Race For the "God Particle" Heats Up

SpuriousLogic writes "CERN is losing ground rapidly in the race to discover the elusive Higgs boson, its American rival claims. Fermilab say the odds of their Tevatron accelerator finding it first are now 50-50 at worst, and up to 96% at best. CERN's Lyn Evans admitted the accident which will halt the $7B Large Hadron Collider until September may cost them one of the biggest prizes in physics."

Comments

How do you give odds for that?

[drinkypoo]

Giving odds for finding a theoretical particle is like giving odds on finding life in the solar system. Without any data to base your odds on, you're just making some shit up. Not only is their level of precision low, but there is zero confidence.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Anonymous Coward]

I see nothing wrong here. As they say - it's 50-50: they either find it, or not.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Prof.Phreak]

Also, what are the odds the particle doesn't exist AND they find it?

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Hogwash McFly]

1/0

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[ByOhTek]

What data are they lacking? The math and physics from other experiments that suggest that the Higgs Boson exists, along with a lot of details about it? Or the fact that it is by far the simplest solution to a number of phenomenon? Remember, much more often than not, the simplest solution that fits the math tends to point to the correct answer.

Oh wait. They aren't lacking those.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Caue]

if you consider an old article posted a few weeks ago that makes all scientific assumptions 10 to 100 times more innacurate than their first presumption only by being "possibily" based on false or wrong hypothesis, you will find that it's easier getting hummer sales back on track than finding the lord all mighty's particle

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[ByOhTek]

Addendum,

this could also be bad journalism, they may simply mean demonstrating that it does or does not exist.

Either way, probabilities can be given. The former situation (proving it does exist) has a more rough probability since it it would use similar, but nonetheless different circumstance, while the latter (proving that it does or doesn't) exist is requires less external data, and is thus a less rough calculation

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Gromius]

somebodys not a Bayesian :)

Anyway theres pretty reasonable indirect evidence for the Higgs, lets just say to make all our measurements consistant, it would be nice if a fundamental scalar existed around 115 GeV. And it would be even nicer if it generated all the masses in the Standard Module while it was at it. There is certainly enough to have a reasonable Bayesian prior.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[morgan_greywolf]

Exactly. Putting it in perspective. the folks at Fermilab are saying that their odds of finding a subatomic particle that only, currently, exists in the minds of some mathematicians studying theoretical physics that, in theory, only exists for a tiny miniscule fraction of the blink of an eye under exactly the right conditions and then completely blinks out of existence are 50-96%.

Yeah, they're just making shit up.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Smidge204]

The great thing about scientific theory - real scientific theory - is that is has predictive capabilities. Theory predicts that the Higgs exists. If the theory is correct, they feel that their experiment has a 50% to 96% chance of finding it.

And if they don't find it, it would actually be a bigger deal than if they do. It means something was off either in the experiment or the theory, and that means it's back to square one!
=Smidge=

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[drachenstern]

Oh c'mon guys, it was funny. Not only was it two answers to two questions, it was also the very likely definitive answer of the combined probability. And it most likely evaluates to "FILE NOT FOUND" as per TDWTF, making it a valid probability...

I say this is brillant!

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[0xdeadbeef]

Giving odds for finding a theoretical particle is like giving odds on finding life in the solar system.

So it's one, then?

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[morgan_greywolf]

Neither the parent nor myself are saying we don't think that Higgs Boson is nonexistant. We're saying that their bullshitting about their chances of actually observing it.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[morgan_greywolf]

Errmmm....that was worded awkwardly, but you know what I mean: We're not saying it doesn't exist.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[zevans]

From TFA:

"The probability of our discovering the Higgs is very good - 90% if it is in the high mass range.
"And the chances are even higher - 96% - if its mass is around 170GeV (giga-electron volts)."

That's a BBC-friendly soundbite, but there is some deep where-are-we analysis behind it:

... which may, if improvements in their analysis work out, give them a two-thirds chance of seeing the Higgs at 2 sigma level over the entire expected mass range, or a 50/50 chance of seeing it at 3 sigma level over a large range, including a small range just above the 114Gev LEP limit.

Not Even Wrong blog, Peter Woit
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=1612/

In other words, they've sat down and worked through the what-ifs, and depending on how heavy the particle turns out to be, how likely they are to see it.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure he means that their chances of finding OUT if the particle exists or not are 50-50 or 96 at best.

As I'm sure you know, it is as important to prove it doesn't exist as it is to prove it does.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Eravnrekaree]

The LHC will be to give a definitive answer to the question as to whether the Higgs Boson can exist. the LHC will pretty much give a clear yes or no answer, its not going to be indeterminate. They have create the conditions where they know that one will have to appear, with certainty that if they cannot produce it, it will indicate that Higgs is likely impossible to exist. This is an important moment for verifying the Standard Model and has will be one of the greatest discoveries lately.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[TheCybernator]

Even worse. Tevatron wins the race and creates the Black Hole before September!!

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[CarpetShark]

Well, if the theory includes any sort of number of those particles that would be required for it to fit the problem that the theory was trying to solve, and you have other theories that fit with less things observed previously, then no, it's fairly sensible to quote the odds.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not where the name came from... Leon M. Lederman wanted to name his book "Goddamn Particle" due to how incredibly hard the Higgs Boson is to detect, but his publisher wouldn't print it with that title so it was shortened and stuck.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[BrokenHalo]

they either find it, or not

...If, of course, it is even there to be found. If the particle doesn't exist, no amount of money thrown at the problem is going to prove that it does.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[PopeRatzo]

Even so, 50-50 to 96% is a pretty good spread of odds.

I'd bet those all day long. If someone told me my horse in the fifth race at Belmont had "somewhere between 50-50 to a 96%" chance of winning the race I'd feel like I'd made a pretty good bet.

Anyway, with all the money they're spending looking for the God particle, they better not lose it again.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[PopeRatzo]

Also, what are the odds the particle doesn't exist AND they find it?

Probably pretty good. After all, God doesn't exist, but millions of people are finding Him all the time.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whooooosh!

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll stand up proudly, pummeling my sternum and vehemently extolling my belief that the pursuit of higgs is a goose chase, it will never be found. I am anonymous, from one day to the next I can't change, oh no. no no. no, no. The theory is kinda kooky, dontcha think, yeah I really do think. It's like rain, on the ocean floor, ironic, but free as in salt water. Your cultural melting crack pot, Anonymous.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[genner]

Giving odds for finding a theoretical particle is like giving odds on finding life in the solar system.

So it's one, then?

I think he ment intelligent life.
The odds are dependent on you faith in humanity.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[baKanale]

Oh sh...

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, gotchya. ;)

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Atrox666]

Technically until they fire it up isn't the particle both found and not found?

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[russotto]

Also, what are the odds the particle doesn't exist AND they find it?

You got modded funny for this, but it's a reasonable question. It's certainly possible they'll conclude they've found the Higgs even if it doesn't exist.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[russotto]

Even worse. Tevatron wins the race and creates the Black Hole before September!!

Well, that's one way to get us out of the economic crisis.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you mean I don't exist?

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[locofungus]

Its mass for a start. If that was known then it would either have already been found (LEP or Fermilab) or will be found (CERN) or won't be found (yet) because we'd know where to look for it.

We have a good idea of what sort of range its mass is likely to have but that's not certain. Some physicists are even hoping that it won't be found, pointing to a much larger mass and interesting new physics to explore.

We're approaching a nadir much like classical physics pre 1905. Are we destined to now spend our time dotting the 'i's and crossing the 't's or is there something as revolutionary as relativity and quantum physics just around the corner?

Tim.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[CrazedSanity]

The problem with searching for something that only theoretically exists is that it is profoundly easier to prove that something exists (by finding it) versus proving that it does not exist ("we've done a lot of searching without result, but we cannot conclusively say this [x] does not exist"). If they find it, yay search is over. If they don't... well, they'll probably just keep looking until they rip a hole in the space/time continuum or create a blackhole that rips the Earth from existence... I'd rather them find it as not.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Talderas]

RTFA.

Fermilab said their odds of discovering it before CERN was between 50-96%. This means that if the particle exists, there's a 50-96% chance that Fermilab will find it first and a 4-50% chance that CERN will find it first and a 1% chance that some other unknown entity finds it first.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[BrokenHalo]

Guess I asked for that... ;-)

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[The_Wilschon]

What they mean (yes, I'm on CDF, and beginning my own segment of a Higgs search analysis), is that there is a 50/50 chance that the Tevatron will have acquired sufficient data for us to be sensitive to a Standard Model Higgs at reasonable mass ranges (115 - maybe 300 GeV/c^2). Thus, if it exists (the SM Higgs specifically) we'll be able to tell it is there, and if it does not exist, we'll be able to say with a high level of confidence that it is not there.

To discover the Higgs, we must show that given a theory without the Higgs, our data would only occur 1 in 2 million times we did an experiment like this, (5 sigma significance, standard for particle discovery) and of course the the difference in the data is consistent with a Higgs.

To exclude the Higgs in a certain mass range, we must show the opposite: if there were a Higgs, our data would only occur some very small percentage of the time (I can't remember the exact significance, but it is less stringent than discovery, again standard).

LEP already excluded masses below 114 GeV/c^2, and the Tevatron has excluded a small mass range around 160 or 170 GeV/c^2.

However, all that said, I disagree with the apparently official Fermilab line (50/50). We have a small chance of excluding all the available mass ranges, but the amount of data needed to go from excluding it if its not there to discovering it if it is there is huge. We would need several times as much data as we will have unless we keep running for quite a bit longer. Maybe we can get a chunk of the gov't stimulus package? ;)

Without any data to base your odds on, you're just making some shit up. Not only is their level of precision low, but there is zero confidence.

Quite the contrary, sir, and I do somewhat resent remarks like these, although I understand they were made in haste in your frenzy to get first post. We have a tremendous amount of data, and we have theories that describe exactly what we're looking for. It's almost just a statistical game now. Our level of precision is in fact quite high (although not as high as is achievable at a lepton collider), and as I said above, we have excluded some potential Higgs masses to a high level of confidence.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with searching for something that only theoretically exists is that it is profoundly easier to prove that something exists (by finding it) versus proving that it does not exist ("we've done a lot of searching without result, but we cannot conclusively say this [x] does not exist"). If they find it, yay search is over. If they don't... well, they'll probably just keep looking until they rip a hole in the space/time continuum or create a blackhole that rips the Earth from existence

You're describing an unfalsifiable prediction. Science doesn't have those (or it wouldn't be science). In reality, there are upper bounds to the mass of the Higgs Boson, and if they don't find it at 1 TeV max, the Standard Model is wrong whether the Higgs exist beyond that or not.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[rubycodez]

I'll ponder that as I watch my Jackass reruns......... bwahahaha, he got it right in the balls, again!!!

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[The_Wilschon]

We actually have a very good feel for how close we are at any given time to finding it. We have good solid analyses set up, and we rerun/rework them periodically to incorporate new data. Every bit of data improves our sensitivity just a tiny bit, and we can tell from our analyses just how sensitive we are (so far) to the theoretical particle we're looking for. It's just statistics.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[ByOhTek]

I know you aren't saying it doesn't exist. I'm not saying it does or doesn't either. I'm simply saying that the facts aren't necessarily pulled straight out of their asses. That, and there's likely the usual journalistic filter in there to add some garbage to info that wasn't already trashed enough.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[The_Wilschon]

As I said above, no, they're not. I happen to disagree with their numbers, as I can't see how we're going to get the amount of data necessary to improve our sensitivity sufficiently. Remember standard deviation goes as 1/sqrt(n), so to double our sensitivity we need to collect four times as much data as we have now. We need to more than double our sensitivity. But we can tell by just how much we need to improve (although I can't remember off the top of my head), since we have very precise theoretical predictions, and can compare our data to those.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[jaypifer]

It's a theoretical particle, not a hypothetical particle.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[The_Wilschon]

Ahha, I should have RTFA. I've been complaining in other comments that no, we won't find the Higgs. But this is a much lower standard. 2 or 3 sigma significance I can definitely believe. We call this evidence for the Higgs, but not discovery. Discovery requires a 5 sigma significance signal (PRL standard).

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's nothing like the odds of finding life in the solar system (the odds are 1 since we exist).

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Gilmoure]

Then that would result in a 'didn't find it' result?

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Gilmoure]

Oh don't bring cats into it. Next thing you know, you're herding them (or not herding them) and either way, it's a big, fat, hairy mess.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Gilmoure]

It'll consume the derivatives trading black hole?

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Goldsmith]

A few decades of particle physics experiments adds up to no data? That's pretty harsh.

We're not butterfly collectors looking for a new color. We're physicists. Quantitative prediction of things we've never seen is what we do.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Gilmoure]

So, what you are saying is... ?

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Gilmoure]

We actually have a very good feel for how close we are at any given time to finding it.

Higgs Boson senses *tingling*?

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Alex Belits]

It's not 1/404

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[mysticgoat]

Yeah.

We know that the observer is an integral part of the experiment; at this level of physics there is no such thing as a third party observer.

But I understand that we cannot assess in advance the degree of effect the observer will have on an entirely new experiment.

Which leads me to the uncomfortable recognition that we might create the Higgs boson as we get better at looking for it.

What is uncomfortable about this is the way it raises the question: "If we are literally making it up as we go along, is this really the way we want the Universe to be?"

Are enough of the right people asking themselves that?

:-)

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Renegade Iconoclast]

What do you mean I don't exist?

If you existed, you'd know exactly what he meant by that.

There, now you can disappear in a poof of logic.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Jawn98685]

Probably pretty good. After all, God doesn't exist, but millions of people convince themselves that they are finding Him all the time.

There. Fixed that for you.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[morgan_greywolf]

Their chances of demonstrating it directly. They made the statistical chances up out of whole cloth.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Anonymous Coward]

After all, God doesn't exist ...

