Slashdot Mirror
First Definitive Higgs Result In 7 Years
PhysicsDavid writes "In a suite of new results about the Higgs boson, Fermilab presents the first new definitive evidence on the (lack of) existence of the Higgs boson since the Large Electron Positron collider shut down in 2000. Fermilab hasn't found the Higgs, but can rule out a certain range of masses for the particle that is believed to create mass for all the other particles of nature. Other Higgs news suggests a new likeliest mass range of 115 to 135 GeV for the Higgs. These results were among those presented at the ICHEP 2008 conference currently wrapping up in Philadelphia."
The SSC in Texas was 40 TeV, and the LHC at CERN will be 14 TeV when fully operational. They're about to turn on now, but will make their first run at the lower 10 TeV. Fermilab runs at 2 TeV.
Yes, we would have had the answers to all these questions and more 10 years ago, if the SSC hadn't been scrapped.
<soapbox>
The US is at a significant disadvantage when it comes to "big science". Every year, every project must come back to congress and beg for funding, justify their existence, rather than spend that time doing science. As a consequence, funding in the US is extremely volatile. Look at the budget crisis of DOE in December, the zeroing of the ITER budget, and the canceling of the SSC in 1993 for a few examples. Big science is worthwhile. We should figure out how to give scientists some measure of job security, so they can concentrate on science. This is a miniscule portion of the budget.
</soapbox>
1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
You're missing the point. This isn't about merely discovering random facts. Yes, it will be nice to know the facts, no matter what, but science is more than a random collection of unanalyzed facts. Some results will do more than merely give us another random truth to add to our collection; some results will allow us to falsify certain theories and not waste time on them any more, which is better than a result that leaves us just as confused as we are now.
And in response to Nutria, who also commented: you have it exactly backwards. A result which eliminates more theories is a better result from a scientific POV. If this were about scientists clinging to their pet theories, then a result which left more theories open would be better (since it would allow more scientists to cling to their favorites), but that's pretty much the opposite of what JohnFluxx was suggesting.