Slashdot Mirror


Higgs Boson Not Found at 115 Gev

Larry writes "The most important part of the Standard Model, the Higgs boson, was not found in energies up to 115 GeV, according to this article on New Scientists. This, along with other drawbacks (such as the magnetic moment of the muon) delivers a severe blow to the Standard Model. This, along with yesterdays article on solid state physicists' theory, may call for major restructuring of current viable physics models."

76 comments

  1. Thier all wrong by HBD · · Score: -1

    everything is proven wrong at some point in time(heh..some point in an imaganary plain..), it just came sooner for this.

    --
    -- Note to self - 'Don't push that button'.
    1. Re:Thier all wrong by gnovos · · Score: 2

      everything is proven wrong at some point in time

      Oh yeah? Well, I'll prove YOU wrong ... in time.

      --
      "Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
    2. Re:Thier all wrong by HBD · · Score: -1

      lol..i guess i should have added 'except this statment'..lol..i use to think everything was possible, but now that i am no longer 10(that does not mean i am 11=), i think the opposite

      --
      -- Note to self - 'Don't push that button'.
    3. Re:Thier all wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You misspelled "there" HTH

    4. Re:Thier all wrong by HBD · · Score: -1

      so did you, i ment to say their, as in a group of people, not there as in a place, i am a math/sci person, not a brown-nosing english major, it is not a big deal..

      --
      -- Note to self - 'Don't push that button'.
    5. Re:Thier all wrong by sirket · · Score: 1

      Actually you meant to say "they're" all wrong. As in "they are all wrong." Not "their" as in "all wrong" belongs to them.

    6. Re:Thier all wrong by Myrthe · · Score: 1

      all your All Wrong belong to us!

  2. Sorry, got a better source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't this the same magazine that published the reports of the unreproducible anti-graviton? The magazine that's fixated on cold-fusion? Have they really disproved the Higgs boson's existence?

    Wow! Call Shambala, I think we've discovered some new science here!

    1. Re:Sorry, got a better source? by HorsePunchKid · · Score: 1

      Hear, hear. It's pseudo-science and poor reporting like the drivel on New Scientist that gives real science a bad name. The danger with them is that they mix the bullshit in with real science, so you've really got to be paying attention to filter out the bad stuff. I'm really getting tired of seeing submissions of articles from this site that turn out to be incredible (as in "not credible"), purely speculative, or interpreted beyond reason by some sensationalist reporter.

      </RANT>

      --
      Steven N. Severinghaus
    2. Re:Sorry, got a better source? by bloggins02 · · Score: 1

      'Tis possible, but pseudo science tends to be in the affirmative rather than the negative. Why run a story on the alleged non-existence of a very important particle in the Standard Model of physics? Most "pseudo scientists" probably don't even know what the standard model is. Also, if the report had indeed been falsified or exaggerated, I am quite certain we would have heard something from CERN right about now.

  3. God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Science is wrong ... therefore the bible must be correct.

    1. Re:God. by HBD · · Score: -1

      no, their both wrong, but science is closer, and it will get infinitly close, just never get there, whereas the bible is an infinity away..

      --
      -- Note to self - 'Don't push that button'.
    2. Re:God. by gnovos · · Score: 1, Troll

      Science is wrong ... therefore the bible must be correct.

      Cake tastes good ... therefore cherries must be purple.

      --
      "Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
    3. Re:God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ironic thing is that in your zeal to disprove his statement, you have in fact proved it.

      Cherries *are* purple!

      Therefore the bible must be correct.

    4. Re:God. by HBD · · Score: -1

      am i suppose to just not respond to these ppl, tell me for future ref..but for now:
      they are red moron..

      --
      -- Note to self - 'Don't push that button'.
    5. Re:God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually they come in many different colors, there are around 600 different varieties, ranging from bright red to purple to almost black.

    6. Re:God. by HBD · · Score: -1

      most are red, at least the ripe ones.

      --
      -- Note to self - 'Don't push that button'.
    7. Re:God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bing cherries are purple.

    8. Re:God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YHBT. YLH. HAND. these are not caps to stop the stupid fucking lameness filter

    9. Re:God. by gnovos · · Score: 1

      The ironic thing is that in your zeal to disprove his statement, you have in fact proved it.

      Cherries *are* purple!

      Therefore the bible must be correct.


      No becuase A does not lead to B. Science and the bible are in no way mututally exclusive.

      --
      "Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
    10. Re:God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A => B

      C => D

      A&&C => B&&D

      A&&B/D => B

      A&&B/D == TRUE

      TRUE => TRUE

      TRUE => B

      Post Comment
      Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
      Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

    11. Re:God. by HBD · · Score: -1

      how in the hell fo you get two numerical(otherwise the first 4 expressions wouldn't work) expressions to equal true - or false, you are a moron, let alone the fact you right it >= and not =>

      --
      -- Note to self - 'Don't push that button'.
    12. Re:God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You => a little hotheaded

      therefore

      me => trolling well

    13. Re:God. by Violet+Null · · Score: 2, Funny

      Science is wrong ... therefore the bible must be correct.