"When a distinguished but elderly scientist [or /.er] states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible [or nonexistent], he is very probably wrong."
-- Arthur C. Clarke's First Law

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Gilmoure]

Ah. In another post on this topic, some wrote that they 'felt' they had a 50%-98% chance of first detection. And hey, this is teh internet. If a feeling's been published, we should all run with it.

To the Wikipedia!

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Hurricane78]

n00b. I can divide by zero.
The result is infinite.

Don't know how to handle the hole of infinity?
Well... you know how to handle the hole of zero, do you?
Same thing. Only different.

With infinity, as with zero, information gets lost. The problem is the missing temporal/causal variable/dimension of calculations.

Now gimme my damn Nobel prize already! ;)

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Completely OT: Any relation to Smidge207?

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Giving odds for finding a theoretical particle is like giving odds on finding life in the solar system. Without any data to base your odds on, you're just making some shit up. Not only is their level of precision low, but there is zero confidence.

I'd say finding life in the solar system is pretty good. Look outside, look in a mirror, look.....

Perhaps you meant in other solar systems? Or on other planets?

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Anonymous Coward]

God DOES exist. Go to an islamic state and cry on the marketplace something like "God is dead". You'll be ripped to pieces within seconds. Proof enough for me! The real question: Would he exist if nobody believed in him?

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[John Hasler]

They aren't searching. They are performing experiments for which current theory predicts certain results.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[mzs]

Here is a nice graphic of what you described about the exclusions for a light-mass Higgs:

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/higgsexclusionplotfy08.jpg

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[aetherworld]

I don't get it.

They assume the theory that says it exists is correct. Let's just assume the particle does in fact exist.

How can you then devise a strategy that has a 96% chance of finding the particle with unlimited time (or time required to execute said strategy). If I can give a number to the chance of finding it, I can also devise 1-n other strategies that cover the remaining 4% and thus have 2-n strategies which in total give me a 100% chance of finding the particle.

What I'm saying is, once I know the exact chances of finding something with strategy A, I also need to know which other strategy or strategies could cover the remaining percentage.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[hvm2hvm]

And the time warping caused by the black hole will make that September last forever?

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Anonymous Coward]

What? Are you saying I do not exist? Mod this heretic down, please!

Peter Higgs

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[chaim79]

Just because you haven't found Him doesn't mean He doesn't exist, I can't find most of the constellations in the night sky but apparently they exist.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[FatdogHaiku]

Also, what are the odds the particle doesn't exist AND they find it?

They vary according to the total amount of public funds that can be expended on it...

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Requiem18th]

Standard Model.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Nick Ives]

They aren't searching. They are performing experiments for which current theory predicts certain results.

This should be attached to every single science "search" fluff piece in popular journalism.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it might work something like this: If Higgs boson has mass x, there is a very low probability p(x) that it will be detected in any single collision. The smaller x is, the lower the probability. They know approximately the high and low limits for x and from there they can calculate a good estimate for p. They can also estimate how many collisions they can make before LHC is up and running. Thus they can estimate the probability they find Higgs first.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[steelfood]

Damn, why isn't this guy modded higher?

These are the kinds of posts that facilitate the kinds of threads that I came to slashdot to read.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[gtall]

If the theory predicts the particle exists, the form of that prediction is that it will be found within a certain energy range. If it isn't in that range, its existence would contradict other parts of the theory that have been verified (to within a small epsilon). Now that we have an energy range, we can look at a particular particle accelerator and which particles it can accelerate and calculate if it could reach the entire energy range. To that must be factored in the sensitivity of the sensors to pick up the signature of the Higgs. We won't detect the Higgs directly but rather the particles into which it decays. There is a probability associated with this too.

Wrapped all up, we get a probability prediction of a particular accelerator installation finding the Higgs particle. There is no need to investigate alternative strategies.

Gerry

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you haven't found Him doesn't mean He doesn't exist

Same goes for Dragons, Fairys, Smurfs, Leprechauns, Gnomes, Elfs, etc. :>

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Anonymous Coward]

anything like the odds that the God of one religion exists over the God of another religion?

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that's a good analogy. After all, the constellations are something real and solid, not, like, a product of imagination, I mean, they are not just some fictional shapes...

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Get of my /., new ager! :p

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[nappingcracker]

Just because you haven't found Him doesn't mean He doesn't exist, I can't find most of the constellations in the night sky but apparently they exist.

Same logic applies to:

• Flying Spaghetti Monster
• Invisible Pink Unicorn
• Zeus
• Celestial Tea Kettle
• Reincarnation
• The Matrix
• Thor
• The Turtle and The Elephant
• Xenu
• Many other things

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[DougF]

Probably pretty good. After all, God does exist and billions of people have found Him.

There, fixed it for everyone...

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Anonymous Coward]

God damn it, I keep writing one word when I mean another :) Although I was working on our high level trigger module at the time, guess thats why

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[CrazedSanity]

Forgive me, but it seems that you are simply arguing semantics:

searching: to inquire, investigate, examine, or seek; conduct an examination or investigation

theory: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

experiment:a test, trial, or tentative procedure; an act or operation for the purpose of discovering something unknown or of testing a principle, supposition, etc.

The existence of this particle is still theory and conjecture. Until there is empirical/verifiable evidence to support it's existence, there is no proof that it exists. There are many things that were thought to not exist that do throughout history (i.e. germs), and vice-versa.

The point to all this is still the same: one can definitively say something exists once it is discovered. Definitively saying it does not exist is infinitely more difficult to prove (as with the existence of aliens: it is a much better bet to propose they exist instead of saying they do not; we cannot even adequately explore planets in our own solar system let alone others to narrow the odds).

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[SquirrelsUnite]

Actually there's a precise answer to this. I think they announce a new particle at 8 sigma confidence level, so if there's no new particle there's still a ~1/10.000.000 chance they find one.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Requiem18th]

I can't decide if that makes you a grammar or math asswhole.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[mysticgoat]

/. isn't just for classical physicists, anymore.

That was zen. This is tao.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[bitrex]

Division by zero is mathematically undefined. The best you can do is take the limit of the quotient as the denominator approaches zero plus an infinitesimal amount. The denominator is a number smaller than any number you can think of, which results in infinity for an answer in that case, but the denominator isn't zero.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[JoshuaZ]

That's a wretched analogy. If you go out under the night sky, anyone who knows where the constellations are can point them out to you. Anyone who knows what they are doing can calculate where to expect the constellations in advance. Someone can't do the same for God. You can't just point out and say "See? God. Right there." or anything similar.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[khayman80]

Greg Egan made that question the central part of his book Distress. While I think this is an interesting notion, it's ultimately a purely philosophical (rather than scientific) idea because it can't be falsified.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[bitrex]

From my own personal, ah, experiments, I can only confirm the nonexistence of Xenu and possibly reincarnation.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[bcrowell]

Giving odds for finding a theoretical particle is like giving odds on finding life in the solar system. Without any data to base your odds on, you're just making some shit up. Not only is their level of precision low, but there is zero confidence.

Nope. Here's how it works. Other observations show that the Higgs has to have a mass between 170 and 285 GeV/c2, with 95% confidence. Assuming a given Higgs mass, Fermilab can do Monte Carlo simulations of the results of their experiments, and they can determine a probability that the signal will show up in their data, and show up with a certain level of confidence. For instance, the article says, "And the chances are even higher - 96% - if its mass is around 170GeV (giga-electron volts)." What this means is that they set some level of statistical significance that would make them confident enough to publish a paper claiming to have found a Higgs. They expect to have some noisy spectrum with a fairly crappy-looking peak sticking up out of it, and they're willing to publish if the statistical significance of that peak passes some predetermined statistical test. Okay, so they run the Monte Carlo simulation 10,000 times, putting in a Higgs mass of 170 GeV. Out of those 10,000 simulations, 9,600 of them produce a simulated peak, at the right energy, that passes their criteria for statistical significance.

It's also possible that the Higgs doesn't exist. There are models that are consistent with that, and also consistent with the experimental data. However, there are fairly model-independent reasons to believe that something new must happen in this energy regime, and it's likely that any experiment that can probe that energy range will detect the whatever-it-is.

What is not possible is that the correct description of physics consists of the standard model minus the Higgs. Such a theory doesn't have the necessary self-consistency and consistency with well-established experimental results.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Jawn98685]

If it please the court, I give you exhibit A
(Whom I wish to thank for illustrating my point in such a charmingly unwitting manner)

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Metasquares]

Ah, you must be a Bayesian!

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[chaim79]

I know better analogies exist, but I'm not so sure this one is 'wretched'.

Constellations are nothing more than a pattern overlay on physical objects in order to make sense of chaos. Constellations don't actually exist. The stars themselves exist and can be pointed to, but you have to use your imagination to see the pattern of stars that make up a constellation.

In the same way God cannot be physically pointed to, instead He makes his presence known through other means, through patterns in chaos. People looking through history (either global, national, or personal) can find patterns that show either an intelligence manipulating the events or an incredible string of luck and coincidence.

Unfortunately all that is filtered by each person as they look at it. There are many things family, close friends, and even I have experienced that to us are signs of God, that you may just see as coincidence and luck, even though things are so precise. An example from personal experience: we didn't have enough money to pay a bill, one of our friends who didn't know anything about our financial situation sent us a check for the exact amount needed, down to the penny. We see the evidence of God, you would see Luck.

I am not trying to 'convert' or convince you, just stating what I believe and why.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[rts008]

There, broke it for everyone...

There, fixed it for ya.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Iron Condor]

Giving odds for finding a theoretical particle is like giving odds on finding life in the solar system.

Good thing then that nobody did such a thing.

They were giving the odds for finding the Higgs first. Nobody made any claims how likely it is that the thing exists in the first place, merely what the odds are that Tevatron will pick up it's signature before CERN.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[davester666]

Only AFTER they spend an infinite amount of money looking for these particles.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[ardle]

Did you ask your friend why he sent the money? If God told him to, that would be indeed be evidence (albeit anecdotal) of God.
Next time God asks me to give a friend of mine some money, I'll respectfully suggest that he:

• ask someone richer
• suggest a more needy recipient

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[JoshuaZ]

So do you not mean constellations so much as asterisms? Constellations are well-defined areas on the apparent celestial sphere. There are 88 of them. If you meant constellation in the sense that some people seem to mean to mean "stars that look like they form a pretty picture" then you might have a point. But in that case, I'd be inclined to label those as almost as arbitrary. And it is still a bad analogy but no one who refers to such "constellations" is claiming that they are actual entities that have real impact on the world. As to your last comment- not sure where it came from since I didn't claim you were. Whether or not you are trying to convert people, you made a bad analogy. That deserves a response. (Incidentally, given your username and my ethnic background I suspect if you had any such intentions they would be more accurately classified as kiruv rather than an attempt to convert)

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[dogmatixpsych]

I know you were just being funny but they said the probability was now 50-50 that they would find the particle first, not just at all. :)

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[x2A]

"I can divide by zero"

No you can't, whilst extrapolation may seem to imply the answer is infinity, division by zero is completely illogical thus has no place in mathmatics.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[x2A]

...and then suck in Time Warner?

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[dogmatixpsych]

Thanks for posting that. I was just about to post about how making a categorical negative (e.g., "God doesn't exist) is on shaky logical ground (at best). In science, God lies outside the realm of the philosophical assumptions/foundations of science (i.e., proving the existence or non-existence of God is not something scientists can do because the concept of "God" is not a testable hypothesis.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Gary]

Aww, but in particle physics cats herd (or don't herd) you!

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[x2A]

Hydrogen atom says to another, "God stole my electron!"
Second hydrogen atom says "are you sure God even exists?!"
First hydrogen atom says "yeah, I'm positive!"

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[x2A]

No the different being what may seem like chaos to you is actually not all too confusing for everyone else. For example, where you find god in chaos, and believe I find luck, I actually find reason, and believe you find ignorance.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[StikyPad]

There's a rather large difference, in that constellations have already been found (defined) by other people, and those people can point them out to you at will.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Chris Burke]

Same logic applies to:

        * Flying Spaghetti Monster
        * Invisible Pink Unicorn
        * Zeus
        * Celestial Tea Kettle
        * Reincarnation
        * The Matrix
        * Thor
        * The Turtle and The Elephant
        * Xenu
        * Many other things

Yeah, and they're all in Heaven with God. Duh. Personally I'm looking forward to hooking up with Thor and Leonardo for a kung fu battle in the Matrix.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[x2A]

"We're saying that their bullshitting about their chances of actually observing it."

I notice your full stop (aka 'period') after the word 'it'... whereas, the quote doesn't have a stop there, it has the word 'first'. If the LHC never comes back online, then LHC's chance of finding it first must be zero, and everybody elses rises to the % chance that our universe model supports the existance of a discoverable higgs boson. Saying 50-96% sounds quite reasonable to me. Don't call bullshit just because you don't know the reasons why something like this is said, it just makes you look ignorant to the existance of any knowledge outside of your own.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[shutdown -p now]

Oh don't bring cats into it. Next thing you know, you're herding them (or not herding them) and either way, it's a big, fat, hairy mess.

In Soviet Russia, cats herd you!

Come to think of it, they do it elsewhere, too...

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[x2A]

"How can you then devise a strategy that has a 96% chance of finding the particle with unlimited time"

How did you get "unlimited time" from them saying "finding it first"?

All they're saying is that if it is to be found using particular method, they have chance x of executing that method before the LHC guys do. It's hardly rocket surgery.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[smithmc]

Giving odds for finding a theoretical particle is like giving odds on finding life in the solar system.

Well, not really, since the odds of finding life in the solar system is 100% and has been for quite some time.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Jawn98685]

Just because you haven't found Him doesn't mean He doesn't exist, I can't find most of the constellations in the night sky but apparently they exist.

