Has the Higgs Boson Particle Field Been Hiding in Plain Sight?
sciencehabit writes with a link to the ScienceNow site, noting an article saying the Higgs boson may already have been found in previous observations of the known universe. A theorist at Michigan state is arguing that scientists may have already found evidence for the elusive particle. The key appears to be that the particles that make up the Higgs field are of various 'strengths', and some of those particles may tug on others very weakly. "The lightest Higgs can be very light indeed, but it would not have been seen at [CERN's Large Electron-Positron (LEP)], because LEP experimenters were looking for an energetic collision that made a Z that then spit out a Higgs. That wouldn't happen very often if the lightest Higgs and the Z hardly interact. 'Just within the simplest supersymmetric model, there's still room for Higgs that is missed,' Yuan says. However, this lightweight Higgs is not exactly the Higgs everyone is looking for, says Marcela Carena, a theorist at Fermilab. 'The Higgs they are talking about is not the one responsible for giving mass to the W and Z,' she says. It can't be because it hardly interacts with those particles, Carena says. Indeed, in Yuan's model, the role of mass-giver falls to one of the heavier Higgses, which is still heavier than the LEP limit, she notes."
Turns out it was under the couch all this time.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_Boson
So basically, -1 troll/offtopic is really slashdots way of saying "I hate that you thought of something before me."
Am I really the only one worried that determining the precise weight of the Higgs Boson will result in the Earth being crushed into a tiny particle the size of a pea?
Nasty Hobbitses...and their mean Higgses make Precious feel so heavy.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
From Wiki...
It is the only Standard Model particle not yet observed, but would help explain how otherwise
massless elementary particles, still manage to construct mass in matter. In particular, the difference between the massless photon and the relatively massive W and Z bosons
I always wondered what they use to measure the mass of elementary particles (not atoms). Can anyone explain? Also, maybe photons and higgs boson do have mass, but our instruments just aren't sensitive enough (kinda what the summary is saying)?
You say that now, but she'll look better after a couple of drinkses.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Yep that is correct. The photon is the carrier of the electromagnetic force, and light is an electromagnetic wave. The force felt between charged particles is caused by the exchange of virtual photons. All fields can be thought of as made of quantized particles. In the case of the fundamental forces: Electromagnetism - photons, Gravity - graviton (theorized), Weak Force - W and Z bosons, Strong Force - 8 colored gluons.
Maybe we could put it to good use as a theme park ride instead. Imaging all those superconducting magnets accelerating your cart up to 99.99% of the speed of light - what a ride that would be.
With the relativistic effects, you might even be able to come out of the ride before you went in.
The fact that it operates in a vacuum might be a problem ... have to think about that.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Another interesting thing is that the range of the force is determined by the mass of its carrier particles. Gravity and Electromagnetism have infinite range, whereas the Weak Force has a very small range due to the mass of the W and Z (which is suppose to come the Higgs). Now gluons are actually supposed to be massless, but the Strong Force is range is still limited due to the fact the gluons have color and change interact with themselves (it's the only force that gets *stronger* with distance) unlike the other carrier particles that don't carry the "charge" of their field.
"...the Higgs boson may already have been found in previous observations of the known universe." But what about in observations of the unknown universe, did they find anything there?
Shouldn't "A theorist at Michigan state" be "A theorist at Michigan State University"? Adds clarification, for me at least.
This is real news for real nerds. This story requires reading of Leon Lederman's the God Particle to get to the point where any amount of explanation in the summary would help. Maybe I'm exaggerating a bit, but I'd be really, really impressed if anyone could write a summary for that.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Even static electric and/or magnetic fields are transmitted via photons. They behave slightly differently than "regular" photons and so are called "virtual" photons, but they are no less real than the photons you are familiar with. (Explaining it further would require going into quantum theory.)
What's this ... behind your ear ... ?
Oh, look! It's a Higgs boson!
Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
Since nobody's made this point yet, I'll put it out there.
The statement is literally correct. Say you have a field in 3-space. That field itself is a 3-vector at every point in that space. When you make a fourier transform of the field, you get the field as a function of a momentum-like 3 vector. That vector is quantized, and the excitations of it are what we refer to as "photons". Add in special relativity, and you have the basics of quantum field theory.
Try the first chapter of Lahiri and Pal's "A First Book of Quantum Field Theory". If you've had undergrad calculus, it shouldn't be that bad.
You can go about your business.
Move along.
Clearly the Higgs Boson was contained within an SEP field.
Which suggests that we are one step closer to actually creating an infinite improbability drive - the ramifications of which are... well I don't know, but they are at least big, possibly huge.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
You get a negative energy.
This is actually possible near the event horizon of a spinning blackhole. The zero energy state around a spinning blackhole is a particular orbit (I believe due to frame dragging, but I'm not positive), but a slower orbit must have lower energy which thus must be negative energy. The Penrose process uses this trick to extract energy from a blackhole.
Nope that's not a typo either. :) The potential goes at 1/r, the force (which is the derivative) goes as 1/r^2.
No typo. You have to differentiate between potential and force. Lets take the simple case of a scalar potential V(r) which is given by the integral over the vector field F(r) along some path C. Hence, V(r) is proportional to 1/r for both gravity and electromagnetism.
Simple .
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
. . . these are not the Higgs' bosons you are look for.
I have no idea what you're talking about. I only read the summary and I completely understand that there are different sizes of these Higgs Boson thingies that can be heavy or light, but the light ones are the red-headed step children of the higgs boson family in that nobody really wants one, and that they may or may not interact with things in particle accelerators and/or each other, and that most of them are named with letters near the end of the alphabet.
I now feel fully qualified to provide insightful comments and am ready to receive your positive mod points!
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
It's all relative, friend.
DAILY ROTATION
Don't forget, Really Really Strong Force is 64 brown grues.
(At first glacne, I saw "grues" in place of your "gluons" for some reason).
Absolutely!
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!