      You are a troll...therefore, someone will take you seriously.

    14. Re:God. by HBD · · Score: -1

      you = moronic little 10 year old that should be locked in a closet

      --
      -- Note to self - 'Don't push that button'.
    15. Re:God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Busted!

      I've got internet access from the closet, though. hehehe...

    16. Re:God. by Fucky+the+troll · · Score: -1

      your mother's rectum is red from all the banging.

      --






      Roadkill is yummy.
    17. Re:God. by Limburgher · · Score: 1

      beginquote Science is wrong ... therefore the bible must be correct. endquote Hmm. So, since you cannot precisely know both a particle's velocity and position at the same time, it follows that observation is capable of altering the properties of an object. Might this not make a literal interpretation of the bible a little, ummm, stupid?

      --

      You are not the customer.

  4. No need to restructure everything just yet... by Gaber · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They haven't ruled out the existence of the Higgs by any means.

    LEP couldn't probe the entire range of energies where the Higgs might reside, and there wasn't compelling evidence that they would be able to. That's why LEP was shut down; scientists at CERN wanted to begin work on LHC, which will replace LEP by 2005 (IIRC).

    Now the search for (and discovery of?) the Higgs will probably take place at Fermilab and LHC.

    And this business of requiring a "major restructuring" of current physics models is just exaggeration. People propose extensions to the standard model all the time; it's just that the standard model has described current observations and predicted new (and eventually confirmed) ones very well. There's no need to throw the entire thing out.

    -Gabe

    1. Re:No need to restructure everything just yet... by HBD · · Score: -1

      are you retarded..the lep was shtdown because the experiment was finished, they cannot afford to leave that running while they spend the year it takes to anylize the data from a single reaction, and by all but one of the people in that article it was proven, and that one said you just have to add another 15GeV and when not found he would agree, every theory is wrong, it just takes its time to get there..

      --
      -- Note to self - 'Don't push that button'.
    2. Re:No need to restructure everything just yet... by Gaber · · Score: 2, Insightful

      are you retarded..the lep was shtdown because the experiment was finished

      Different experimenters have different ideas about when an experiment is finished, and the shutdown of LEP was not as simple as you apparently believe.

      The "other group" refered to in the article, who claimed to have found the Higgs just before LEP was scheduled to be shut down, had a vested interest in keeping the experiment running; they had put a lot of time, money, and effort into it, and since LEP had almost enough energy to probe most of the energy range where the Higgs would most likely be found, they wanted to keep going for a few more months. The group that discovers the Higgs will most likely be awarded the Nobel prize in a few years, so the actual discovery of the Higgs effectively carries a very large cash prize.

      Now that LEP has been shut down (despite the claim that the Higgs had been seen), the Higgs will most likely be discovered at Fermilab. It's possible that the group at LEP who claimed to have seen the Higgs was just trying to keep the experiment running long enough to legitimately discover it themselves.

      It should be mentioned that the LEP group has claimed to have seen the Higgs several times over the past few years, and each time (including this latest one) more careful reanalysis of the data has revealed no legitimate signal.

      -Gabe

    3. Re:No need to restructure everything just yet... by HBD · · Score: -1

      you obviously didn't even read the article so your whole post is irrelevent, the higgs was NOT found, thats what the article is about, you would have known that if you read it, and since you made up that part i also doubt your credability for the rest of your post..

      --
      -- Note to self - 'Don't push that button'.
    4. Re:No need to restructure everything just yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you obviously didn't even read the article so your whole post is irrelevent, the higgs was NOT found, thats what the article is about, you would have known that if you read it, and since you made up that part i also doubt your credability for the rest of your post..

      I think you have a problem with reading comprehension. Nowhere in my post did I say that the Higgs had been found; I used the phrases "claimed to have been found", "would most likely be found", "will most likely be found", and "claimed to have seen". The phrase "actual discovery of the Higgs" refers to a hypothetical future event; if/when the Higgs is discovered, the discovers will almost certainly win the Nobel prize in physics.

      Not only did I read the New Scientist article linked to in this /. story, but I've read many far more technical journal articles on Higgs searches. And isn't it funny how your posts keep getting modded down...

      -Gabe

    5. Re:No need to restructure everything just yet... by HBD · · Score: -1

      It should be mentioned that the LEP group has claimed to have seen the Higgs several times over the past few years, and each time (including this latest one) - this implies that you say it was discovered, and i am not getting modded down, some jackass moderator modded me down in a diff post, i have -1 karma because of one person fucking up my rating, not because they are modded down, when they are modded down, or up, they have an adjective beside the rating, read the faq..

      --
      -- Note to self - 'Don't push that button'.
    6. Re:No need to restructure everything just yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oops, my bad about the moderation comment - I had forgotten about the automatic -1. That sucks.

      Back on-topic: do you not understand what "claimed to have seen" means in the sentence you quoted? They thought they had seen it after preliminary analysis, but after looking at the data more carefully they concluded that their initial claim had been incorrect - i.e. that they had in fact not yet discovered the Higgs.