Granted, and without qualification. Alas, most believers are utterly unwilling to admit that their "knowledge" is no more certain than that of most non-believers. It is this irrational disregard for reason, and probably more importantly, the inability to truly lean on faith alone, that gives rise to the fears that so frequently manifest themselves whenever the believer feels "threatened". No, I'm not talking about wild-eyed jihadist loonies. Not exclusively, anyway. I'm pointing the same finger at the "Christian Family Values (whatever that really means) are under attack from the secular humanist/gay/pro-choice/insert-latest-scarey-bogeyman-here agenda" whiners.

Look, believe what you want, m'kay? Just admit that it is a belief and stop with the lame arguments that one can actually "know" something that is unknowable. BTW, that goes for you atheists too.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[x2A]

They should just put where they think it'll be in my shoe... when I'm walking along, say in a rush with no time to stop, and the tiniest thing gets into my shoe, it always feels massive.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Lars512]

Even the extrapolation fails. The limit from one side appears to be +infinity, from the other side -infinity, so the limit itself doesn't exist.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[x2A]

patience! Look again, I think you'll be happy :-)

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[NoobixCube]

To put it another way, reminding people of the way they were taught to divide in primary school, dividing by anything is splitting it up into that many groups. Exactly how can you divide something into zero groups? The answer isn't infinite, because that would imply creating more stuff to put in those groups. If you divide by zero, whatever it is your dividing has nowhere to go.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the words of George Carlin: Your entire post is full of things that piss me off.

1. They are lacking data about the existence of the Higgs Boson particle. There is no evidence that the particle exists. There are many competing theories that can explain every physically known factoid that are used to predict the Higgs Boson. I.e. other things are predicted as well.

2. The "lot of details about it" are NOT "lot of facts about it". You make it sound that the "details" are "facts". Perhaps you even believe it. But there are no known details at all about the Higgs Boson. There are alot of predictions and even fantasies about it, but there are no known details, no known facts about it. All there is is what people would like the Higgs Boson to be like, if it did exist.

3. It's phenomena, not phenomenon.

4. A phenomenon does not require a solution.

5. Even if it did, why is the Higgs Boson the simplest solution? Is it simpler than everything else proposed? Nonsense.

6. What data do you have to support this ridiculous claim that the simplest solution is the correct one? I don't think that is true in even half the cases. In most cases, it's much more likely that the simplest solution is the most naive one, and is wrong. Perhaps you don't understand what the word simple means either.

7. The most certainly are lacking correct answers. Otherwise why the fuck are they building multi-billion dollar machines to try and find some answers?

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[DeathOverlord3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermilab#Failure_of_magnets

I didn't realize that Fermilab had supplied the component that failed and brought down the LHC until coming across this tidbit in wikipedia.
 
How convenient for Fermilab that they have found (bought?) themselves more time to beat LHC to the higgs punch.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[TopherC]

They also don't know anything, beyond reasonable guesses, about all the different ways a Higgs would decay and how often. These "branching ratios" would give lots of clues to physics at even deeper levels. Also there is the lifetime of the particle that can be measured by measuring the spread of the distribution of masses for many observed Higgs. It works by a kind of uncertainty principle -- the shorter the lifetime the larger the spread in mass.

I can only assume that the 50/50 chance quoted here is under the assumption that a "standard model" Higgs does exist, whose mass has been constrained by earlier experiments.

And no, we are definitely not approaching any kind of nadir in particle physics because there is still a logical incompatibility between particle physics (quantum field theory) and gravity. Really, neither theory can be true. I guess physicists in the pre-1905 era were less concerned about such things, but these days we have for some reason come to expect that a final theory can be proposed which would be internally consistent. There are also lots of nagging questions, or loose threads, about the standard model of particle physics. These issues are in some sense aesthetic, but at the same time they have inspired a very large number of new theories, most of which have yet to be disproved.

Probably the most interesting discovery at Fermilab or CERN would not be observing a Higgs particle, but instead seeing something else such as a new supersymmetric particle or something entirely unexpected. Both machines are probing an energy scale that is a kind of unification threshold for the electromagnetic and electroweak forces, and all kinds of speculative theories are ripe with predictions at this energy. The other unification thresholds are far, far beyond reach of today's experiments.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[PaganRitual]

"through patterns in chaos. People looking through history (either global, national, or personal) can find patterns that show either an intelligence manipulating the events or an incredible string of luck and coincidence."

Good news everyone! We've discovered god! Turns out it was just confirmation bias under another name.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[PaganRitual]

Unfortunately all that is filtered by each person as they look at it ... We see the evidence of God, you would see Luck.

Wow, you just get better and better. Unfortunately? It's not unfortunate, it's close to proof that there isn't actually a god and people that have fortunate events happen to them that were out of their control attribute it to a god because they feel more comfortable than the harsh realisation that the universe decided that it wouldn't kill them ... yet.

Two houses sit next to each other near an airfield. A out of control plane hits the second house, killing all but one member of the family inside. The family in the first house spend the rest of the week praising god and the rest of their lives preaching his glory to all. The remaining member of the second family spends the rest of his week mourning and there rest of his life questioning god to himself.

See also : the pilot of the plane and their family. Pilot dies/God questioned Pilot lives/God praised delete as applicable.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[ScreamingCactus]

At least somebody has the balls to stand up to these atheist assholes. I have to work with one and he never shuts up about how he thinks there is no God, it's like he's obsessed or something.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Arterion]

• A girlfriend on Slashdot

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[stubob]

Not if it's cloudy.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[fabs64]

The problem is somehow the word "exists" has worked its way into this discussion.

The model predicts that under a specific set of conditions a particular event will occur. The model describes this event in terms of a "Higgs Boson".
If we can reliably duplicate those conditions and the event does not occur, then our model is broken.

That's the interesting bit. That something called a "Higgs Boson" does or does not exist is not a useful question.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hogwash. You just need to renormalise the result appropriately is all.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Anonymous Coward]

The god particle is a concept by which we measure our particle pain.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't tell Xenu, his got like an army and ****

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you haven't found Him doesn't mean He doesn't exist, I can't find most of the constellations in the night sky but apparently they exist.

Same logic applies to:

• ...
• Many other things

Such as North America, until 1492, or whenever the Vikings came over before that, or whenever the Native Americans came over before that. The point is, generating examples of things that don't exist doesn't preclude one thing, such as North America or God, from existing.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[x2A]

Well said.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are both wrong. The answer is a nullity

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Phorion]

They're not stating odds that the particle exists, they are stating odds that they will find it first. In other words, assuming it exists, there is a 50-96% chance that Fermilab will find it before CERN.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[TheoMurpse]

Apparently your memory has failed: "divide by zero" is a bit of memery.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[masterzora]

Errr... that's not quite correct. Or rather, it is and we can talk about it in terms of infinitesimals, but that's rather unsatisfying and unnecessary when we can still stick with the reals. I mean, we could start talking about epsilon-delta and neighborhoods and talk about it that way, if we want to be all rigorous, but if we step off the rigor a little, and step away from the infinitesimals, and just consider the limit to be "If the function were to be smooth and continuous at this point and its value were defined, said value would be...". Still not quite 1/0 = infinity, but that's good, since it's distinctly untrue.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[hardwarefreak]

"No, I better not look, I just might be in there..." - Fogorn Leghorn

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjLfkTbZ0V0

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[amRadioHed]

Correction, this is not the true tao.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Anonymous Coward]

The odds are of finding it FIRST. If it doesn't exist, then the probability space doesn't exist.

PS. I bet the American black hole is so much more awesome than the European black hole!

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/common/c_cd.jsp?conDetailID=622297&z=1234943437711

I would say 45% chance - I think that is 11 to 9 or something.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you divide by zero, whatever it is your dividing has nowhere to go.

sure it has, it's called /dev/null :D

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Tomfrh]

IANAM but i think division is more general than just "splitting something into groups". I can't imagine how one splits something into -1 groups, let alone say sqrt(-1) groups.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you haven't found Him doesn't mean He doesn't exist, I can't find most of the constellations in the night sky but apparently they exist.

Same logic applies to:

• Flying Spaghetti Monster
• Invisible Pink Unicorn
• Zeus
• Celestial Tea Kettle
• Reincarnation
• The Matrix
• Thor
• The Turtle and The Elephant
• Xenu
• Many other things

You should also include

Evolution

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that if you divide by half, you're splitting something up into groups half the size of what you deem to be "one unit". As the size of these groups decreases, the number of groups you can fill increases. You can fill a group whose size is 0 with nothing, which means you can fill an infinite number of groups with anything :)

Or mathematically... lim 1/x (x->0) = infinity

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[trigggl]

Are we talking math or physics? Math can only approximate physics. Good luck reaching any absolute zero in physics, therefore since you're always approaching zero, you're never actually there. Hence Calculus, which allows for the real world to be measured by assuming you're approaching zero but not actually there. By your definition, how do you put something into 0.5 groups? It's like saying you have 2.5 children. Children only come in whole numbers. This is physics not math. Physics uses math as a tool not a rule.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[trigggl]

Even worse. Tevatron wins the race and creates the Black Hole before September!!

In that case, I hope the French team wins the race.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[GargamelSpaceman]

What's special about 115 Gev? If there is something special then why not look there first? One tends to get lucky that way sometimes. If something would be nice and make things work out, often it's there. It gets you your discovery that much sooner rather than having to scan the whole range of values, althought there is something to be said for being thorough since there may be cool surprises you weren't expecting.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[John Hasler]

> Just because you haven't found Him doesn't mean He doesn't exist, I can't find most of
> the constellations in the night sky but apparently they exist.

Like God, the constellations are illusions that exist only in the human imagination.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[deglr6328]

the failure after startup was due to poorly welded superconducting busbars. its unrelated to what you are talking about.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Anonymous Coward]

So it should remain itself?

And why not? After all anything to the power of 0 is 1 isn't it?

Inventing mathematical axioms for the win!

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[mbkennel]

I don't think it works like that.

Here's what I think:

*Under certain models* (i.e. standard model), the scientists hypothesize a reasonable range of energies and other parameters for the Higgs. This is the "Bayesian prior". It could be wrong, but it is the conventional best guess.

Then, under various scenarios, and knowing the operation of the Tevatron, they estimate whether they will see enough particle events (which will be on the extreme tails of distributions of course) which will confirm the presence of Higgs, given that scenario.

So that's how they get the odds.

It will be more interesting of course if what they observe turns out be qualitatively different from predictions. Like no Higgs. Or two.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Wormholio]

Also, what are the odds the particle doesn't exist AND they find it?

Actually, that's what I expect to happen.

In the Standard Model the Higgs is a fundamental particle. And it is a scalar particle (spin 0). There are no other fundamental particles in Nature that have spin-0, and there are good reasons to expect that they cannot exist. So what I think will happen is they will find something which behaves much like the Higgs in the Standard Model. But it turns out it's not fundamental. Only that part of the discovery comes later.

So I'd say the best odds are that the Higgs of the Standard Model does not exist, yet they find something that behaves almost exactly like it

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[kalirion]

Children only come in whole numbers.

Tell that to King Solomon. Or Christopher Columbus for that matter.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[ginbot462]

Man, you ruined the ending :(

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[trigggl]

Well, you got me there.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[PopeRatzo]

Wait, it's the athiests that are obsessed and not the religious fanatics?

right...

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[PopeRatzo]

...UFOs, Bigfoot, Dick Cheney's conscience...

The list of things whose existence are untestable hypotheses is very long.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[PopeRatzo]

There are many things family, close friends, and even I have experienced that to us are signs of God

And we let these insane people vote.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[ScreamingCactus]

Yeah that was my point. Just wait. Next, they'll be suicide-bombing churches.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[nappingcracker]

Just because you haven't found Him doesn't mean He doesn't exist, I can't find most of the constellations in the night sky but apparently they exist.

Same logic applies to:

• Flying Spaghetti Monster
• Invisible Pink Unicorn
• Zeus
• Celestial Tea Kettle
• Reincarnation
• The Matrix
• Thor
• The Turtle and The Elephant
• Xenu
• Many other things

You should also include

Evolution

No, I should not.

Please see:
Evolution as theory and fact - Key misunderstanding in most evolutionary debate
and
Information about Evolution in general

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[xouumalperxe]

That's not always true. For example, f(x) = 1/x^2 would diverge towards positive infinity when approaching x = 0 from both sides. x^2 / x computes as 0/0 at x = 0 yet has a well defined (induced) value.

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite your conclusion being correct, your argument is unsound. Just because people CAN use a "splitting things into some groups" analogy to teach math to elementary school kids doesn't mean that "splitting into some groups" analogy defines mathematics.

Tell me, how would you go about dividing something into "pi" number of groups? Or if you accept the notion of having an irrational number of people amongst whom to divide something, how would you divide your three slices of pie into sqrt(-1) groups?

Re:How do you give odds for that?

[geekoid]

SOmething has to be there. It might be one particle, or it might be several others comprise to make a higgs boson. If nothing is there...why, that would be bigger news then finding that the Higgs boson is 1 particle! It would change a lot of physics.

race?

[period3]

Why is there a race? Why aren't they working together to find it?

Re:race?

[arndawg]

Why is there a race? Why aren't they working together to find it?

Races are good. I don't think we would have gone to the moon so fast if it wasn't a race between usa and russia.

Re:race?

[MyLongNickName]

From a purely human point of view, competition makes us try harder. You may not like it, but it is the truth.

From a purely scientific point of view, repeatability is an important thing. Having more than one experiment confirming the results isn't just a good thing, it is a requirement of science.

Re:race?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is there a race?

The Tevatron is nearing the end of its working life. Once the LHC is working, it will be hard to justify continuing to fund it. However, at the minute, it's the only game in town, and might just scoop the LHC on finding the Higgs.

Re:race?

[bockelboy]

It's a very friendly "competition". While it *may* be possible for the Tevatron to locate the Higgs before LHC turn-on, it doesn't negate the fact that the LHC will use energies an order of magnitude higher than the Tevatron.

Fermilab - which is where the Tevatron is located - also has a huge number of people working on CMS - one of the LHC detectors.

