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."
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
Was some heavy shit. Took me damn near an hour just to meta-moderate a bit for it.
Science is wrong ... therefore the bible must be correct.
... therefore cherries must be purple.
Cake tastes good
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
everything is proven wrong at some point in time
... in time.
Oh yeah? Well, I'll prove YOU wrong
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
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.
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!"
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
Science is wrong ... therefore the bible must be correct.
You are a troll...therefore, someone will take you seriously.
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...
Could someone please link to the English translation of this article? Babelfish didn't seem to recognize many of the words.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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."
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!"
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.
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.
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...
Actually you meant to say "they're" all wrong. As in "they are all wrong." Not "their" as in "all wrong" belongs to them.
all your All Wrong belong to us!
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
If God's adressing a crowd of angles, shouldn't they be raising a vertex instead?
And the brethren went away edified.
'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.
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
We need a moderation category called simply: WTF?
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.
This guy needs to lay off the 'shrooms :-)
My sig has a broken link in it.
ooo, ooo, and unattended system, quick, somebody figure out some shell code and root the universe!
Now you are just being obtuse :-)