      -Gabe

    7. Re:No need to restructure everything just yet... by HBD · · Score: -1

      opps..lol..i should start reading the whole thing first..sry bout that, your post oes seem like it supports the current theories though..lol..

      --
      -- Note to self - 'Don't push that button'.
    8. Re:No need to restructure everything just yet... by styopa · · Score: 2

      From what I have heard, unless the luminosity of Run II at Fermilabs increases drastically they will not have a high enough cross section to find the Higgs, assuming it exists. We can only hope they do find it so that we don't have to wait until we receive data from the LHC.

      --
      Disclamer - Opinion of Person
  5. Ipren - Den intelligenta v�rktabletten by The+Lyrics+Guy · · Score: -1

    Ipren - Den intelligenta värktabletten

    Jag är Ipren den intelligenta värktabletten!
    Mot värk och feber en effektiv vän.
    Smärtstillande, febernedsättande.
    Jag är Ipren, helt enkelt intelligent.
    Jag har anti-inflammatoriska egenskaper.
    Bra mot muskelvärk, ledvärk och ryggvärk.
    En Ipren 400 milligram hjälper oftast bättre än
    två receptfria tabletter med paracetamol, t.ex. Alvedon.
    Vid huvudvärk, mensvärk och tandvärk.
    Jag är Ipren, den intelligenta värktabletten!

  6. Debate from yesterday by imrdkl · · Score: 1

    Was some heavy shit. Took me damn near an hour just to meta-moderate a bit for it.

  7. You have to remember it is still only a theory... by -douggy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As Richard Feynman said "If it disagress with experiment, no matter who said it, or how elegant it is, if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong."

    While the Higgs Boson and the Higgs field are very compelling and I am certainly not advanced enough in that area of physics to judge Higgs and the other creators of the standard model perhaps there is no Higgs Boson!

    I have no real other way of explaining but a lot of things would be nice if there were a drag for a "mystery field" like the ether of the 19th century, hopefully 21st century physics and mathematics will be able to tell us where this mass and inertia comes from.

  8. The Linux Party by TRoLLaXoR · · Score: -1

    First, there was a plan: how to bring together the different development groups at work? My boss said there was a sort of tension he thought could be eased by some social interaction. Not easy. Almost all of the different development groups despised each other, each thinking its "art" was more important and eloquent than the others'.

    There was the kernel extension developer group, coding mostly in C and some PowerPC and x86 assembler. They worked on making our PCI board work with Linux, *BSD, Mac OS X, QNX, and Solaris. They worked "special hours," coming in at one and staying late, supposedly, until seven or eight at night. They enjoyed Jizz cola and had a penchant for ThinkGeek t-shirts and cracking jokes about Win32 API calls and the dreaded Blue Screen of Death.

    We had XML developers too. They worked on our website, documentation formatting, and simple apps to configure the driver software. They used HTML, XSL, JavaScript, and a bit of Java. They typically dressed casually, drank coffee and tea, and liked to work straight from the spec: no "Learn XSL in 30 Days" books were to be found in their cubicle farm.

    Then we had the guys who wrote full-out UNIX apps. These guys and the products they wrote had been acquired from another company, and were the source of most of the tension: they'd never really been integrated into our group except that they were physically present with the rest of us. They all had beards or mullets or long, unwashed hair. Many wore suspenders or the afore-mentioned ThinkGeek clothes; some even had Penguin tatooes or small C app code tattooed on them. Their cubicle farm was known for the bleating laughter that exploded when one of them found a "silly" bug on someone else's code, and for the rotten, fetid stench that could only be compared to three-day-old shit reeking from inside a rotting corpse's abdominal cavity.

    So, in order to get the guys to "know each other" my boss had asked me to organize a during-hours, alcohol-friendly party. My ideas ranged from a keg or two to live entertainment, AKA strippers. But as to what to get them to actually talk to each other in a human manner I had no clue. So I let it go til the last minute and decided to let my inherent creativity mull it over in the back of my head.

    When the day of the party had arrived, the catering company brought in a few trays of lunch meat, chicken, pizza, and side dishes, I had picked up the kegs (all four) from the local brewery, and the big-screen TV and DVD were set up ready to blast the Matrix into the eyes and ears of my co-workers. The eagerness in the the air was encouraging and I thought that loosening up and smiles going on even now were a good sign. I even saw some of the guys who'd known each other previously begin to bunch up, bringing along the co-workers they knew from everyday work.

    The first thing everyone did was hit the food line, loading up their plates and grabbing a cup for beer to wash it down with. A few approached me and thanked me for the food; it seems appeasing the belly really did tame the beast. After a few minutes of silence and eating and a few second and third courses, they guys were ready to sit down and be entertained. After asking if anyone needed anything else before the movie started, the lights went out and the Matrix began playing. I heard a few enthusiastic comments and jokes being told.