Most of the "US vs Europe" mentality and the "OMG we're losing our physics crown to some other lab" is a sidebar injected by the media and politicians. Otherwise, it can be very dry (aka, non-newsworthy) work punctuated by moments of "Eureka!"

Re:race?

[castironpigeon]

You obviously don't work in academia. :) Without any meaningful conflict people create it themselves. Even getting another department in one's own institution to return a call is a Herculean labor.

Re:race?

[Gromius]

they are and they arent. Fermilab is a big contributor to the LHC (although some of the contributions did go bang, hmmmm) and will play a big role in its future. Lots of scientists are on both an LHC experiment and a Tevatron experiment (although they tend to be senior, PHD students and postdocs who do most of the work tend to be on only one). It would be actually hard for the labs to work together more than they actually are. But there is also definately a little bit of a (friendlyish) race on to be the first ones to see it. In the sense, we'll help you as much as we can but we also want to beat you, its a little odd to explain.

Re:race?

[blind biker]

Sometimes races are a good thing. Sure, it's a sign of the imperfection of the human being as such... but we are what we are. And racing after a prestigious prize is sometimes the best motivation for groundbreaking science.

Rather than whine that this won't get us peace in the world, I'd choose to be glad that humanity can pull off some stunning scientific breakthroughs.

For the record, Fermilab were supposed to retire the Tevatron, since the LHC obsoletes it - so the US team is not completely imbued by nationalistic sentiment. But, Tevatron seems to be the biggest show in town for a while, no need for the false modesty.

Re:race?

[sam0737]

I think the same question applies to the Intel/AMD, Windows/Linux family...

Re:race?

[wisty]

On the other hand, Newton tried to cover up the Calculus, just so he could have the edge over other natural philosophers. Some competition is harmful. It depends.

Re:race?

[yttrstein]

Because science isn't done for the discoveries alone my friend, it's done for the *recognition* in exchange for discoveries. I understand that I could very well be down modded for this sort of opinion, but I've worked in too many research facilities to see it any differently.

Now boil your brain on the fact that the very same thing exists in medical research, and feel the creeping horror at what that implies.

Re:race?

[Vectronic]

As true as the outcome may be, that still doesn't validate the necessity of a race to procure a speedier advancement.

You don't think that if the USA And the USSR had worked together that we wouldn't have gotten there just as quick, if not quicker?

We only had a "race" cause both sides decided to be assholes to eachother after WW2... this isn't a browser war, if we don't work together on it, we'll end up with a "winner" doing spacey stuff, and a bunch of losers back here on earth, and all that this new "class war" would create.

Re:race?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless getting phone calls returned is the height of your troubles, my bet is that task is really a Sisyphean labor.

Re:race?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are some very very interesting stories (and quite serious ones) about JFK planning to publicly announce plans to work together with the Russians just before his life ended.

Re:race?

[arndawg]

As true as the outcome may be, that still doesn't validate the necessity of a race to procure a speedier advancement.

You don't think that if the USA And the USSR had worked together that we wouldn't have gotten there just as quick, if not quicker?

We only had a "race" cause both sides decided to be assholes to eachother after WW2... this isn't a browser war, if we don't work together on it, we'll end up with a "winner" doing spacey stuff, and a bunch of losers back here on earth, and all that this new "class war" would create.

I personally believe if you get a too large group of people. Some will end up not being heard, not work so hard because they feel redundant or just end up wasting a lot of time because of communication trouble. The competition aspect will probably motivate workers more and they will probably work harder. For ex. I think 1 programmer putting in 10 hours of effective work is more effective than two programmers working 6 hours each. There's a overhead in collaboration.

Re:race?

[genner]

As true as the outcome may be, that still doesn't validate the necessity of a race to procure a speedier advancement.

You don't think that if the USA And the USSR had worked together that we wouldn't have gotten there just as quick, if not quicker?

No if we had worked together things would still be tied up in a international comittee and at best we would have a non-binding resolution to send a strongly worded letter to the moon stating our intentions to visit it someday.

Re:race?

[AaxelB]

You don't think that if the USA And the USSR had worked together that we wouldn't have gotten there just as quick, if not quicker?

We only had a "race" cause both sides decided to be assholes to eachother after WW2... this isn't a browser war, if we don't work together on it, we'll end up with a "winner" doing spacey stuff, and a bunch of losers back here on earth, and all that this new "class war" would create.

We certainly wouldn't have gotten there quicker, if at all, simply because we (the populations of the US and USSR) wouldn't have had the motivation. I mean, yes, the USA and USSR working together would've had the capability to do more, quicker, and better than either could do separate. But without the fear of what the "enemy" might do if they got control of space, all the funding would dry up. The biggest justification (to the American public, at least) for the space race was "We can't let the commies win, we can beat 'em! THEY WILL RAIN NUCLEAR BOMBS FROM SPACE!!"

Don't get me wrong, there are certainly better ways to motivate than competition, but competition really is the easiest and in the space race example I don't think anything else would've worked as well. With regard to the topic at hand, I do agree that two groups of scientists should not be motivated by competition, except maybe competition for notoriety pushing them to publish results and discoveries quickly. Are CERN and Fermilab at least sharing data but working separately? That would be pretty reasonable.

Re:race?

[v(*_*)vvvv]

There is no motivation without the fear of losing. Who cares about some God particle... I just want to see Jeff cry!

Going to the moon was an afterthought. Beating Russia was the main purpose. There is no one to beat, so we aren't going there anymore.

Colliding egos have contributed to more innovation in the History of Mankind than anything else. Team work, cooperation, common goals... are all overrated and there is plenty of evidence of that.

Re:race?

[jbengt]

"It's a race. Whoever is first is first."
You were three minutes late.

Re:race?

[Anonymous Coward]

People get into physics for two reasons: Either to appear smart or for love of the mysteries involved. The former give it up after a fashion and go onto other more lucrative ventures, while the latter is determined to know exactly what composes nature and will likely die not having been fulfilled, but, like they say: It's about the journey, not the destination. If it happens that someday the key stones of science are found, and everything's explained, it will be bittersweet indeed.

Re:race?

[mdwh2]

In what sense could they work together, that they aren't already doing?

You can't just put two particle accelerators together, and magically make one big one. Having twice as many scientists working on it doesn't necessarily improve things either. Sometimes doing things in parallel gives better chances than trying to have everyone working on the same thing. I mean, if one particle accelerator should fail to work properly for example, and get delayed for 12 months, you have another one that might find it...

The negative side of competition is when people keep secrets from each other, and so people have to reindependently discover solutions to problems. It's not clear that this is the case here - it seems a friendly competition, and perhaps there's shared research.

Re:race?

[mooglez]

No if we had worked together things would still be tied up in a international comittee and at best we would have a non-binding resolution to send a strongly worded letter to the moon stating our intentions to visit it someday.

And said letter would have been delivered in person by a private courier company

Re:race?

[The_Wilschon]

In fact, a large number of the Tevatron people are also working to some degree on an LHC experiment. I'm on CDF, and planning to do some work in the not too distant future on a CMS track trigger.

Re:race?

[redxxx]

Right, Some competition can be harmful. It is specifically harmful when it encourages the restriction of open communication of information and prevents people from having the best available tools for their work/research.

This is slashdot, so that's a question I feel pretty comfortable begging. Compare competition between proprietary software v. competition between open source solutions.

The information associate with these physics projects are open. Heck, once the LHC is up, they are going to be doing crowd computing for the analysis.

While they are competing for resources, somewhat, the tools they are creating do have other purposes so it isn't too wasteful. The information is open and available. This is good competition.

Re:race?

[shadowkiller137]

From a Physicist's point of view, who ever publishes their paper about finding the Higgs first is going to be the one who is remembered an the one who would be a good candidate for a noble prize. Also the Fermilab physicists think that if they can find the Higgs they could get more funding for continued operation of the Tevatron.

Re:race?

[FiloEleven]

Now boil your brain on the fact that the very same thing exists in medical research, and feel the creeping horror at what that implies.

"Your leg's going to be fine, Michael. And I wouldn't worry about getting hit by any more cars. I've shortened your calf muscles to theoretically increase your jumping ability. But if it works, I could be the best in the world!"
- Dr. Frank Stein, Arrested Development

Re:race?

[CrimsonAvenger]

You don't think that if the USA And the USSR had worked together that we wouldn't have gotten there just as quick, if not quicker?

If the USA and USSR had worked together on a moon landing, we'd still be debating the shape of Mission Control.

A bigger committee isn't always the best solution to a problem.

Especially when the USSR would have brought nothing to the table. It's not like they'd done anything that we hadn't, or that they had any hardware better than what we had.

Re:race?

[mzs]

"Also the Fermilab physicists think that if they can find the Higgs they could get more funding for continued operation of the Tevatron."

I don't think many have that point of view. They all know that once the LHC gets going well the tev will be shutdown. The neutrino experiments in particular always want more beam.

Re:race?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the sense, we'll help you as much as we can but we also want to beat you, its a little odd to explain.

I believe the term you're looking for is akin to a Gentlemen's Wager combined with Good Sportsmanship.

Re:race?

[gtall]

Have you seen the shipping rates to get particles created at one installation to the other? And France has all those transportation unions.

Gerry

Re:race?

[Experiment 626]

As true as the outcome may be, that still doesn't validate the necessity of a race to procure a speedier advancement. You don't think that if the USA And the USSR had worked together that we wouldn't have gotten there just as quick, if not quicker?

Working together in some bloated international bureaucracy got us the ISS. The competitive race approach got us Apollo. The historical record is pretty clear on which era of space exploration had "speedier advancement".

Re:race?

[Shadow-isoHunt]

I'd think more discoveries happen during the words "That's odd..." or "Oh shi-."

Re:race?

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked at Fermilab this past summer. Your correct in that they don't care so much about the crown, but there really is a "OMG were going to lose a lot of physicists" mentality over there right now. With the Tevatron scheduled to shut down (in one or two years) and nothing approved to replace it, there is a concern there with the fact that Fermilab is about to lose a lot of highly skilled people, especially with the lay-off's that happened last spring. Its easy to downsize a program and get rid of people, it's a lot harder to build it back up again. Although the concern isn't focused towards the LHC, it is due to the LHC, but this was inevitable anyways, there has always been a history of CERN and Fermi going back and forth with who has the largest accelerator (In part due to diminishing returns). Hopefully they secure a new accelerator project that will keep most of the current employee's employed (I hear they are thinking about some type of Linear electron accelerator).

Re:race?

[Chris Burke]

On the other hand, Newton tried to cover up the Calculus, just so he could have the edge over other natural philosophers.

Geeze, the British will really do anything to avoid visiting the dentist, won't they?

Re:race?

[Anonymous Coward]

Keeping a theory secret during your lifetime to have an edge is like owning a patent. Patents aren't all bad, are they?

Re:race?

[sapphire wyvern]

Yeah, I've heard that...

Re:race?

[mbkennel]

Working together in some bloated international bureaucracy got us the ISS. The competitive race approach and twenty times the money got us Apollo.

Fixed that for you.

Re:race?

[geekoid]

maybe not.
Competition is healthy fro development, and it can speed up development. If the USSR and the USA were working together, there would have been money issue, no drive to get things done NOW. It may have even just been squander away.

I competition without a cold war would have been better.

Re:race?

[geekoid]

Actually, that wasn't a real competition. Hiding the rules like that~

Re:race?

[geekoid]

Fortunatly the scientific method works extremely well in that enviroment. Becasue if you screw up, someone is going to nail your ass.

Particle....What particle

[Dan Track]

What's this particle anyway and what does it do?

Re:Particle....What particle

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

http://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/higgs.html

Re:Particle....What particle

[John Hasler]

Higgs

I found it.

[thomasdz]

I was doing some cleaning on the weekend and I found the "God Particle" and some loose change underneath some cushions on the living room couch.
Sorry about that.

Re:I found it.

[thomasdz]

Wow... God must exist and he must not be happy about having a particle... as soon as I hit "submit"... I got:

Internal Server Error
The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.
Please contact the server administrator, admin@slashdot.org and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.
More information about this error may be available in the server error log.
Apache/1.3.41 Server at slashdot.org Port 80

Re:I found it.

[drachenstern]

No, what's unfunnier is emailing admin@slashdot.org... I get an unknown mailbox failure.

So when you get errors like this, you do submit them upstream with a possible time of occurrence, right? (I did as well, and cc'd your post addy into my email)...

Sorry for the piggyback post going way OT

Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[cjfs]

It's annoying on so many levels.

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[jellomizer]

Even we do do find it it will open thousand more questions about it.
Thus will keep the pointless debate of is there a God or Not going.

I think they came up with the "God Particle" name as a way of saying to the people who beleave in God. Here we found out how the Universe works and THERE IS NO GOD See, you have lived your life on a false belief.

Just as the religious people are hoping for the Second Coming to say to the atheists. Oh Oh here is God he about to put the smack down on you. You should have lived your life based on these values, and now you gonna pay.

However I think if we find this particle so many new questions will come up that we will just realize how much more we don't know. And if there is a second coming many of the Religious people will do like they did before, Ignore or reject it as they bring up ideas that they don't like. And the Religious people will probably kill Jesus for the second time, not the atheists.

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Since when are did all religious people believe in the second coming of Jesus and have anything against atheists? And since when has all religion been against science?

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[randyleepublic]

Help! Something doesn't make sense: from my workstation, logged in as me, I cannot post more than once a day. But if I boot from a CD into an environment that includes a browser, I can post pretty much as much as I want. Huh?

I have written .\ a couple of times but they just ignore you. Is there something wrong with my installation. Both Firefox and Chrome give the same result. It even tried IE, (yes I run Wingdows: dot.net developer, OK.), but that got the same result. WTF?

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[MoeDrippins]

Since it is based on NOT having evidence?

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[minvaren]

It's because we stoned everyone calling it the "Jehovah particle."

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[master_p]

Ok. How about the Allah Particle?

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[dotancohen]

Since it is based on NOT having evidence?

