know for sure. If LEP2 had run just a little bit longer, we would have known.

At any rate, even if Fermilab doesn't see it, the new accelerator at CERN, the LHC, will see it. But it might be 8 years before we know. And if we don't see it...we theorists have some serious work to do.

--Bob

Re:No, we didn't discover it

[KjetilK]

It's worth noting that three-sigma statistical fluctuations aren't uncommon in physics.

Nope, they happen in 0.135 % of the experiments to be exact...

Re:No, we didn't discover it

[KjetilK]

Hehe, it's because we physicists have no more reason to be bragging about our statistics than sociologists have. It's because physicists tend to think that "everything is normal" or "everything is Poisson", without making any effort at all to validate it. Not to speak of lacking efforts to show that the test and test statistic you use has anything to do with reality, and therefore you get confidence levels that doesn't have anything to do with reality either...

Re:No, we didn't discover it

[Waffle Iron]

See, in physics we require "five sigma" to claim a discovery.

That's unacceptable. You physicists need to institute a six-sigma program if you wan't to acheive true quality, customer satisfaction and cost-effectiveness.

You should select your black-belt candidates and start training them as soon as possible.

General public invent stories about subatomics?

[leonbrooks]

There is a large community of quantum physicists who expanded von Newmann's ideas to argue that we may actually be creating subatomic particles by looking for them.

There is also a large community of the general public who believe (the much more provable theory) that we may actually be creating stories about subatomic particles (and other aspects of science) by looking for them in the popular press.

Yellow Journalism

[bperkins]

Why, why why must all slashdot headlines be exaggerations? The Higgs Boson was never "discovered" in any sense of the word. There were some indications that it might have been seen, but it wasn't considered beyond statistical doubt. It is therefore incorrect to say the discovery has been questioned. "Higgs Boson evidence questioned" would be a better headline.

Re:Standard No Reg Required Link

[zCyl]

The best solution is to just add this to your /etc/hosts file. Then you can click on nytimes stories like stories from less annoying sites.

208.48.26.212 www.nytimes.com

Just now questioning it?

[Scohop]

Just now questioning the discovery? Hardly! The entire physics community practically considered the "discovery" a joke at the time. I remember a high energy person in our department remarking something to the effect of "people always discover the Higgs Boson when their funding is about out." This experiment being viewed critically is _hardly_ a development.

Re:Just now questioning it?

[tbo]

The entire physics community practically considered the "discovery" a joke at the time.

You're wrong on two counts. First of all, CERN never claimed "discovery", only a probability of discovery if LEP continued to operate. Second, the entire physics community did not consider it a joke. My physics department (UBC--one of the two largest in Canada) was rooting for CERN. I imagine your department, or at least that particular high energy person, was part of the Fermilab coalition, and you just witnessed the usual scientific rivallry.

Re:No! Not weight!

[LionMan]

Not really true, but almost. Gravity affects things without mass, such as photons, as has been proven by the solar eclipse "star moving" experiment. Gravitons (if they really do exist, which I am a little skeptical of but will make a case for anyway) are attracted to the energy content of matter - which is why there really is no "anti-gravity" - anti-matter still has a positive energy density. Photons certainly have a positive energy density, so they are affected by gravity. I am not trying to say, as you seem to think, that gravity and inertia are not related to mass, but that the Bosons governing their nature are different.

No! Not weight!

[LionMan]

This is one of those elementary school mix ups. The Higgs Boson is supposedly the particle which gives matter mass. But weight, on the other hand, is purely a gravitational matter (pardon the pun). In an environment free of all other matter, you would not have a weight since there would be nothing exerting a force of gravity on you. The Boson which cretaes the force of gravity is called the graviton.
Sorry to burst your bubble.

Standard No Reg Required Link

[Kwil]

http://archives.nytimes.com/2001/07/11/science/phy sical/11PART.html

Gravitons Are Hypothetical Particles

[Louis Savain]

The Boson which cretaes the force of gravity is called the graviton.

There are other theories of gravity that postulate "virtual" photons from electrically charged particles as the source of ordinary gravity, the so-called gravito-electric field. The idea is that positive and negative electric fields are superimposed and since they emanate radially from matter, their density follow an inverse square distribution. Superimposed magnetic fields too are postulated to generate a very weak amount of gravito-magnetic field.