    About half-way through the movie I noticed a lot of the guys, especially from the UNIX app group, were getting up and presumably going to the restroom. No suprise, as the second keg was history by now and the third was probably half-way gone. I also noticed some of the guys bumping into things and stumbling. Alcohol's the social lubricant, eh? Well, not long after, my bladder beckoned and I answered. As I made my way to the restroom, I had a self-satisfied smile on my face: my little plan was working, my boss would be happy, and it might even a Christmas bonus or a promotion (even if in title only).

    Well, as soon as I pushed the restroom door open, I knew something was wrong. The smell of vomit was pretty strong and I hoped that it'd only been the work of one guy. But the smell was so pungent! After standing at the urinal, waiting for the golden flow to commence, I stood in silence. It was then that I heard grunting. Listening intently for a few seconds, I hoped whoever was upchucking their beer and munchies wasn't leaving a huge mess for the cleanup crew. After pissing and still hearing the noise, I approached the stall the that moaning was coming from.

    "Hey, you alright in there, man?" I asked cautiously.

    I was met by silence for a moment. Then I heard a few grunts and concealed giggles. Something was up in there. It was then that I heard what sounded like crying and more moaning. What the fuck? I decided I needed to see what was going on. I didn't want this party to come crashing down around my ears. I pushed the door open hard and then gasped as I saw the most sordid, disgusting thing I'd ever seen in my life.

    Standing on either side of the toilet were two if the UNIX app coders, their beards caked with vomit, their pants in puddles around ankles, with erect penises wagging in the air. Doubled over the toilet, his head nearly dunked in the swill, was one of the XML developers. His pants were also around his ankles and what appeared to be a combination of blood and semen were dripping from his torn, ragged anus. He was covered in vomit from head to toe, and he was crying hard into the toilet bowl, its echo an eerie accompaniment to the awful scene I was seeing but not believing.

    They two Linux coders slowly turned and looked me straight in the eye, evil grins smeared across both of their bearded faces.

    "What in Fuck's name are you doing!?" was all I could force out of my mouth. I still wasn't believing I was seeing this.

    Saying nothing, both of the Linux coders rushed me. Being in such a tense state, I threw both of them off and made a break for the door. And the fucking thing wouldn't open. In the follow two seconds that seemed like an eternity, the door was pushed open my way and two more Linux coders came in. Upon seeing what was happening, they immediately grabbed me and were joined by the first two. I was trapped. Then the one guy, who was a dead-ringer for Rasputin, the mad Russian monk, gazed into my eyes and said in a feminine voice, "Looks like Mr. Party is gonna get a taste of the real action!" and cackled insanely.

    Cold sweat spurted from the pores on my foreheads and cheeks as I was dragged by the four stinking, polluted hippies into the same stall their previous victim was in. Rasputin spoke again, excitement in his voice.

    "Thanks for the pizza and beer, now it's time for the weeners and buns!"

    Immediately the first two slogged their pants off and got down on their knees. The other two put there knees in my back and held me on top of the first victim, who now appeared to be unconscious. I heard their belts coming off and their zippers coming down, and some rustling around told me that their pants were coming down also. Then the first two started sucking off the other two, in what I could only call the most enthusiastic blowjobs I'd ever seen in my life. The moaning and slurping sounds turned my stomach and I retched. I could see why the first guy might have vomited.

    Eventually Rasputin and his cohort started moaning more loudly, and one of them said "fifteen seconds." This was followed by a series of rapid-fire belching and burping that shook me up and down on the guy underneath me. After about fifteen seconds, all Hell broke loose. The two guys behind me started vomiting on the two guys fellating them and I saw cumshot shoot and mix with the vomit all over the two cocksuckers' faces. It was then that I almost lost. I finally did refund when the first two vile fluids were followed by streams of piss. I heard swallowing and dripping and I yacked all over their first victim's head.

    Rasputin cried out like a little girl in ecstasy. "Oh god, I'd been waiting for that all night! This party fuckin' roxorz my coxor!"

    Now it was my turn, it seemed, as all four started tearing my pants down. Chunks of vomit-piss-semen fell on my back and soaked through my t-shirt. It was reviling. I shuddered as I felt their cold, clammy hands in my ass-crack and a very indelicate reacharound on my ball-sack. At this point I had no idea who was doing what, and I was just praying that I'd wake up and realize I was drunk and dreaming a la nightmare.

    Just then I heard the door boom open and my boss's voice fill the air. The stall door was open and he saw right away the turgid scene transpiring in front of him. His voice was immediately followed by two others, XML developers I knew, and they flew into the stall as best they could and began a fight to save my asshole. The poor guy underneath me had just woken up and started struggling and the extra weight of eight other bodies in the stall must have been suffocating.

    "It'll be all right, buddy," I offered to him.

    Within thirty seconds I was to my feet and was delivering the most heart-felt kicks to the guts of the rapist faggot Linux coders. Between me, my boss, and the two XML developers, we had the gang of four knocked out in a sloppy, excrement-filled pile of hairy body.