That is not true. It is based on different axioms than science, but not on lack of evidence. I find that I need no less faith to believe in "science" than I do to believe in the Old Testament. And not only do I believe in them both, I see very few contradictions.

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[MoeDrippins]

How about testability and falsifiability?

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[AndrewNeo]

What do you do to people who call it the "Jenova particle"?

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[necro81]

Here, here!

About the only relationship to God the Higgs boson has is that there's a whole bunch of people that devote their lives to it, building temples, and yet so far have to take its existence of faith. I sometimes wonder if their zeal isn't more like idolatry than adoration.

Rather than searching for the thing itself, I think it better to reflect on what the thing's existence would mean in the grand scheme of things.

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[Culture20]

Just as the religious people are hoping for the Second Coming to say to the atheists. Oh Oh here is God he about to put the smack down on you. You should have lived your life based on these values, and now you gonna pay.

Technically, only a small percentage of Christians are actually hoping for the Second Coming, and for those that are, it's for different reasons than you espouse (usually a desire to see the permanent end to war/death/cyclical-suffering). I know quite a few Christians who fervently pray to forestall the Second Coming, hoping for more time to change the hearts and minds of those close to them.

Back on topic: it's a silly name, but easier to remember than Higgs-Boson, so it's here to stay.

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[fracai]

See, there are these books...

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's annoying on so many levels.

I could be wrong but I think it's short for "Goddamn Particle" (as one of the tags suggests) because they've had such a hard time finding it. Leon Lederman (credited with the term) wrote a book on it and explained in the intro his publisher wouldn't let use the full name.

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[dotancohen]

How about testability and falsifiability?

Testability: The ability to predict is why I believe in science.

Falsifiability: Which you don't have for mathematical axioms either.

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's because we stoned everyone calling it the "Jehovah particle."

And it's a good thing, too.

Those physicists knocking on my door early Saturday morning and waking me up all the time were really annoying.

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[genner]

the Religious people will probably kill Jesus for the second time, not the atheists.

Religious people didn't kill him the first time, they petitioned their secular government to do it for them but feel free to wash your hands of the whole issue.

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[genner]

What do you do to people who call it the "Jenova particle"?

Pretend I'm not home.
Jenova's Witnesses are annoying, they always show up when I'm eating.

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[Sponge Bath]

...time to change the hearts and minds of those close to them.

As someone who does not believe in the magic bearded man in the sky and has been pestered for years by those who do, I say to them: please stop. It got old a long time ago, and nothing you say will make me worry about being punished by a supernatural booger man for my failure to adhere to modern human interpretations of ancient human originated scripts.

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[mooreti1]

Amen! Oh...sorry?

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[mdwh2]

And not only do I believe in them both, I see very few contradictions.

A literal reading of the Old Testament is contradicted by science in a great many ways.

If you mean a non-literal interpretation, then I'm not sure in what sense you can be said to believe what it says.

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[sorak]

Ok. How about the Allah Particle?

If it creates a black hole that takes out half the galaxy, then yeah, we can call it that.

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[g2devi]

> That is not true. It is based on different axioms than science, but not on lack of evidence. I

Correction. The axioms of science arose from the Judeo-Christian world view, so science has the same axioms. The main parts of the scientific method are:
(a) the universe is orderly (because it was designed by an orderly God.) so it's possible to discover its regular laws
(b) man is rational (because he was designed by a rational God and man is in the image of God), so it is possible for us to discover the universe through reason and observation
(c) it is ethical to manipulate the universe (i.e. the universe is not God)
(d) man can be irrational (because man is fallen) and delusional (due to pride and arrogance as a result of the fall) so he needs checks and balances (like the scientific community and statistical methods) to know truth.

Now the secular world drops off the reasoning Bacon and others used to formulate the scientific method, and many Christians don't bother looking up their own history and the assumptions of their own faith and assume that "science is worldly, so it's bad", but that's humanity for you.

What you're referring to when you say "different axioms" is not science but logical positivism, which states that the universe, matter/energy and natural law are all that ever existed or ever will exist and there is nothing outside of "nature" (As an aside, "nature" used to mean "God's will" but now means something far more limited.).

Logical positivism is completely compatible with some forms of Deism (i.e. God is a programmer of this "Game of Life" we call the universe, and he never debugs tweaks his program or otherwise interacts with the game), Stoicism, Epicureanism, Confucianism, Taoism (if you assume that Yi/Yang forces can be measured and quantified), and Greek Mythology (Greek Gods are just Q-like aliens which are a product of creation). But it is fundamentally opposed to Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, and many other metaphysical theories.

Fortunately, science is neutral ground where these metaphysical theories may have dialog. Some metaphysical theories (e.g. Stoics who think Reason can be perfected so we don't need to do experiments, just philosophize) might think that some axioms are redundant, and some might think that some axioms are irrelevant (e.g. the world is just an illusion, so discoveries about the world are little different than wasting your time discovering the physics and science of WoW or a dream).

But for those that wish to discover their world, whatever the reason, science is a common language.

We just have to make sure that it stays a common ground.

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[Tribbin]

Yes, everybody knows it would be a wave or a string!

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[Eli Gottlieb]

Naw, a sensible person knows to call it the Shai-Hulud Particle.

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh Oh here is God he about to put the smack down on you.

Since I am not of that kind of persuasions (at least not aware of them), I would definently prefer not have some God's smack all over my face. Of course, if God is a she (and not a she-male) then that would be a different story.

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[DarkTygur]

Yeah, and while we're at it, we really need to rename the planets. Those gods don't exist either. And the constellations! So annoying!

Seriously, calling a *particle* the God Particle has so little to do with whether he actually exists that it's not even worth worrying about.

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[huckamania]

I like to tell them the story of the dot, the point from whence we all came in a blinding flash, that created a universe of glowing plasma in an unprecedented expansion that slowly cooled, which clumped together thru the mysterious force we call gravity, resulting in everything we can now see, feel or touch, that the expansion continues even faster today aided by an even more mysterious force we call dark, that accelerates everything away from each other, which may or may not actually exist...

Usually, they are not bothered by my story. Most of the time, they have already heard it and have accepted some parts of it into their world view. You should try that some time. You know, telling them what you believe.

"Don't tell me your doubts, tell me what you know."

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

I find that I need no less faith to believe in []science[] than I do to believe in the Old Testament.

Why on earth would you put quotes around science?

----

Then it would seem most obvious to a scientist that you're doing the Science wrong. The whole point of science is that it _doesn't_ require belief. You can do the experiments and see the results yourself. When a piece of data doesn't fit, you verify the data, and you verify the experiment. If necessary you build a new conceptual model and have another go. Science is about understanding how the world works based on the accumulation of facts.

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Leon Lederman called it the God Particle in his book. He has more karma than you.

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[FiloEleven]

Don't tell the people here on Slashdot, tell the people who are pestering you. If they're friends or family of yours, they should be willing to let the matter be in order to keep the relationship. That doesn't mean that they'll never mention God in your presence, since God (whether God exists or not) is an important part of their lives, but pestering and pressuring you to convert or believe or what have you should stop (or at the very least become very intermittent). The key, though, is to actually confront them with the issue instead of sitting there looking uncomfortable or peeved. Tell them that you are not interested in God or their religion, you do not believe, you will never believe, and if they cannot respect that and stop trying to get you to believe then you will spend your time with other people who will.

Of course I have no idea what your individual situation is like, but this is a good practice in general. I've found that if your relationship with the person is based on a genuine friendship, they'll tone down the fervor.

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

So many jokes...posting from work...must resist...

Arrrrgh!!!

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

thanks god you don't believe in a magic man with a beard, as you said it got old a long long time ago. I dont think any SERIOUS religious person would try to approach with that argument. what I find amusing it's a lot of atheists put emphasis on the "not getting punished" part. why would you even have to be punished? have you done something that deserves punishment? Aren't you basing your own choice of not believing on OLD concepts of punishment and obedience?? I believe in god, do not assist to any specific church and the least of my worries it's getting "punished". Get over it, be what you want to be, and stop posting silly comments reinforcing your own weak beliefs. you don't have a problem with god per se, you have a problem breaking with traditions that might have been imposed in you at some point in your life. THAT is your problem.

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[dotancohen]

Why on earth would you put quotes around science?

Because those who use their scientific belief to attack religion seem to me more religious than those who call themselves religious. They are not upholding science in the name of science, they are upholding science to attack something else.

Then it would seem most obvious to a scientist that you're doing the Science wrong. The whole point of science is that it _doesn't_ require belief.

Everyday science, say the laws of physics as Newton presented them, have been shown to be simplifications of a much greater and more complicated nature/science. We can call that QED and / or relativity depending on which particular phenomenon you are examining at the moment. In turn, QED must rest upon something, and scientists / physicists do not yet know. They are ever looking for what is beneath the current turtle. Without an established base, all that science believes in, including the laws of Newton, are still based in the end upon faith.

I used to think that religion was a joke. I hated the religious (still do, really). But the more that I took an interest in QM and astrophysics, part as university courses and part as a personal interest, the more I see that all matter, all energy, had to originate from _somewhere_. I might not think that that somewhere is a sentient being, or may or may not speak to prophets, or may or may not let me walk away from an ambush unharmed, but it came from somewhere. The matter and energy that came from that somewhere coalesced into the sun and the moon, and into the birds and the fish, and into us.

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[dotancohen]

Thank you. You seem to grasp more than most.

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[dotancohen]

How can you have a literal interpretation if you are reading an inaccurate translation? For that matter, I am aware that there is a division among Christians about literal vs. figurative reading of the Torah. I don't know the details. In my own language (Hebrew, the original language of the Torah) it is quite clear what is written, however, one must remember that some words' definitions may not be as we use them today. For instance, what is a "day"? Even in English you have different meanings:
1) I haven't showered for days.
2) Who uses OS/2 in these days?
Is one more literal than the other?

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[FangVT]

As someone who does not believe in the magic bearded man in the sky and has been pestered for years by those who do, I say to them: please stop. It got old a long time ago, and nothing you say will make me worry about being punished by a supernatural booger man for my failure to adhere to modern human interpretations of ancient human originated scripts.

Don't tell the people here on Slashdot, tell the people who are pestering you. If they're friends or family of yours, they should be willing to let the matter be in order to keep the relationship. That doesn't mean that they'll never mention God in your presence, since God (whether God exists or not) is an important part of their lives, but pestering and pressuring you to convert or believe or what have you should stop (or at the very least become very intermittent). The key, though, is to actually confront them with the issue instead of sitting there looking uncomfortable or peeved. Tell them that you are not interested in God or their religion, you do not believe, you will never believe, and if they cannot respect that and stop trying to get you to believe then you will spend your time with other people who will.

Well if the poster complaining about being bothered is anything like me, it's not his friends or family that is the problem, so not "hanging out" with them won't solve the problem. The problem is that the pestering comes in the form of legislation (like California's Proposition 8) and in school board rulings and in countless other little ways that we have to waste our time, money and energy fighting against.

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[shutdown -p now]

Surely you mean the "Intelligent Designer Particle"?

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[FiloEleven]

You're right; that's a whole different ball game and a bigger problem. I wasn't thinking along those lines at all.

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[x2A]

"Even in English you have different meanings"

No, the use of the word 'day' doesn't mean different things in those at all. The difference that you think you're spotting is actually just caused by the pluralisation of the word 'day' in the examples you gave. Pluralisation without an exact quantitive definition in those examples is using vagueness deliberately as an exact measurement of the time is not important to the point being made, unlike the bible which does say 'on the third day' etc, which does specify an exact number of days (being a single day, and the third one of that). Also, "he called the light day and the darkness night" does kind of define what the unit of a day is, unless you're suggesting that the earth spins at a different rate, or that the translation is grossly inaccurate, in which case, the purpose of reading it becomes lost altogether.

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[mdwh2]

How can you have a literal interpretation if you are reading an inaccurate translation?

Well that's all the more reason that it seems odd to believe in it. Which "inaccurate" version do you believe in then?

1) I haven't showered for days.
2) Who uses OS/2 in these days?
Is one more literal than the other?

Yes, but the difference is clearly determined by context, and in both cases, "day" refers to the twenty four hour period. No amount of context will get "seven days" to mean "billions of years" - at least, not without throwing out all meaning altogether.

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[x2A]

"The axioms of science arose from the Judeo-Christian world view"

By which you mean a world view similar to that shared by judeo-christian faiths? You surely don't mean to imply that science is the child of those religions? It seems curious that you'd mention those religions specifically when science was born in areas around the world long before they were touch by those religions, islam was a huge driving force of the scientific method (for similar reasons to those you mention)... travel further east into the realms of polytheism (very un-judeo-christian) and you find very early roots of maths and science.

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[x2A]

Science is a religion. It's a set of beliefs, rules, methodologies, guides, for one to follow to bring themselves closer to attaining and understanding truth about the universe, how and why it works the way that it does. And on that front, it has proven more successful than any other religion. The one big difference is that it doesn't claim to have answers, rather it tells of how to ask the right questions in order to find answers, or how to get as close to them as you can. Answers out there that you see, such as relativity, quantum mechanics... they're not what science is, they are RESULTS of science, the results of following scientific method for the purpose of attaining understanding. This is the true reason why science attacks other religions, because it teaches questions, not answers. Where other religions need faith in their answers and explanations being true, a question is not something you need to have faith in.

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[x2A]

"Is there something wrong with my installation"

Yes, that's completely unusual. Check your cache and proxy settings, clear both. And what do you mean by you "can't"? As in the reply button disapears, you can't get back onto the site...?

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[x2A]

To witness the particle you have to destroy it *pmsl* I love the blasphemous connotations there

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[x2A]

no, waves and strings are merely created in the image of the god particle.

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

respectfully, pray tell aside from an awful SNES game, what the fuck is a booger man?

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[syousef]

supernatural booger man

I hope you mean boogie man or you've had a much more torchered childhood than I!

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but the difference is clearly determined by context, and in both cases, "day" refers to the twenty four hour period.