Having said this, the fact that intemediate bosons are postulated by quantum physicists as the possible causal mechanism of gravity puts into question the notion that gravity is caused by the curvature of spacetime as so many have maintained for so long. Sadly, many still do.

Re:Gravitons Are Hypothetical Particles

[Louis Savain]

There is something called a "gravitoelectric field", but it has nothing to do with photons or electric charge. Rather, it describes how the gravitational field in linearized gravity decomposes into electric-like and magnetic-like components, analogously to the decomposition in electromagnetism.

That's the prediction and explanation of General Relativity. What's your point?

But it has nothing to do with electromagnetic fields or photons, it's just a qualitative similarity to that theory. "Superimposed electric fields" do not comprise a gravitational field.

There is a theory that says they do. Just because you don't think so does not falsify it. What are you, God?

As to intermediate boson exchange, no one believes that such things can account for gravity, not even the "quantum physicists".

Wow! and all along I thought that's what gravitons were for.

String theorists believe in strings (which, by the way, propagate in curved spacetimes),

Nothing propagates in spacetime. By definition. The very fact that string theory postulates that time is one of the dimensions of nature falsifies it. Why? because the moment you include a time dimension in the picture, motion becomes impossible. Not that I expect you to grasp this.

which can behave like gravitons (intermediate bosons), but aren't.

If spacetime is already curved magically, what's the point of having a graviton in the first place?

Re:Gravitons Are Hypothetical Particles

[Louis Savain]

Oh kay... ya know, I sat through and read your page, and the problem I have with you is that you spend as much of your argument calling the other person names than to actually argue. It makes you noticable, but it also makes you an ashhole.

That's purely subjective. Certainly I am an asshole but only to those who take offence. Isn't it about time that the crackpots get a taste of their own medicine? OTOH, I get plenty of emails from people who thank me for not being a drone.

Of COURSE, by definition it is impossible to move in spacetime.

Well, I am glad we agree. The strange thing is that about half the emails I get from physicists insist that things do move in spacetime while 20%agrees that it's impossible but still cling to time travel, wormholes and all that nonsense. Go figure!

Eventually he turns around and starts moving forward again, having moved backwards in time, so to speak. The thing is, his differential rate of chage of time with respect to time, for the whole period, including when he is turning around and moving backwards with respect to everyone else is 1.

Your entire argument is flawed. There is no such thing as moving backward (or forward) in time or "rate of change of time with respect to time". Why? because changing time is self-referential. It's that simple. That's the reason why there is no motion in spacetime. I thought you agreed with me above because you understood. You apparently don't.

Mod me down some more!

Re:Gravitons Are Hypothetical Particles

[sigwinch]

There is something called a "gravitoelectric field", but it has nothing to do with photons or electric charge. Rather, it describes how the gravitational field in linearized gravity decomposes into electric-like and magnetic-like components, analogously to the decomposition in electromagnetism.

That's the prediction and explanation of General Relativity. What's your point?

The point is that the hypotheses you were referring to were those that attempt to explain mass and gravitation in terms of self-radiation effects. You were calling these 'gravitoelectric' theories, but they are not. The term 'xyz-electric' refers to the static (non-moving) component of the 'xyz' force.

There is a theory that says they do. Just because you don't think so does not falsify it.

There certainly is such a theory, but its is not called gravitoelectrostatics nor gravitomagnetism. If you're gonna try discussing physics, at least make some feeble attempt at using the long-established terminology.

Nothing propagates in spacetime. By definition. The very fact that string theory postulates that time is one of the dimensions of nature falsifies it.

You are a crackpot. Whether troll or nut, you are cracked. Your idiotic web page goes on with this blather:

Why is motion in spacetime impossible? It has to do with the definitions of space and time and the equation of velocity v = dx/dt. What the equation is saying is that, if an object moves over any distance x, there is an elapsed time t. Since time is defined in physics as a parameter for denoting change (evolution), changing position from one point on a time axis to another is self-referential. Why? Because the equation for velocity along the time axis would have to be v = dt/dt which is, of course, meaningless as far as motion is concerned.