    It's now been a month since this horrible incident and I am in regular therapy with a sexual abuse counselor. In response to the terrible outcome of this party, my boss toyed with the idea of selling the group off to another company, sans the four hippies who'd been fired and arrested. After considerable urging on my part, and very open ear from my boss, the whole group was dissolved and the Linux coders lost their jobs. Their product was delayed by a year as my boss began hiring a new development team. We'd found evidence that the whole group had been involved in the planning of the gang-bangs and that had it not been for us everyone would have had a "turn" in the stalls.

    If there's one thing we learned from this tragedy is that Linux coders, users, and advocates are desperate cock-lusting homosexual faggots that can't be trusted in any situation, let alone a restroom setting. You've been warned.

    On the positive side, though, the whole incident brought solidarity between the other groups in the company and I am now on schedule to get a huge Christmas package that not only includes a gigantic bonus but a month's worth of paid time off and a real promotion.

  9. Opinion of expert by Mt._Honkey · · Score: 2, Informative

    I attended a lecture by a senior researcher at LEP at CERN, and I saw many various collision images. They showed many of the simultanius bottom quark/anti bottom quark decays that you would expect from about 70% of Higgs decays. It looked convincing, but I do suppose that it could be background. As much as I don't want the higgs to exist, it did look good.

    --

    Don't Bogart the fish sticks
    1. Re:Opinion of expert by HBD · · Score: -1

      1) there has been no proof of the higgs existance, that is what this article is about.

      2) no expert would use the title opinion of expert.

      3) "I don't want the higgs to exist" - good, i agree

      --
      -- Note to self - 'Don't push that button'.
    2. Re:Opinion of expert by Mt._Honkey · · Score: 0

      i didn't say I was the expert. I meant to quote the guy, but I forgot. He said that there is no mass limit on the higgs boson(s), and it will take a lot of experimentation, maybe more the the LHC to make a good conclusion

      --

      Don't Bogart the fish sticks
    3. Re:Opinion of expert by HBD · · Score: -1

      ha!
      find the quote, i would not respect the word of anyone who says there is no mass limit...haha

      --
      -- Note to self - 'Don't push that button'.
    4. Re:Opinion of expert by Mt._Honkey · · Score: 1, Informative

      He said that there is no certain mass limit. He showed a graph of possible masses, and there was a certain area from around 60 to 300 GeV (if I remember correctly) where it probably lies, however there is nothing in the standard model that would put an absolute limit. So, I guess that technicly we could find a mind-bogglinly huge mass, but it is most likely on the order of the low hundreds of GeV. He suspects the mid hundreds, but that part was pure speculation.

      --

      Don't Bogart the fish sticks
    5. Re:Opinion of expert by styopa · · Score: 2

      I have looked at the data. There were a total of 4 events in only one of the three experiments. The data that seemed to say that the Higgs existed also looked a lot like systematic error. I want to see the Higgs discovered but I do not like it when people jump the gun.

      --
      Disclamer - Opinion of Person
  10. Here's my theory. Also, I'm stupid. by JMZero · · Score: 5, Funny

    I believe the universe is a simulation.

    It's natural that the quantum state of a particle is not known until it's observed. Why would you render all this detail out when nobody's watching? It would be the same as Quake rendering things behind you.

    The same situation would explain why sometimes objects behavior only makes sense at a macro-level - objects are only being rendered out that far. Quake doesn't compute motion for each polygon - it moves things in groups.

    Only when we're looking at one pixel (I mean particle...) does the universe render itself out that far.

    --
    Let's not stir that bag of worms...
  11. Re:Here's my theory. Also, I'm stupid. by HBD · · Score: -1

    it would explain the seeming order..but not the fact we can only see so far...keep trying..

    --
    -- Note to self - 'Don't push that button'.
  12. English Translation? by shr3k · · Score: 2, Funny

    Could someone please link to the English translation of this article? Babelfish didn't seem to recognize many of the words.

    1. Re:English Translation? by xah · · Score: 1

      I hear ya, brother. link .

      --
      I am not a lawyer. Do not take my words as legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult an attorney.
  13. Re:Here's my theory. Also, I'm stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    the quantum state of a particle is not known until it's observed.

    Quantum computing proposes to exploit this property to make computers that are qualitatively faster than what you can build in a non-quantum world. So it would seem that quantum mechanics is actually more expensive to compute than the "fully rendered" alternative.

    A deeper philosophical question is "do you really need a simulation running to get a universe?" Maybe just laying out the equations is enough, a simulation only queries something which already exists as soon as it is defined.

    Then, you have to wonder, do you really need someone to think of the equation? After all, the mandelbrot set exists even when no one thinks about it.

    So probably the truth is that *everything* exists. Conscious beings are just much more likely to be the byproduct of evolution in a universe with simple rules, than to have been produced from scratch by chance (even though both cases exist). So here we are.

  14. Re:You have to remember it is still only a theory. by alfredw · · Score: 2, Informative

    Not necessarily true. What the experiments have found is that the Higgs must have an energy over 115 GeV. According to the Standard Model, this is OK. The Standard Model can't predict what the Higgs energy will be - it's an experimental parameter.

