Slashdot Mirror


Rumors of Higgs Boson Discovery At LHC

Magnifico writes "LiveScience is reporting that scientists are abuzz over a controversial rumor that the 'God particle' has been detected by a particle-detection experiment at LHC at CERN. The Higgs boson rumor is based on what appears to be a leaked internal note from physicists at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), a 17-mile-long particle accelerator near Geneva, Switzerland. It's not entirely clear at this point if the memo is authentic... The buzz started when an anonymous commenter recently posted an abstract of the note on Columbia University mathematician Peter Woit's blog, Not Even Wrong. This could be a flat-out hoax or a statistical anomaly or... confirmation of the particle that bestows mass on all the other particles."

225 comments

  1. Higgs boson has arisen? by 3seas · · Score: 3, Funny

    It is easter..... and it is a rumor too!

    1. Re:Higgs boson has arisen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, they've just discovered the easter bunny, and he's pissed: http://inthenameofmovies.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/500full-donnie-darko-poster.jpg

    2. Re:Higgs boson has arisen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is easter...

      Happy Zombie Jesus day to you too...

    3. Re:Higgs boson has arisen? by Arancaytar · · Score: 4, Funny

      An Easter higg, in other words?

    4. Re:Higgs boson has arisen? by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      ...that or an Eggs Boson Particle. :p

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    5. Re:Higgs boson has arisen? by AJWM · · Score: 5, Funny

      Happy Zombie Jesus day to you too...

      Not zombie, vampire.

      Consider: a good reason to dislike crosses, drinking from the Holy Grail (which contained Christ's blood) confers immortality, and the very phrase "this is my blood you drink".

      I mean, it's obvious.

      That and the whole Romans vs Christians thing. Rome was founded by Romulus and Remus, who were raised by a wolf. It's clearly the whole werewolves vs vampires feud.

      --
      -- Alastair
    6. Re:Higgs boson has arisen? by geminidomino · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh dear gods... As if it wasn't bad enough, you've just connected Christianity with Twilight. You just halved my IQ and I'll never forgive you.

    7. Re:Higgs boson has arisen? by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 2

      Jesus even sparkles in the sunlight.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    8. Re:Higgs boson has arisen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just halved my IQ and I'll never forgive you.

      Why? It's not as though the average Joe on the street can distinguish between a moron and an imbecile.

    9. Re:Higgs boson has arisen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just what I was about to say. Anyone can start a rumor, like so: "it's been rumored that there's a Higgs Boson in the box"

    10. Re:Higgs boson has arisen? by numbski · · Score: 1

      I've never read or seen any of Twilight. Methinks your IQ was already halved for having recognized the connection.

      --

      Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).

    11. Re:Higgs boson has arisen? by TheCRAIGGERS · · Score: 1

      I've never read or seen any of it, either. But I have talked to a girl in the last two years, which is about all it takes to having a passing knowledge of the Twilight saga methinks.

    12. Re:Higgs boson has arisen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tangentally, related but important. The term "God particle" is the most cynical term in science. I hate everyone who uses it. Basically it was applied to a book (partly against the wishes of the author) because they knew it would sell more copies. It's pathetic that this term still gets used and a disservice to Peter Higgs.

    13. Re:Higgs boson has arisen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. Team Edward is posting on slashdot now?

  2. time to get the crowbars out! by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 2, Informative

    crowbar

    1. Re:time to get the crowbars out! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      crowbar

  3. is it ok... by underqualified · · Score: 2

    to make hard-on jokes again?

    1. Re:is it ok... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's damned funny.

    2. Re:is it ok... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hilarious!

  4. Can't be by The_Wilschon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If this is what I was hearing about at work on Friday (I'm a particle physicist), then it can't be the Higgs. The rate of production is too high by a factor of 40.

    --
    SIGSEGV caught, terminating

    wait... not that kind of sig.
    1. Re:Can't be by Mikkeles · · Score: 2

      It's a miracle!

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    2. Re:Can't be by outsider007 · · Score: 1

      No it's witchcraft!

      --
      If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
    3. Re:Can't be by Sique · · Score: 1

      So it's probably a heavier reincarnation of Deuterium with 60 times the mass :)

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    4. Re:Can't be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Somehow it's Obama's fault...

    5. Re:Can't be by TheDarkPassenger · · Score: 4, Funny

      Does it weigh more than a duck?