A day could be just as easily the period between sunset and sunrise. If I said I had a hard day at work I'm not saying I spent a 24 hour period at work.

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[randyleepublic]

I get this message:

>>Slow Down Cowboy!

>>Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

>>It's been 5 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment

>>Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been >>tried, contact the site administrator."

That "5 minutes will run up into the hours - as far as I can tell I can not post more than once a day, unless I use my boot CD environment. Bob Roberts from /. consulted with me today, was nonplussed, and allowed as how he was going to "kick it up the food chain".

So there you have it. Clearly there is something unusual about my workstation, however one would presume that ./'s software would be able to take on all comers without flinching. I am not surprised. Wherever I go, I am vouchsafed the dysfunctional.

Thanks for writing!

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Do you also think philosophy should be based on evidence? How would that work?

And since have all religions been based on not having evidence?

I'm not sure you actually understand what either science or religion are.

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[dotancohen]

Doesn't science state that the Earth's rate of rotation had changed over time? For that matter, were things rotating at the big bang? Day One could very well be the big bang up to the creation of the Earth, that's 9 billion years. During that time there was light, but no darkness on the matter that would become the Earth, in fact, the heavier elements were synthesized inside stars (you can't get much brighter than _inside_ a star).

The only problem that I have with Genesis is that the Sun and the Moon were created on the fourth day. There may be a scientific explanation for that or it may be an error, I really don't know. Just as science is not infallable, nor do I think the Torah to be. You might want to read Asimov's How it happened.

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[x2A]

When you get the "Slow Down Cowboy!" message, try holding ctrl+shift and clicking refresh - this tells the browser to override any cache settings, and tells any proxies to connect to the server and make sure it's getting the absolute most latest up to date version of the page. The browser will ask you if you wanna repost the form (being, your message), to which give it a yay... and see if that makes any difference. If it does, that'll narrow down where the issue is... and if not, that should rule those places much less likely to be where the issue is.

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[x2A]

"Doesn't science state that the Earth's rate of rotation had changed over time?"

Technically science only states how you'd find out stuff, astrophysics studies et al have churned up evidence that seems to support the idea of a slight change in day length, that the earth's rotation has slowed down slightly, which means that days would've used to've been slightly shorter, not longer.

"The only problem that I have with Genesis is that the Sun and the Moon were created on the fourth day"

Yep, the earth 'n heavens were created before the heavens were populated with stars etc. But then people used to believe the earth was the center of the universe, and everything went around it, which is very much inline with the bible's creation story... they were just plain wrong. It's nice to wanna hold onto what people have been telling each other is true for thousands of years, but... it's wrong.

"Just as science is not infallable"

Says who? Studies may turn up false conclusions, people can make mistakes, but how to handle these to reduce their chance of propogation is clearly defined within scientific methodology, and it really works, we know more through following scientific method than we have gained from any other religion (see my post 'science is a religion')

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[dotancohen]

Yes, but the difference is clearly determined by context, and in both cases, "day" refers to the twenty four hour period. No amount of context will get "seven days" to mean "billions of years" - at least, not without throwing out all meaning altogether.

Not if, as in Genesis, "day" is defined as the time when light is showing. Then the time from the big bang to the creation of the Earth (9 billion years) is one day. Which happens to fit in nicely with the rest of the first day in Genesis.

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[randyleepublic]

Try it right now. OK this is post 1. If you don't see no. 2, soon thereafter, you'll know that I am still stuck.

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[mdwh2]

True, it has that definition too. No definition of "day" includes a period of billions of years.

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[mdwh2]

Then the time from the big bang to the creation of the Earth (9 billion years) is one day.

Okay, so what about the second and later days? (In response to your other comments - yes, the period of a "day" has change over time, but this isn't anywhere near enough to allow for the complete evolution of all life up to humans in a mere six days - not even remotely close.)

And my point is, even if you can twist the interpretation to fit with scientific facts, the Bible itself then becomes useless. The information here is not derived from the Bible, it's derived from science. What facts come from the Bible, without you having to first know the independently derived scientific knowledge?

I'm sure if I wanted, I could twist the interpretation of Three Little Pigs to be a true story. But I don't see how it would be meaningful for me to say "I believe the story The Three Little Pigs is a true story".

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[x2A]

maybe even try clearing cookies? This may require a signout/signin

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[randyleepublic]

Well, if clearing cookies once works, OK, but if I have to do it every time I post that's silly.

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[x2A]

I was just thinkin, one problem I once had with a site turned out to be that the cookie folder somehow had become corrupted, and a particular cookie became un-updateable... but then thinkin about it clearing cookies didn't work (as it couldn't delete it) so I had to move the whole cookies folder out the way (rename it, then make a new cookies directory)... the old cookies dir stayed there until the partition was formatted, even disk check wouldn't fix it. Seems far fetched, just pulling on past experiences.

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[randyleepublic]

Cleared my Cache and cookies. Let's see...

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[dotancohen]

It's nice to wanna hold onto what people have been telling each other is true for thousands of years, but... it's wrong.

Well, nobody's been telling _me_ anything about religion for thousands of years. I came to that conclusion myself.

I don't even see any sense in keeping this thread going because we both know where it's going. Go claim "I win" because I don't feel like having this conversation _again_.

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[Nivag064]

Actually it was originally referred to as that god damned particle, but the physicist who was asked to right a book about was not allowed to use the words god damned in case it offended someone...

So if you like, call it the god damned particle...

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[x2A]

"Well, nobody's been telling _me_ anything about religion for thousands of years"

I don't believe you've been alive for thousands of years.

"I don't even see any sense in keeping this thread going because we both know where it's going"

Nah I'm not really following it

"Go claim "I win" because I don't feel like having this conversation _again_"

Don't take part in a public forum if you can't handle responses. And who do you think I'm going and claiming anything to? I have no need for external validation, you're the one bringing your feelings into it, I'm just responding with facts. I've no vested interest in primative beliefs, 'feelings' of accomplishment over you not being able to handle responses to stuff you're posting are completely irrelevant and in your head only, which really doesn't add weight to the idea that you care about your beliefs being connected to reality.

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[dotancohen]

Go away you religious freak. Go preach your anti-beliefs to someone that you can convert.

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[x2A]

Wow, you think I care about your conversion? You live in a very you-centric world don't you? Only child were ya?

Why don't you just follow my advice, and not post in a public forum things that you can't handle responses to? Cuz if this is you "handling" something... actually, I don't think there's a sarcastic response fitting enough to end that sentence. Oh and "defensive" and "handling" don't mean the same thing.

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[dotancohen]

Wow, you think I care about your conversion? You live in a very you-centric world don't you? Only child were ya?

Why don't you just follow my advice, and not post in a public forum things that you can't handle responses to? Cuz if this is you "handling" something... actually, I don't think there's a sarcastic response fitting enough to end that sentence. Oh and "defensive" and "handling" don't mean the same thing.

Wow, you religious fanatics sure like to attack anything. I am glad that I decided to cut your preaching short when I did. To think that I was almost lured into your trolling.

Oh, I'm sorry, science doesn't teach manners, so you don't have to have any. Only us fools who believe in Ten Commandments voodoo have to respect others.

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[x2A]

You're feeling attacked? That would explain your defensiveness... what it is that explains that though, I'm not sure, but I'm guessing it's the same thing that's causing you to delude in the notion that what you have is manners or respect for others. See all I'm doing is replying to what's being said, but you're really get wound up over this aren't you? And you seem to keep switching sides, you're arguing with me... as if I was you! All the things you're saying to me are actually things that you're doing... you're doing the religious nuts thing, the arrogance, claiming that only people who believe in the ten commandments can have manners or respect for people?

And how much weight does what you say really have? You can't even stick by the things you say yourself. Remember the days when you used to say things like

"I don't even see any sense in keeping this thread going"

Funny days huh... how successful was that plan? Oh it was completely not based in reality? Or are you just carrying on with something that don't think makes any sense? Ha. Sorry. Just forgot who I was saying that to for a moment.

So go on, is your turn to "not keep this thread going" now... maybe you could insult my mother? That would complete the clique that you're hitting nail on the head at the moment... or do us "scientists and non-ten-commandments" folk not have mothers? I guess I was just constructed by flying laser beams and genedigle engwineeween! Scary!

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[dotancohen]

Funny, I thought that you trolls were the result of entanglement and spooky action at a distance. Are you done yet?

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[geekoid]

hahaha..I don't doubt you, but people might want to study up on it.

Re:Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet?

[geekoid]

dark matter does, in fact, exist. No one knows what the hell it is, but something is there.

"God particle"

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell does a boson have to do with gods?

I think we should go with Lederman's original idea, "the goddamn particle".[1]

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Particle:_If_the_Universe_Is_the_Answer,_What_Is_the_Question%3F

Re:"God particle"

[b0ttle]

A boson has as much to do with gods as any other particle. The real problem here is money: they need money to keep going with the experiments, and maybe finding it. And what's a better way to attract attention than putting the word "God" into it?

Re:"God particle"

[Anonymous Coward]

If they called it the "Oil particle", Bush would have already found it!

Re:"God particle"

[FTWinston]

My understanding is that the term "God particle" came about due to a newspaper's unwillingness to publish "goddamn particle"

Re:"God particle"

[FTWinston]

Seriously though, its not the physicists that keep referring to it as this! Its the media. Physicists really do say "Higgs"

Re:"God particle"

[redxxx]

At least it's not the WMD Particle...

Re:"God particle"

[John Hasler]

The only reason politicians fund physics is that it gave them the bomb. The way to revive their flagging enthusiasm is to give them another superweapon.

...its a 50-50 chance

[mcfatboy93]

Fermilab say the odds of their Tevatron accelerator finding it first are now 50-50 at worst, and up to 96% at best

so wait they have these muilt-billion $ electron race tracks and they think there is a CHANCE that they won't find in. Wow thats a worse investment than that stimulus package

Re:...its a 50-50 chance

[drinkypoo]

Wow thats a worse investment than that stimulus package

You mean it in jest, but the "stimulus package" (aka handout for the rich) is going to provide more ammunition for the robber barons to shoot at us with, whereas these colliders are going to lead to developments in science whether they find this particle or not.

Re:...its a 50-50 chance

[Gromius]

The Higgs would just be the icing on the cake of an already highly successful Tevatron physics program which is coming to its end. The Tevatron was built to find and measure the properties of the top quark which it did. It also produced valuable Bs mixing measurements sheding light on mater-antimatter asymetry. It has produced many fantastic results (sadly) confirming the correctness of the Standard Model (at this energy scale) and has set stringent limits on many beyond the Standard Model theorys like extra dimensions and SUSY.

Re:...its a 50-50 chance

[mdwh2]

Find it first. And if no one can find it, that in itself is important information.

Not to mention all the other research they've done.

Most important phrase

[whencanistop]

"But don't forget, there is also a whole spectrum of physics to be investigated at the LHC which the Tevatron can never do."

In other words if Tevatron discovers it first, then LHC can get on with finding more useful stuff rather than trying to prove god exists/doesn't exist because of one particle (yes I know that this particle doesn't prove that god exists or doesn't exist).

No

[RobotRunAmok]

It's annoying on so many levels.

Annoying to you. Refreshing to others, also on many levels.

Lookit, you slipped in "C.E." for "A.D." when nobody was looking, but you're going to have to fight us for this one...

Re:No

[pz]

I agree with the grandparent post. It isn't the God particle. It isn't the be-all-end-all-explain-everything particle. Discovering the particle won't prove or disprove the existence of a deity. Using the term is annoying AND misleading.

Re:No

[MarkovianChained]

There are two leading explanations for why it was called the God particle:

1) It will explain how the universe was created (or at least bring us significantly closer), from a scientific standpoint. Finding it will not disprove the existence of a deity, nor will not finding it prove the existence of one.

2) It was nick-named that as a tongue-in-cheek 'We think this particle is everywhere but nobody has actually seen it.' (this came from an earlier Slashdot article, you can look it up for yourself later)

Re:No

[MoeDrippins]

I agree with the grandparent post. It isn't the God particle. It isn't the be-all-end-all-explain-everything particle. Discovering the particle won't prove or disprove the existence of a deity. Using the term is annoying AND misleading.

Amen!

Re:No

[FTWinston]

Please explain what's refreshing about this silly media nickname. Surely you're not going to claim that there's somehow something more divine about the Higgs boson than other force carriers? Not to mention matter, or indeed anything else.
Shall we say that God can only be found in the quantum realm, endlessly supporting a mass-creating field, and far too busy to pay even the slightest bit of attention to anything else? That seems rather silly.

Its the force carrier for the mass-providing Higgs field. Its a boson. It was proposed by a guy called Higgs. Higgs boson, anyone?

Re:No

[FTWinston]

It was referred jokingly to as "that goddamn particle" ... but the relevant newspaper wasn't allowed to print such obscenties. Hence they went with 'God particle' and the nickname stuck, in the media at least.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you want terminology that references your religion? What the hell is "refreshing" about seeing religious and scientific terminology awkwardly mashed together?

I don't ask for names that imply there is no God. I ask for names which are neutral in that regard. Does forcing people to acknowledge your religion make you happy?

Re:No

[RulerOf]

It's called the "God" particle because the name is more memorable to laymen.

If discovery of the Higgs boson gives us the ability to reach that much closer to completing our model of how the universe works, then we effectively gain insight on what I would call "the mind of God..." or maybe perhaps an idea of how such a mind works.

It's a very abstract idea, I know, but drawing parallels to or directly referencing religious constructs can be just as effective a metaphor as other things in history or everyday life. Quite personally, I would say that "God particle" gets this idea across fairly well to those who understand the implications its existence poses. For others (particularly extremely vocal and judgmental atheists, whom I may add ruin it for the rest of you), it's just another "politically motivated action to insert religion into your potentially heathen lives." Then again, it could be neither.

I am biased, but I suspect we all are.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

An american newspaper of course. Goddamn puritans!!