    So nothing's broken yet. It just seems that if there is a Higgs boson, it's very massive and will require big accelerators to find.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, sig types you!
  15. Secret of the Universe by Moblaster · · Score: 0

    Oh god since you want to know so badly I'll just clue you in right now. It's the eternal story of how a dimension can fold in upon itself. There are many ways you can look at it and most of them start to get very complicated essentially immediately. It's all the same damn process though, so if you focus on the process you will understand that that is the whole picture. There is really nothing more to see. You can sweat, you can dream, you can notice a whole bunch of other effects, like the experience of listening to music (that's my favorite -- well, not really but you can enjoy it by yourself) but in the end it's all the same. Just a universe looking at itself in so many ways. Well, I'm glad to have been here and I've enjoyed the ride, and since I'm a big egomaniac, I'll call this wonderful discovery the Mamoun Eternal Party Method. But just keep in mind, in case you ever forget, "Mamoun" is just a label. It's the process that counts. So have some fun, because now history can keep folding back in on itself. You are safe knowing this, because it's not like you could blow yourself up anyway. I mean, where would you go? Some other dimension or something? Like yeah. You are already there. Just admit it to yourself. Isn't this whole "consciousness" thing some kind of big joke anyway? It's funny to watch though, and the joke just gets funnier when you realize ITS JUST YOU LOOKING AT YOURSELF. But knowing that fact anyway is kind of fun. I mean, it's kind of like playing with yourself. FOREVER. Then you start to ask all sorts of crazy questions, like DO I REALLY NEED FOOD? I mean, if I don't eat, I guess I will die. But then, where would I go? One funny question is to explore the "patterns." Those are the short-term stable solutions. What, exactly, does "short-term stable solution" mean? Whatever we define it to mean. Get it, Einstein? Well, I think that's all there is to say. Now I just need to find out a way to get it onto the Internet so EVERYONE, JUST EVERYONE will know. Good grief. Is there no end to the madness? In case you are still scared, or maybe just confused, let me just remind you that you are I and I are you. We are all just corners in some silly puzzle. Now let's really have some fun and figure out what this puzzle can do. To give you a starting point, think about all the ways a little dot can talk to itself. Yes, that's right. How can a little dot talk to itself? Because when it "talks" to itself, what it is really doing is "inventing" a new dimension. We can all be little Gausses and figure out a nice limit formula involving e, wonderful e, can't we? If you need another clue, it's the pattern that just keeps right on reinventing itself. In other words, it's the pattern that includes a label, a separator and two add-on pairs. You need two add-on pairs in order to define the concept of a vector space. That concept of a vector space is really all you need. So you can label e as 2.718 (the exact number of digits is just a notional issue, once you admit the idea of Jumping from dimension to dimension). All real patterns lose coherence after some finite number of analytical cycles. Any pattern which does not lose coherence in such a way can be labeled imaginary. Imaginary means that the pattern can only exist if left unobserved and thus undisturbed. The unobserved pattern may exist but not measurably, because any observable solution must exist in a space that admits observation.

    1. Re:Secret of the Universe by bloggins02 · · Score: 1

      We need a moderation category called simply: WTF?

    2. Re:Secret of the Universe by crispy · · Score: 1

      This guy needs to lay off the 'shrooms :-)

      --
      My sig has a broken link in it.
  16. Broken models: Cool! by Marsh+Jedi · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I would be extremely happy if our instrumentation had finally become powerful enough to discover experimental evidence that breaks the model.

    The last huge time someone said, "Hold on--it should not be doing this!" was Planck, in 1900, when he found light quanta in black body radiation.

    Basically, Planck was expecting the color of the light of a hot body to increase smoothly as the temperature went up...(infrared, visible, UV, Xray, gamma)....Unfortunately, he found that in reality, it did _not_ go up smoothly....It went up in a staircase with billions of teeny tiny steps, meaning light is *quantized*. This effed up our entire model. All of it. Before this discovery, the precession of Mercury (ended up being a relativity thing) was the only thing people were having a tough time with. Then this hit and they had to develop a system of mechanics to deal with these quanta.

    Check out the next 15 years:

    1901: Max Planck, determination of Planck's constant, Boltzmann's constant, Avogadro's number and the charge on electron

    1904: Albert Einstein, energy-frequency relation of light quanta

    1905: Albert Einstein, special relativity

    1909: Robert Millikan, measured electron charge

    1909: Albert Einstein, particle-wave duality of photons

    1911: Ernest Rutherford, Infers the nucleus from the weird scattering of alpha particles on gold foil

    1913: Niels Bohr, quantum theory of atomic orbits. Same year: radioactivity as nuclear property

    1915: Albert Einstein, general relativity

    Not bad for fifteen years.

    Now, while we have made a lot of progress messing with these basic discoveries in cosmology, particle theory, quantum theory etc, we still have been refining these models. We haven't had to chuck the whole thing in a while.

    I want another fifteen years like this. But for this to happen, the thing needs to break. In half.

    Of course, I have a bias. I want zero point energy, flying cars and FTL travel. So I am praying for rain.