    6. Re:Can't be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps the theory is wrong? It has been know to happen.

    7. Re:Can't be by fast+turtle · · Score: 1

      Wrong. It's Trumps Fault for false advertising

      --
      Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
    8. Re:Can't be by rubycodez · · Score: 4, Funny

      it has one duck-mass, neutral buoyancy, comprised of three quacks which break echo symmetry, and decays by moulting.

    9. Re:Can't be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what is it with you Ruby folk and your damned duck typing

    10. Re:Can't be by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      Well, if the theory is wrong, then something else is right, and this still isn't the Higgs, but something else instead.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    11. Re:Can't be by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      it's tastier than Python or Camel meat

    12. Re:Can't be by c0mpliant · · Score: 1

      So if the Higgs boson weighs as much as wood... it's a witch?

      --
      There is no -1 disagree
    13. Re:Can't be by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      better to do "Pit and the Pendulum" (1990) test where the Inquisitor just *has* to order hot, hot Rona De Ricci stripped naked to look for witchcraft markings

    14. Re:Can't be by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      i.e. see if she has "a third nipple, where Satan sucks"

    15. Re:Can't be by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

      40? I would have thought >60..+/-

      --
      I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
    16. Re:Can't be by Palmsie · · Score: 1

      The rate of production is too high by a factor of 40.

      What does this mean? Genuinely curious.

      --
      Carl Sagan quotes get you an automatic +5 on all posts.
    17. Re:Can't be by Werthless5 · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's only too high by a factor of 30

      And this does not mean that it is not a Higgs particle; it only means that it is not the Higgs boson predicted by the Standard Model

    18. Re:Can't be by InfoJunkie777 · · Score: 0

      U should b getting an upgrade for funny or even creativity.

      --
      Don't explain computers to laymen. Simpler to explain sex to a virgin. -- Robert A. Heinlein
    19. Re:Can't be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, it is the Higgs and the model is flawed which would be even better !

    20. Re:Can't be by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Just in time for Easter.

      Christ wasn't resurrected in a day you know.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    21. Re:Can't be by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      It could be sound or unsound, it could never be right or wrong.

      That's the problem with theories.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    22. Re:Can't be by mldi · · Score: 1

      Maybe in this dimension.

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
    23. Re:Can't be by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      that's the problem with right and wrong.... It could just be in other dimensions I suppose.

      right, wrong, right and wrong.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  5. get ready for anti gravity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    with knowing how such a particle works one could rmeove gravity from other particle thus really doing neat things with stuff.

    1. Re:get ready for anti gravity by Locutus · · Score: 1

      not if it gets patented and that gets into the hands of the oil industry or maybe the tire industry. I can see it now, an auditorium full of lawyers working on the patent and another one full of lawyers documenting ways to prevent its use.

      LoB

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
    2. Re:get ready for anti gravity by InterStellaArtois · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. Now we have a juicy rumor the Higgs Boson truly exists, we can harness it any way we want.

      Anyway, be careful ... I like gravity in my morning cereal.

  6. It's little more than speculation by ndogg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This isn't the first time this has happened. I don't know why this particular event is getting so much attention.

    That said, one of the things that's exciting about this is that they are detecting it at higher energies than were expected by the Standard Model, which would mean that a few laws of physics might have to be rewritten. I love it when that happens. It's so boring when everything just falls into place where expected.

    Oh, by the way, the new season of Doctor Who. There was something I wanted to mention about it. I just can't remember what it was. It's like on the tip of my tongue.

    --
    // file: mice.h
    #include "frickin_lasers.h"
    1. Re:It's little more than speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amy Pond is hawt!

    2. Re:It's little more than speculation by jpapon · · Score: 1

      Meh, she's at best a 7.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    3. Re:It's little more than speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      RTFAbstract, it says 115 GeV, which is perfect for the SM. It is just above the exclusion Limit set by LEP2

      The big difference to the SM is the rate, which is much higher than expected, and thus would mean, there is a heavy BSM particle involved in the decay.

    4. Re:It's little more than speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is /. If it moves then it's good enough for us.

    5. Re:It's little more than speculation by Bloody+Peasant · · Score: 2

      Meh, she's at best a 7.

      ... of 9?

      --
      -- This .sig intentionally left meaningless.
    6. Re:It's little more than speculation by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This isn't the first time this has happened. I don't know why this particular event is getting so much attention.

      Because the LHC has been created, and funded, largely by "selling" the Higgs as a super-special "God particle".

