Slashdot Mirror


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."

8 of 397 comments (clear)

  1. How do you give odds for that? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:How do you give odds for that? by Smidge204 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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=

    2. Re:How do you give odds for that? by nappingcracker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
      --
      |plastic....or gasoline?|
  2. Can we stop calling it the "God Particle" yet? by cjfs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's annoying on so many levels.

  3. Re:race? by arndawg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Re:No by pz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --

    Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
  5. Re:race? by bockelboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!"

  6. Re:It's all about cash by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.