  17. Re:Here's my theory. Also, I'm stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Then, you have to wonder, do you really need someone to think of the equation? After all, the mandelbrot set exists even when no one thinks about it.

    What you mean is that the Mandelbrot set is something that it's possible for you to think about. That's not the same thing as "exists".

    In other words, what I'm saying is that the Mandelbrot set is a byproduct of your mind.

    From there we can go a lot of different places. If you think your mind is a byproduct of the physical universe, then Mandelbrot sets and indeed all of mathematics exist because of the existence of the universe.

    What is my point? Indeed, I do have one, though it may seem like I don't. My pointis that it's a real possibility that mathematics exists because of the universe. Therefore, applying the mathematical kind of existence to the universe may not be valid. The universe could exist in a different kind of way than mathematical ideas do.

  18. Re:You have to remember it is still only a theory. by emerson · · Score: 2

    However, Feynman had a -correct- idea about what makes an experiment.

    Strict scientific method has VERY VERY limiting ideas about what an experiment is, and just poking at something to see what happens isn't that.

    So, unless you have removed all variables EXCEPT the Higgs boson, an experiment can't prove or disprove the existance of the Higgs boson. It can just be misinterpreted.

  19. May as well ask... by SeanBaker · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Physics intrigues me, but I don't have the time to study it properly. I'd appreciate it, thought, if someone would take the time to correct me here when I suggest something I've wondered since high school physics: Why do we differentiate between mass and energy - is there conclusive proof that they are not, in fact, one in the same, and what we conceive as mass is merely the resistence of the energy (or its generated fields) to change? It seems that if this were our basis, the lack of Higgs boson would not be an issue.

    --

    Sean R. Baker
    CDT, United States Army
    "Lead me, follow me,
    or get out of my way."
    1. Re:May as well ask... by RedCard · · Score: 1

      IANAP (physicist) but I've taken a bunch of courses.

      Here's something like a partial answer to your question, as best as I can remember from my quantum-physics course.

      Mass and energy are essentially the same thing. The principle difference between energy and matter is the wavelength. Matter has a very short wavelength, whereas energy has a relatively long wavelength.
      Otherwise, matter and energy can be treated as the same thing for most operations.

      But not always.

    2. Re:May as well ask... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have this backwards? I think its matter that has a long wavelength, and energy that has a short wavelength. Imagine throwing a baseball - its wavelength is so long that you cant measure it. Versus shining a light - the light wavelength is quite small and can be measured relatively easily.

    3. Re:May as well ask... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is right about the wavelength part. It helps to have experience with optics or quantum mechanics if you want an intuitive notion of how wavelength manifests itself.

      A long wavelength corresponds to an uncertainty in a particle's position, and causing the phenomenae of interference, diffraction, and so on.

      Consider a microwave oven. The microwaves used have centimeter lengths and so resonate in metal cavities of centimeter size, and cannot get past a metal screen with holes of millimeter size (like in the glass plate of your microwave oven.)

      Visible light on the other hand, has higher energy and much shorter wavelength (hundreds of nanometers), so it passes through those millimeter holes without diffracting at all. To diffract visible light you need a slit or hole which is somewhat thin compared to the wavelength of the light.

      So for things with long wavelength, this wavelike behavior is very noticable. For short wavelength, it is hard to see.

      Alternatively, I think you can use the rule discovered by Einstein [1905]: E = h * nu. nu is the frequency. E is the relativistic energy... that is, it includes rest energy, which for any macroscopic object is simply enormous compared to, say, a photon of visible light. So a baseball has incredibly high frequency, therefore it also has very high wavelength. (c = lambda * nu).

    4. Re:May as well ask... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oops, of course I meant to say very low wavelength at the end there, as you can tell from the beginning of my post or if you follow the mathematics.

    5. Re:May as well ask... by sigwinch · · Score: 2
      ...is there conclusive proof that they are not, in fact, one in the same, and what we conceive as mass is merely the resistence of the energy (or its generated fields) to change?
      That's a plausible general approach. Unfortunately generalities don't answer specific questions about the mass of particular particles. For example, if you divide the mass of the muon by the mass of the electron, you get a specific value. Why?

      The answer is probably not just "Because that's the way it is." The reason is that the particles seem to have a lot of structure. There are three families of leptons (electron, muon, and tauon). Each of the lepton families has two members, a charged particle and an uncharged neutrino. At the same time, there are three families of quarks, and each quark family also has two members, one of which has 1/3 the electron charge, and the other of which has 2/3 the electron charge. The quarks have a property called 'color charge' and thus are subject to the 'strong force', while the leptons do not have color charge and do not feel the strong force. This page has a nice chart of the different families.

      The patterns and symmetries make physicists very suspicious that properties like mass and charge actually arise from a more basic structure, but nobody knows yet. Personally, I'm betting that there *is* a more basic structure that explains the properties of the different particles.