Velocity is the slope of a spacetime path, where the ordinate of the path is spatial and the abscissa is temporal. Velocity is inherently a two-axis metric. With reference to a single axis, the concept of velocity does not apply; you might as well try to count to infinity.

As to your dt/dt expression, it is perfectly meaningful: its value is, of course, dt/dt = 1. It is the defining identify for an infinite, smooth number line.

If spacetime is already curved magically, what's the point of having a graviton in the first place?

You are either a total idiot, or you are deliberately misdirecting the discussion by ignoring the fact that general relativity could very well be a highly-accurate approximation of a graviton theory.

Cheer up!

[rneches]

Don't be sad about the SCSC being killed. They upgraded the equipment at Fermilab, making it rather more powerful then the SCSC was going to be. And the upgrade cost a tiny, tiny fraction of the what the SCSC would have cost. It was a boondogle.

And to make you feel better still, they are upgrading the CERN facility right now to be more powerfull that the SCSC ever could have been.

So don't feel bad - the science is getting done. They just killed a pretty-looking project that needed to be killed for the sake of better science. Too bad they didn't have that kind of maturity about the International Space Station.

Government folks just don't seem to understand that MegaUltraHumungous projects are bad for science, no matter how pretty they look. If you have a raft of little projects, you will have a few that are junk, a few that are average, and a handfull that are brilliant. If you have one, big giant project, it will be average at best. It's the same principle with companies - one big company in a market will be crummy at best, and evil at worst. With a bunch of companies, at least a few can really shine.

--

If you're still interested...

[rneches]

If anyone is still interested in this stuff and wants to learn more about quantum physics and the Higgs Boson, but don't want to go back to school to do it, there is an excellent book called The God Particle by Leon Lederman (the former head of Fermilab).

Lederman is a very, very good writer, and manages to pack in a great deal of real, "hard" science without making it a labor to read. He includes the math if you're interested, but organizes the book so that you don't have to follow the math too closely to know what's going on.

--

are you serious or a troll?

[arete]

I have quite a similar theory, and I'm beginning to have a tad of math behind it.

I'd appreciate contact, if you're serious.

Re:Atom smashers...

[Gordonjcp]

Oh, for mod points when needed...
Who the hell modded this flamebait? Can't we have the name of the people that moderate posts?
Moderate these tedious people's replies "-1, Humourless Bastards".

Yep

[MeowMeow Jones]

Most people don't realise that a real newspaper costs more than 50 cents because they don't pay more than 50 cents. Who pays? Advertisers. Real advertisers. How do they know they're getting thier money's worth? Demographics.

There's a reason advertisers will fork over extra bucks to advertise in the national NY Times or Wall Street Journal instead of saving a few bucks and advertising in the USA Today.

Shame on the NY Times for using thier 100 year old business model on the Net instead of embracing the 'new economy'

Trolls throughout history:

Re:But so are all particles?

[einhverfr]

"A large number" != most. Honest.

There are at least six main interpretations of quantum physics. The most common is the Copenhagen interpretation (Heisenberg's "Physics and Philosophy" has a good description of this). But Einstein did not hold with this interpretation: "God does not play dice..." instead backing DeBroglie's theories of Pilot Waves (note that Einstein recieved his Nobel Prize for work in quantum physics, not Relativity).

Feinman and others have argued that multiple parallel universes explain the experiments best.

\But I think Heisenberg was right when he stated that data does not imply theory. Instead data plus philosophy leads to theort (See "Physics and Philosophy.")

Sig: Warning The following may be illegal under the DMCA (rot-13 decoder):
ABCDEFGH I J KLM

Darn it Heisenberg!

[einhverfr]

This uncertainty is killing me.

Does it exist? Depends? Is Schrodinger's cat still alive?

Sig: Warning The following may be illegal under the DMCA (rot-13 decoder):
ABCDEFGH I J KLM

Re:But so are all particles?

[einhverfr]

Most sensible physicists are holding out for non-philosophical explanations of "Quantum Mystery." That would be theories like the Girardi-Rimini-Weber theory or a non-linear Schrodiner Equation.

You still have one big hurdle though. There is no wat to get an explenation from your data which is non-philosophical because you have to do some interpretation. Interpretation, according to both Heisenberg and Einstein are innately philosophical and cannot be otherwise.