Re:No

[FTWinston]

the implications its existence poses

I have to disagree, its discovery has no implications whatsoever for non-physicists, apart from potential future technology.

Its non-discovery would excite most phyicists even more than its discovery, as that means that the standard model is wrong, and that there's a lot more theoretical work for physisists to start thinking about. At the moment, we have many very plausable models of the universe, and measurements are needed to help us see which are closer to the truth - measurements of the existance/nonexistance of the Higgs, and its mass(es), for example.

Frankly, I think a more appropriate name would be "the weakest link particle" as it will allow us to leave a variety of erroneous theories behind.

Again, I'd say that the Higgs has no more business being "the God particle" than any other particle; all particles of the standard model are crucial to the functioning of the universe, after all! And if we're going to be giving them more "memorable" names, then why aren't we rolling out "the Devil particle", "the fun particle", "the justice particle" and so on?

Lastly, what if it turns out not to exist? I can picture the tabloid headlines already: "LHC proves that 'God' doesn't exist"

People will appreciate what its about less rather than more so, if such concepts are given completely unfounded connotations to things completely unrelated. Gravitons would make a better 'God' particle anyway...

Re:No

[EEGeek]

Seriously now... all you're going to do is piss the "God" particle off and it will smite us with a black hole. Think Mc Fly Think!

Re:No

[x2A]

Lighten up!

That's why.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Alas, they wont call it as God's Particle if it isn't, isn't it? The authors believed it is..and it will take a God to create it!!! It is simple! Whether you call it Allah, Jehovah, YahWeh, Adonai, El Shaddai, or any other names of God, it won't matter because God is God....what men do afterwards matter!! coz stupidity comes in...

I think you'll find...

[fellip_nectar]

...it does exist and it's mass is 131.313131313 GeV/c

It's all about cash

[gzipped_tar]

CERN needs money badly. By crying out "The Yankees are catching up!" they hope the politicians would hear and pay them more fresh euro.

In this economy, do you really believe the scientists care that much about the God Particle? If your answer is yes, do you really think it's "yes"?

If they lose jobs and food, how can they go on chasing the Higgs particle?

Re:It's all about cash

[Eravnrekaree]

Its very important for us to improve our data base and understanding of physics. While for some it may seem abstract it is often the case that data which at first seems to be inconsequential and a curiosity plays a critical role in developing some new technology. Understanding how atoms work for instance, gave rise to many new inventions that were probably not anticipated originally, such as understanding how transistors work.

Science is very important to solving our economic problems and collecting data allows science to better understand the universe and be able to develop better technologies. I am one who thinks we need to prioritise resources on science and education funding (especially our badly neglected gifted programs to allow high IQ students to fully develop their maximum potential and go through their course as fast as they wish) , and environmental protections.

LHC still important

[haleyeah]

Yeah, but can the tevatron create black holes or rip the fabric of the time/space continuum? GO CERN!

Re:LHC still important

[stox]

The same Loony Tunes that sued CERN had picketed outside of Fermilab for years. For some strange reason, they got more attention with CERN.

Re:LHC still important

[Tibor the Hun]

I think it can, but only in the PPK gun mode. (And then only if StarScream fires him.)

News at 11

[m0s3m8n]

"And in other news, shortly after Fermilab announced the discovery of the so-called 'god particle' the laboratory disappeared into a small black hole."

Let them find that particle first

[gmuslera]

One thing is to prove than a theoretical particle exist, and another to give the world a new (and somewhat clean) source of energy and/or world peace, all humanity together... well, at least if the resulting black hole is stable enough.

Re:Let them find that particle first

[Anonymous Coward]

all humanity togetherr... well, at least if the resulting black hole is stable enough.

That would be a tight fit indeed! Let's see if the British government can spin out of that one.

they would say that, wouldn't they

[petes_PoV]

It's all about funding. If one establishment can make an unsubstantiated claim that attracts publicity and therefore money, then why not. It's not as if their scientific credibility (cough, cold-fusion) will be questioned. If so long as they don't say it's certain that they'll produce a given result, they can always claim "well, if we'd had more money ..."

Re:they would say that, wouldn't they

[Anonymous Coward]

Need something for that cough perhaps?

"Despite a backdrop of meager funding and career-killing derision from mainstream scientists and engineers, cold fusion is anything but a dead field of research. Presenters at the MIT event estimated that 3,000 published studies from scientists around the world have contributed to the growing canon of evidence suggesting that small but promising amounts of energy can be generated using the infamous tabletop apparatus."

"MIT's Peter Hagelstein, on the other hand, said "cold fusion" reactions have yielded surplus energy from as far back as the initial experiments in 1989. Verification of these controversial results is not the problem -- many labs around the world have reproduced parts of the results many times. "

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/08/cold_fusion?currentPage=all#

Navy Discovers Cold Fusion (again):
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2292

"Last March, scientists at the annual conference of the august American Physical Society heard presentations on cold fusion. Next month, the Second International Conference on Future Energy will be held in Washington, D.C. The vast majority of physicists remains skeptical, but at the Office of Naval Research, six of the nine experiments performed produced an unexplainable amount of excess heat."

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060808/REPOSITORY/608080316&SearchID=73253345954312

"Researchers at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have developed a tabletop accelerator that produces nuclear fusion at room temperature, providing confirmation of an earlier experiment conducted at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), while offering substantial improvements over the original design."

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/ny_team_confirms_ucla_tabletop_fusion_10017.html

Science in Neglect
Nobel Laureate Speaks Out For Cold Fusion:

http://newenergytimes.com/news/2005/2005Lietz-ScienceInNeglectJosephson.htm

"The foreword by Dr. Frank Gordon in a [extern] summary report of February 2002 is so far the strongest statement of the Navy about their research:

We do not know if Cold Fusion will be the answer to future energy needs, but we do know the existence of Cold Fusion phenomenon through repeated observations by scientists throughout the world. It is time that this phenomenon be investigated so that we can reap whatever benefits accrue from additional scientific understanding. It is time for government funding organizations to invest in this research. "

http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/18/18580/1.html

"First, a dozen techniques have been found to produce anomalous energy and benign nuclear products in certain solids. These are listed in the table (p. 76). Most of these methods have been duplicated at independent laboratories, and several can be made to work by anyone who would take the time to learn how. "

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/summ01/cold_fusion/cold_fusion.html

Edmund Storms* discusses the methods used to generate low energy nuclear reactions (LENR).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltZhii3g2HY

* Retired from the Los Alamos National Laboratory after thirty-four years of service. His work there involved basic research i

Re:they would say that, wouldn't they

[FiloEleven]

You shouldn't have posted anonymously; it could have given your links some more weight. The climb up to page space from zero is a lot harder than from one or two.

In fact, the whole reason cold fusion is dismissed out-of-hand is because of a related issue: reputation. Mainstream scientists seem to say, "If cold fusion were possible, we would have evidence of it," and then dismiss any evidence provided on the basis that anyone doing research into cold fusion is a crackpot.

The same can be said for paranormal research and a select few other "fringe sciences." There are certainly fakes out there, yet they also exist in the mainstream as evidenced by the South Korean cloning fiasco, and the existence of a few nuts should not invalidate an entire field of research. Unfortunately, once the public (or the scientific community) gets into the habit of associating "cold fusion" with "overblown quackery" it takes a lot more hard work to get them to pay attention--much like starting with a 0 or -1 score on Slashdot.

Re:they would say that, wouldn't they

[Anonymous Coward]

There are political reason to dismiss cold fusion without any proof that EVERYONE is a crackpot. It's because, if cold fusion was actually possible, it would put a lot of people out of job and kill the whole economy which is mainly built on energy availability. If you got rich with nuclear fission/coal/oil you have every reason to hate something that would output much more energy for a much lesser cost and pollution than current technologies do. And unfortunately, the energy lobby is one, if not the, biggest lobby on planet earth. ExxonMobil, Chevron, Total and others have billions to spend to corrupt whoever they wish to.

Re:they would say that, wouldn't they

[SquirrelsUnite]

It's not as if their scientific credibility (cough, cold-fusion) will be questioned.

Yeah, cause the guys who came up with cold fusion never had their credibility questioned. They're still well respected members of the scientific community (not).

Re:they would say that, wouldn't they

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for your post.

I completely agree with everything and I do realize that climbing up to the top of the page is harder this way.

I do simply hope that mods will recognize a post with plenty of links that are at least informative/interesting and that they will kick it up despite it being posted anonymously.

Also, I've got this post stored in a text file and I'll throw it in every time it could be relevant.

There are indeed in many fields of investigation plenty of fakes and quacks; My approach is that of at least allowing the possibility of something possibly being true to enter my mind if it goes beyond someone with just an 'I think/believe' status. With other words: there's more than 1 free slot for each idea in my mind and it ain't a white/black world.

Just something like the people from the Disclosure Project, all with a solid military and/or scientific background, talking about UFO's is good enough for me not to dismiss everything out of hand from the start. This despite there being so many pranksters and morons playing with Thai balloons and lights.

Hmm

[LizardKing]

If this is anything like the last time a scientist tried finding the clitoris it could be a long wait.

Re:Hmm

[Yvan256]

LizardKing? From the Triton demogroup?

Re:Hmm

[LizardKing]

LizardKing? From the Triton demogroup?

I haven't the faintest idea what the Triton demogroup is, so unless it was a painful experience that medication has erased from my memory it would be a "no". The Lizard King nickname is because of my snakeskin tattoo. And in honour of Jim Morrison who shared similar tastes in leather strides - although I don't plan on dying in the bath following a strenuous wank.

Re:Hmm

[arekusu_ou]

That's because the scientists are of a demographics that have trouble finding female subjects to practice on, period. I'm sure it's a concept that Slashdotters can relate to.

Re:Hmm

[ginbot462]

Gotta admit though, could be worse. (Could have been in Cleveland for instance)

A request...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you guys down there do find it, let me know.
I must've dropped it on my trip to the other end of the multiverse. Thanks.

The Almighty

Even more interesting if they can't

[John Hasler]

The newsies will never understand this, but it would actually be more interesting and significant if both Fermilab and LHC fail to detect the Higgs.

Re:Even more interesting if they can't

[The_Wilschon]

Merely failing to detect it would not be terribly interesting (although a highly unlikely scenario). Actually ruling it out (very possible) is what would be tremendously interesting. Although, to be fair, most of the alternative theories are very similar at the end of the day, just with different decay and production signatures and such, so it might not be such a huge deal.

Re:Even more interesting if they can't

[John Hasler]

It might be just out of reach of Fermilab but if LHC can't find it i think significant revisions will be required.

Re:Even more interesting if they can't

[The_Wilschon]

You're still missing the distinction between failing to observe (because we don't have enough sensitivity), and having enough sensitivity to say it is definitely not there.

But even so, if it is not there as a standard model Higgs (what we're looking for), then it can still be there as a fermiophobic Higgs, or a SUSY Higgs, or a variety of other marginally different Higgs models. These other models all exhibit different decay products, different production mechanisms, different cross sections, even sometimes more Higgs particles (SUSY has 5 Higgs particles). Some of these are just different enough from the Standard Model that, although the Higgs would be there, even the LHC wouldn't have the sensitivity to see it, at least not very quickly. So we could rule out, or exclude, the Standard Model Higgs at all masses, and still not require enormous revisions to theory. OTOH, if we were to rule out the entire Higgs mechanism (not immediately sure how we could do that, or even if we could), regardless of variations to the model, then we'll have some pretty serious theory work to do.

Re:Even more interesting if they can't

[John Hasler]

> You're still missing the distinction between failing to observe (because we don't have
> enough sensitivity), and having enough sensitivity to say it is definitely not there.

But we do have enough sensitivity. The Standard Model predicts that LHC will find the Higgs.

Re:Even more interesting if they can't

[The_Wilschon]

True enough. I suppose I misunderstood you. From your first post, "fail to detect the Higgs" certainly sounds like what someone who confused an inconclusive result with a conclusive but negative result would say, but it seems you do get the (rather important) difference. My apologies for haranguing you.

Re:Even more interesting if they can't

[not-my-real-name]

What would be really interesting is if one lab would consistently detect it and the other would consistently fail to detect it.

Re:Even more interesting if they can't

[Anonymous Coward]

> You're still missing the distinction between failing to observe (because we don't have
> enough sensitivity), and having enough sensitivity to say it is definitely not there.

But we do have enough sensitivity. The Standard Model predicts that LHC will find the Higgs.

It does? How much data do ATLAS and CMS combined need to see a 3 sigma deviation from the background hypothesis if the SM Higgs has mass=115 GeV? You might be surprised...

It's Pretentious More Than Annoying

[BigFootApe]

Let's just stick to calling it the Higgs Boson. God Particle is just a meaningless snippet that the scientifically semi-literate have latched onto because it sounds cool.

Just like Theory of Everything, actually.

Re:It's Pretentious More Than Annoying

[arekusu_ou]

How can we hold the media covering the scientific information any different from the same ones covering business, IT, and celebrities? Yeah, odd grouping.

Forget the media, they just started it, try all the people using the latest buzz word without even knowing what it's suppose to mean.

Who's to blame or even stop this? The blind leading the way or the dumb following the blind?

Odds or Probability

[sternmath]

It appears they're confusing "odds" and "probability." It's uncommon to express "odds" as a percentage, but if it is in fact what they intended, 50:50 is very little different from 96:100, but 96:100 would be worse odds than 50:50, not better.

Re:Odds or Probability

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, yes, and thank you for the apt demonstration of what happens when the desire to nitpick notation exceeds the desire to communicate.

Did you fail to understand the intent? Either the notation was understandable, or it wasn't, which in the context of a BBC news article is all that really matters -- and which in something written by a "science reporter" is about all you can ask for. (Notational pedantry might be called for in a structured proof, or maybe even a scholarly journal article.) I'm betting just about everyone reading the summary grasped that Fermilab is claiming between a 50% and 96% chance that they will find it first.