      --

      --
      Kuro5hin.org: where the good times never end. ;-)

    6. Re:May as well ask... by Spinality · · Score: 1

      Hence the standard physics joke:

      Q: What's new?
      A: c over lambda

      [rim shot]

      --
      -- We all have enough strength to endure the misfortunes of other people. La Rochefoucauld
  20. Re:Here's my theory. Also, I'm stupid. by stevelinton · · Score: 5, Funny

    There is an old cartoon, dating from a previous period of uncertainty in particle physics (before the quark theory) showing God adressing a crowd of angles. Caption "OK, they've got up to 1.1GeV. All those in favour of granting them a new particle raise one wing!"

  21. Re:You have to remember it is still only a theory. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you are wrong, unless you remove all other components, you can only disprove it, because unless everything else is removed it could be something else they end up finding, but if they do not find anything at all it meens that there is nothing even close to it, and considering te range the higgs bosen is in, i would guess that this proves it, you only have another 15GeV to go before you can disprove it, and since it is not a logarithmic scale it is very easy to get.

  22. Yes, but that was the golden age of physics. by xeeno · · Score: 1

    Physicists were a little different back then, and had a more intuitive feeling for the science involved. These days, the average physics grad student is screwed if he/she can't model it on a computer. It's a failing that is going to end up hurting physics as a whole in the next 100 years.

  23. Re:Here's my theory. Also, I'm stupid. by JMZero · · Score: 1

    Maybe quantum computing will be the point the simulation breaks down. Maybe there's nobody watching it - and we'll just always wonder why it didn't work.

    I know there's one bug in the simulation - there's way too much lint. What's with all the lint?

    --
    Let's not stir that bag of worms...
  24. Re:Here's my theory. Also, I'm stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the Mandelbrot set is something that it's possible for you to think about. That's not the same thing as "exists".

    I guess we need to be very precise by what is meant by "exists". So lets define a little test. Suppose that in a variant of the Mandelbrot set with a time parameter, we discover some coordinates where we see some weird creatures living in a technological society, all in exquisite details.

    Are these creatures really living? It sure looks so when you look at them.

    When you render the same thing twice, are they living twice? Well, it seems that they're unaffected by how many times you look at them or the speed at which you render things. You don't see them saying "hey, look, we're really living now! cool!" when you compute their universe. Their world is after all deterministic, with their flow of time completely independent from yours, and randomly accessible by you.

    mathematics exist because of the existence of the universe.

    Imagine you are one of those creatures. Then the opposite is closer to the truth. Your universe exists because of mathematics, and flow of time is of course just an illusion.

  25. Re:Here's my theory. Also, I'm stupid. by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 1

    If God's adressing a crowd of angles, shouldn't they be raising a vertex instead?

    --
    And the brethren went away edified.
  26. A crazy theory from a non-physicist by bloggins02 · · Score: 1

    I just thought of this. I'm sure it's wrong so someone please enlighten me, I love learning about this stuff, but here goes...

    In quantum mechanics, a true vacuum with "nothing" there does not seem to exist. Instead, they theorize that a soup of virtual particles randomly pop into existence, combine again (particle/antiparticle), and annihalate each other.

    Now, what if, when one of these particles were created, something (rather energy, matter, or a field of some sort) collided with one of the particles in the pair? Would this provide the
    "drag"? Could the collision every so often knock a particle so significantly off its course that it failed to reunite with its anti-particle and be destroyed? Would this explain dark matter?

    No, I'm obviously not a physicist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night ;-)

  27. This is just plain wrong! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The most important part of the Standard Model, the Higgs boson, was not found in energies up to 115 GeV, according to this article on New Scientists. This, along with other drawbacks (such as the magnetic moment of the muon) delivers a severe blow to the Standard Model. This, along with yesterdays article on solid state physicists' theory, may call for major restructuring of current viable physics models."

    What the hell are you talking about?!
    The Standard Model works just fine with a Higgs boson mass greater than 115 GeV? This lacks even a vague resemblance to a "severe blow"! Heck, the minimal supersymmetric Standard Model extensions -- which tend to predict a "lighter" Higgs mass -- are not even close to ruled out by this fact. (You'd need to get above at least 170 GeV.) The only thing this casts any doubt on is the reports from the ALEPH experiment at CERN that they saw evidence for a Higgs at this energy. Even this last bit is hardly a surprise, since ALEPH had fairly poor statistics.

    Furthermore, yesterday's "solid state" article should not be taken of evidence of anything, save two facts: (A) physicsts, like anyone else, like to bullshit when they're drinking, and (B) some people like talking to journalists a little too much. If you take even a rudimentary look around, you'll see that none of these people who are criticizing reductionism have actually gone so far as to propose a specific theory, a general framework for theoretical model building, or even a couple of half-assed "principles" to guide people in their work. Face it. This is not science. It's just people getting windy.

  28. Re:Here's my theory. Also, I'm stupid. by Suidae · · Score: 2

    ooo, ooo, and unattended system, quick, somebody figure out some shell code and root the universe!

  29. Re:Here's my theory. Also, I'm stupid. by pwagland · · Score: 2

    Now you are just being obtuse :-)