The closest you can get is Bell's Theorum, but that is simply a list of some explenations for the results of experiments and when one asks what Bell's Theorum means you end up right back at philosophy again (as you also do with Relativity, atomic theory, et. al.).

This leads me to question your use of the term reasonable in this context. Perhaps your "reasonable" physicists are not so reasonable, if they expect theory to be entirely devoid of philosophy. How can this be so?

Sig: Warning The following may be illegal under the DMCA (rot-13 decoder):
ABCDEFGH I J KLM

But so are all particles?

[einhverfr]

There is a large community of quantum physicists who expanded von Newmann's ideas to argue that we may actually be creating subatomic particles by looking for them. See Nick Herbert's "Quantum Reality."

Sig: Warning The following may be illegal under the DMCA (rot-13 decoder):
ABCDEFGH I J KLM

Re:But so are all particles?

[John Guilt]

...but most physicists don't hold with this. Honest.

You all have it wrong

[BarefootClown]

The "Boson" is the longest-running joke in the history of physics. "Boson" is the term physicists use to refer to the commonfolk. Think about it in the context of the history of physics. First, remember that many of the great physicists have been German. In German, the suffix -n (-en for words ending in consonants) is usually used to denote a plural. The English equivalent of "Boson," then, would be "Bosos," or "Boso's," as seen on Slashdot. Now consider that, in German, the letter 's' is frequently as the English 'z.' Substitute a 'z' for the 's,' and you have "Bozos." So all this time, when the physicists talk about "Boson" particles, they're talking about you! And you thought those physicists were nice guys...

'Course, they could also be thinking about sailing (boatswain...never mind)

Slashdot is not Journalism

[melquiades]

Come on ... these guys who run Slashdot are not journalists, nor are they experts in particle physics for that matter. Their job is to look through a gazillion submissions and pick out the ones that seem the most informative, provocative, and interesting, and let the community sort it out. They are not even claiming to provide the same kinds of research and editorial control that a newspaper does.

The headline is not an intentional exaggeration; it's just a non-expert summarizing as best they can something that may interest you. If you want to gripe about headlines, talk to your local newspaper.

Delays dlays delays!

[LaminatorX]

How long can this take? I've been waiting for my vacuum energy fuel cell/antigravity device for years now. I've been holding up production of my "Year 2000 Flying Automobile" for almost two years now waiting for reality to be sufficiently redefined for it to function. Pretty soon those vulture capitalists are goint to come sniffing after my monopolar ceramic disks spinning in .1 degree kelvin mercury baths...

Source of mass and weight

[6EQUJ5]

... the particle believed to be the source of mass and weight.

That's beer for guys, and chocolate for women.

Re:Source of mass and weight

[JBowz15]

I have heard sources that Oprah Winfrey may be the source of all mass and weight in the universive.

I didn't say that they were GOOD sources!

Re:Well we would have found it...

[h. simpson]

Actually, that's what disappoints me about the United States. One of the major blunders, at least IMHO, is how they cancelled the supercollider project in 1993.

The physics community in America is becoming a joke. After the years of importance, obviously caused by the cold war, physics has fallen by the wayside of American politics, similar to the decline of NASA. Without the prospects of making a new superbomb, the American public could care less about physics. It's the bane of every kid in highschool; it's the news articles that grownups fail to comprehend, or simply shrug off to the intellectual ivory tower.

I personally wish that we in the US would get a reputable collider. Why is it that everything has to be built in Geneva? Does anyone have any idea how many people have "exported" themselves to other countries to where physics is more respected? I would certainly like to know, because it seems that at least in America, physicists are ranked maybe slightly above McDonald's employees, both in respect and pay.

Glad that I'm a CS major...

Fermilab

[John Guilt]

There are a bunch of huge bison living in the ring. I once spent an hour trying to get as close as possible whilst not getting killed; a physicist was once gored or trampled to death by an angry bull, or so we were told to keep us away. No, none of them ever mutated into a huge glowing green buffalo shooting laser beams from its eyes, trampling most of nearby Naperville and Aurora into atomic splinters...much as that would be an improvement there.