The sentence in the summary (and TFA if anyone's counting) that spouts those numbers was almost certainly spliced together from two different quotes, possibly originating from different individuals at the lab.

But boy did you show us how smart you are!

Is it surprising to see...

[Anonymous Coward]

That the magnets that had problems were sold by the Fermilab to the CERN ?

Re:Is it surprising to see...

[edraven]

I was going to say I found the "buyamerican" tag amusing for that reason.

I thought the whole idea of the experiment was to

[Anonymous Coward]

Find the particle or not. Granted not finding it would suck as it might be very difficult to understand if it was a failure of the equipment or that the particle just doesn't exist.

If they do find it, well, then all that is left is to verify the results and start working technology that would exploit this new discovery. Plus the champagne of course. :)

Take that CERN

[hamburgler007]

USA! USA!

Fermilab could be bad for science here

[gplus]

It will harm science, if Fermilab finds the Higgs first!

Europe has invested a lot of taxpayer money in CERN. If the politicians doesn't get a feather in the hat, after this great investment. They might never want to make a big investment in science again.

The international science community should always aim to make the politicians look good in front of their taxpayers, when they invest in science. Not for the love of the politicians, but in the interest of scientific progress.

Individual vanity of scientists should take second place here. IMHO.

Re:Fermilab could be bad for science here

[CodeHog]

Isn't CERN being offline until Sep. (I did not RTFA) making itself look bad?

Re:Fermilab could be bad for science here

[gplus]

The point is, that it's in the interest of you and me and everybody, that the politicians continue to invest in scientific research.

The reason that fusion power has been 25 years away for half a century, and continue to be, is that the politicians don't want to invest serious money in research into it.

Re:Fermilab could be bad for science here

[CodeHog]

No arguement from me on that point. They just need to get their sh*t together, that will be a step in the right direction. Can't discover anything interesting if the system is down.

Re:Fermilab could be bad for science here

[Anonymous Coward]

It was known prior to the building of the LHC that there would be startup issues and delays. It would have been miraculous if everything had worked on the first get-go. You simply can't build something this massively complicated and not have initial problems.

Re:Fermilab could be bad for science here

[CodeHog]

Initial problems is one thing, having the system off-line (I'm assuming it's not usable) is an entirely different category. You can deal with some missing features and functionality but not having it working is unacceptable to most people.

Re:Fermilab could be bad for science here

[ardle]

If someone rich and well-connected politically were to go into the fusion business, the government would find it easier to extol its virtues and throw money in its general direction.
Example: giving billions to petrochemical companies so that they can make Hydrogen out of oil.
Unfortunately, I find it hard to imagine the world of business becoming interested in something like fusion, since Hydrogen is far to common: if anyone can get the raw materials for next-to nothing, there's no money in it. You can't control the market/price/mark-up (although bottled water companies are doing pretty well).

Boring

[PalmKiller]

"But don't forget, there is also a whole spectrum of physics to be investigated at the LHC which the Tevatron can never do." Yea the Tevatron is a lot more boring too, is not likely to make black holes that may or may not swallow itself and/or parts of the planet

You keep using that word.I do not think it means..

[denzacar]

...what you think it means.

Falsifiability: Which you don't have for mathematical axioms either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Go Fermi!

[CodeHog]

It only makes sense for God to show up in the USA. Just like aliens only visit it.

Re:Go Fermi!

[John Hasler]

> Just like aliens only visit [the USA].

Who's responsible for all those crop circles in the UK then?

Re:Go Fermi!

[CodeHog]

drunks?

Please stop calling it 'God Particle'

[Lawrence_Bird]

that has to rank as the all time most annoying monikers ever.

Quantum Diaries Survivor is perhaps the best blog on whats doing at Fermilab, though it is technically inclined, and is done by a member of CDF

Re:Please stop calling it 'God Particle'

[ceoyoyo]

Why is that? Would it be more or less annoying if it were called "the Easter Bunny Particle?"

another nice article

[mzs]

This is from the Symmetry magazine blog:

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2009/02/16/hunt-for-the-higgs-kicking-into-high-gear/

There is a lot of talk about this recently because of the AAAS meeting in Chicago. Also here is another neat article (not related):

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2009/02/16/a-first-string-theory-predicts-an-experimental-result/

So...

[Anonymous Coward]

So what are the odds that we're in the worst case compared to the best case? That's a bizarre way to state the odds.

why the Higgs boson is elusive

[viralMeme]

A good reason the Higgs boson is elusive, is that it don't exist ..

Actually you can.

[tjstork]

I think that the Standard Model has been so accurate that everyone sees this experiment as more of a validation. The theory predicts the Higgs lives at a certain range of energies, and from that they can look at the energies they can obtain, and figure out the probability of finding it. They make this assumption because they think the particle is already there. It might be entertaining though, if BOTH the Tevatron and the LHC do NOT find the Higgs particle. That would be the big surprise, as clearly the LHC can do it if they can get it to work, the Tevatron keeps nickel and diming its way closer.

Stimulus for you!

[tjstork]

Maybe we can get a chunk of the gov't stimulus package? ;)

I would be arguing that left and right. Democrats would enjoy the "scientific" discovery, and Republicans would love a shot at team USA beating the Europeans. It's a good kind of competition to have. I'd write a letter to the National Review, perhaps, saying that, "I know you conservatives think blowing billions of dollars on physics, but for a billion dollars you get a good shot at making the French look pretty stupid." They'd do that in a heartbeat.

They actually write that up...

[mengel]

If you look at the publications from 1995 about the Top Quark, for example, you'll find that they do their best to present the odds that it doesn't exist and they only thought they found it (i.e. that it was "background"), and other such permutations, in a detailed error analysis. In particular they point out in the abstract that "we observe a signal ... inconsistent with the background prediction by 4.8(sigma)"

PHYSICS

[Requiem18th]

You are doing it wrong
or right

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Fermilab say the odds of destroying all life as we know it as slight, no more than 1 in 1000.

When asked if this had any implications when running the operations a billion times a second the answer was: "No."

karma for sloppy construction

[peter303]

They are just asking for a financial "bailout" to achieve priority. If they were not so sloppy in the original design and construction, the LHC would have been operating last year.

Where the percentages come from

[snowwrestler]

I'm not a physicist. But I know that the Tevatron, since it is lower-energy than the LHC, relies on aggregating the data from many collisions to produce a data set in which to look for proof of the Higgs. In the article they said that they already have 8 collision events which seem to provide good hints that the Higgs does exist. Presumably they will need many more good hints and/or a lucky collision that produces direct proof.

There is not unlimited time--the actual quote was a 50% to 96% chance of finding the Higgs FIRST (before the LHC). It seems like this could be calculated by estimating (based on performance so far) how many tries it takes to produce an adequate data set and how long each try takes. Divide into the amount of time left until the LHC begins operating at full capacity and searching for the Higgs (The article says about two years).

Of course if the Higgs does not exist then neither cyclotron will find it and all bets are off.

What happens if they get it backwards?

[wtansill]

What if they find the SATAN particle instead?

Re:What happens if they get it backwards?

[not-my-real-name]

Years ago, I visited the visitor center at the Cape. Among the exhibits there was a Satan Tracking Antenna. So, it looks like they may be ahead of you.

50-50

[Anonymous Coward]

You Wish

Re:You keep using that word.I do not think it mean

[dotancohen]

Well, _I_ didn't introduce the word to the conversation, and with many English words I must guess their meaning by their apparent roots (which in this case correctly appeared to be "false" to me, even if the rest of the word's meaning eluded me). And no, I cannot possibly consult a dictionary or wikipedia each time I encounter a new word.

Lederman / goddamn particle

[cblack]

Quite likely a true story (often retold by Lederman and Higgs at least), it was supposedly Leon Lederman (of Fermilab) who coined the term goddamn (or "god") particle. He also has a book called The God Particle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Particle:_If_the_Universe_Is_the_Answer,_What_Is_the_Question

LHC

[EEGeek]

So basically we could say that if Fermilab finds the Higgs Boson, the Large Hardon Collider will remain flacid and unused?

It is __REALLY__ all about Objectivity and Educati

[Anonymous Coward]

Listening to CNN, and congressional debate makes me despair about American common sense,
there is endless pandering to the Religious Right, and to SUBJECTIVITY but little to educate about what really matters, good science, excellent critical education and ruthless objectivity.

Re:It's all about cash

Re:You keep using that word.I do not think it mean

[denzacar]

And no, I cannot possibly consult a dictionary or wikipedia each time I encounter a new word.

Not even those long ones?
And why not?
Does google charge for every search you make where you live?

It sure as hell takes less time to do that, than to make a slashdot comment.
An uninformed slashdot comment might I add.
You CAN add search engines (including dictionaries) to Firefox, you know?

Do you believe in miracles?!?

[wicka]

YES
USA USA USA

Some paranoic thoughts against collider

[HollyMolly-1122]

Why nobody was able to find any alien civilizations yet ? - That's because of there are black holes in place of them now.... For every small problem with collider smart scientists say: ohh, - we didn't account for that small issue. Keeping things this way, there could appear the moment when there are nobody left to say: ohh, - we didn't account for that small issue. 99% of population are delegating their future and safety to the remaining 1%. They also hope that this 1% knows all possible consequences. Isn't that scary ?

Some paranoic thoughts against collider

[HollyMolly-1122]

11HollyMolly11 Why nobody was able to find any alien civilizations yet ? - That's because of there are black holes in place of them now.... For every small problem with collider smart scientists say: ohh, - we didn't account for that small issue. Keeping things this way, there could appear the moment when there are nobody left to say: ohh, - we didn't account for that small issue. 99% of population are delegating their future and safety to the remaining 1%. They also hope that this 1% knows all possible consequences. Isn't that scary ?

Re:I thought the whole idea of the experiment was

[x2A]

exploited higgs bosons *lol* I can just imagine it now, loads of tiny particle with needles in their hands stitching trainers at 0.3c/hour... probably crying

Theon

[VomitInc]

Quite right. The real God particle should be called Theon.
And it will be the only hypothesized particle with two hypothesized antiparticles: the atheon and the Saton. Now there's a triplet to try and collide!

Probabilities

[jesser]

50-50 at worst, and up to 96% at best

What the heck does that mean?

Very Misleading Plot

[Roger W Moore]

Theory predicts that the Higgs exists. If the theory is correct, they feel that their experiment has a 50% to 96% chance of finding it.

We just had this presented in a conference yesterday by CDF and it seems to be based on an extremely misleading assumption. The plot they seem to refer to has been shown by CDF and shows the probability of seeing a 2 sigma signal in either 5 or 10fb-1 of data. Realistically the Tevatron could get 10fb-1 data before an LHC result (which will literally blow them out of the water). This prediction shows probabilities varying to as high as 96%.

However, what is very clearly NOT taken into account is that both D0 and CDF have looked at the first 3fb-1 of this eventual 10fb-1 dataset and seen nothing. Indeed the 96% probability lies in the region that the first 3fb-1 excludes the Higgs with a 95% CL. To illustrate the fallacy consider tossing a coin three times. If, before you toss it, you ask what is the probablility of getting 3 heads the answer is 12.5%. However after you have tossed it once and got a tail the probability drops to 0%. While the probability of the Tevatron seeing the Higgs has not dropped to zero the fact that they have found nothing in the first 3fb-1 means that the probability is much less that this plot suggests.

Re:Very Misleading Plot

[Smidge204]

I think I understand what you're saying (not really) but that analogy seems a little weird to me.

Instead of "what is the probability of getting 3 heads" isn't the question more like "what it the probability of getting at least one head?"

If there is a range you expect to find something, NOT finding it within a portion of that range does not seem to lower the probability of finding it as much as your analogy implies. But IANAP.
=Smidge=

Re:Very Misleading Plot

[Roger W Moore]

The analogy was meant to show that the probability of a finding something in a given dataset changes if you have already looked at the first third of that dataset. The actual pattern looked for is not relevant - the probability of finding it will almost always change once you have looked at some of the data.

It sure isn't Science...

[Anonymous Coward]

"CERN's Lyn Evans admitted the accident which will halt the $7B Large Hadron Collider until September may cost them one of the biggest prizes in physics."

Ah yes, it's all for "the prize".

Plenty of big ego's involved, but it's hardly "science".

They will not find the Higgs...

[Grog6]

...as long as they have their foremost competitor (Fermilab) making the magnets that keep "breaking".

Strange Coincidence, I'm sure.

I know why they call it the 'God' particle

[rfc1394]

Because once they find it, someone will notice the Giant Sucking Sound (as H. Ross Perot called it), look over and scream, "Oh God! It's a black hole! Run for your lives." Not that will do them any good, but...

Sabotage

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't Fermilab make the magnet that went wrong and damages the CERN accelerator? Isn't that just a little suspicious? Sabotage?

Re:You keep using that word.I do not think it mean

[dotancohen]

Not even for those. I am not so pedantic that I need to do that, and by experience I happen to get by. I am willing to accept a 0.1% failure rate.

The Hand of God

[Anonymous Coward]

There is always the possibility that God doesn't want his particle messed with. After all, how much trouble is it for him to cause a small misalignment in the magnets. God works in strange and mysterious ways, so they say. Are humans really advanced enough to be given the understanding of how a huge amount of matter springs into existence in a fraction of a second. It sounds like the ultimate weapon to me. You put a Higgs in a box with a detonator. You put the box where you want it, turn it on, and bang. Something tiny becomes huge in an instant, causing a shock wave of magnificent proportions. I mean, after all isn't that what a bomb does? Nothing could be more satisfying than your enemy having a "Big Bang", huh? Now of course we could ask, which country should have the honor of seeing this effect first. It could be very much like the atomic bomb... Or much stronger than expected. Aside from the loss of human life, which I would regret, how sad would I be to see the Swiss banks turned into Swiss cheese? I can see why the US Government wouldn't want the swiss to discover this first, but if the discovery comes at the cost of half a state, that could be considered expensive.