      In fact it's nothing at all different than any one of the other particles in the standard model that were predicted and later found. Well, one difference, there are no other particles left in the SM, so if you want to have a job, you have to make sure someone thinks it's worth spending a few billion on.

    7. Re:It's little more than speculation by Candid88 · · Score: 2

      If you have a better idea for determining the structure of the universe then please let us hear it.

    8. Re:It's little more than speculation by newcastlejon · · Score: 2

      We are Boorg, Ye cannae resist!

      It just doesn't sound right...

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    9. Re:It's little more than speculation by Rising+Ape · · Score: 2

      The LHC isn't intended to specifically investigate the standard model, though.

    10. Re:It's little more than speculation by AntiDoto · · Score: 1, Troll

      If you have a better idea for determining the structure of the universe then please let us hear it.

      How about this?

    11. Re:It's little more than speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This numbered rating shit by men needs to stop.

      Next you'll be asking us to come over for a pyjama party to criticised her looks in detail.

      There's only one rating system that's right and proper for men to use:

      [ ] Would

      [ ] Would not

    12. Re:It's little more than speculation by Thiez · · Score: 1

      Assuming we all believe that book is completely reliable and true, it still doesn't tell us anything about how the universe works. Surely even the most devout Christian would have to admit that when it comes to examining the building blocks of the (physical) universe, a particle accelerator such as the LHC is more useful than a bible?

    13. Re:It's little more than speculation by Livius · · Score: 2

      "heavy BSM" makes me think "Bowling Spaghetti Monster", but I'm guessing it's actually some physicist jargon.

    14. Re:It's little more than speculation by Sique · · Score: 1

      The Bible does not contain a single word about the structure of the Universe. It just assumes that the Universe is there, and we will find out how it works by looking at it.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    15. Re:It's little more than speculation by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

      I assume the grandparent of this post was written to point out, through the use of irony, how there really are no viable alternatives.

    16. Re:It's little more than speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      BSM stands for Beyond the Standard Model.

    17. Re:It's little more than speculation by Thiez · · Score: 1

      That seems rather redundant, given that the post he replied to made the exact same point.

    18. Re:It's little more than speculation by icebraining · · Score: 2

      Because the LHC has been created, and funded, largely by "selling" the Higgs as a super-special "God particle".

      Was it? From what I can tell that's only how the media presented the LHC after it was almost/already built. As far as I could find, the news about the budget approvals in '97 don't even mention the Higgs, but other experiments.

    19. Re:It's little more than speculation by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      no, that rating system is too coarse. there are much finer graduations possible such as

      [] would if a bag was over her head
      [] would drink her bath water
      [] would scare a hound dog off a meat truck

    20. Re:It's little more than speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "heavy BSM" makes me think "Bowling Spaghetti Monster", but I'm guessing it's actually some physicist jargon.

      Is there a light SM?

    21. Re:It's little more than speculation by sjames · · Score: 1

      String theory is passé, it's all noodle theory now.

    22. Re:It's little more than speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Uh, turtles, duh?

    23. Re:It's little more than speculation by sjames · · Score: 1

      They could have built it in the U.S. as long as they added a magnetized shaving mirror so they could shoot down Russian^WChinese^WNorth Korean^W^Wterrorist spy satellites.

    24. Re:It's little more than speculation by AntiDoto · · Score: 1

      It was an attempt at humor, perhaps I shouldn't quit my day job just yet.

    25. Re:It's little more than speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, she's best at 11 PM. Or at even later (adult) programming.

    26. Re:It's little more than speculation by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Nah, you need to allow for uncertainty. Use the blackjack scale.

    27. Re:It's little more than speculation by Werthless5 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's the first time that such a clear Higgs result has been found. This case is interesting for a few reasons

      1) It's in the mass-range that was excluded by LEP and Fermilab
      2) The cross section is ~30x higher than the Standard Model prediction
      3) It was produced as an internal communication (ie it was posted Wednesday so that the ATLAS Higgs group could look at it), but then ATLAS physicists posted and talked about by ATLAS physicists in departments around the country and on blogs around the internet. This indicates that all of the secrecy and careful step-by-step approval processes in order to prevent embarrassing false-positives is meaningless; if there's a really exciting bump in the data, then physicists will want to talk about it before all of the details have been checked over by other experts. This is both good and bad; it's good because these are scientists who are clearly very interested in their craft, but it's bad because now if the paper turns out to be wrong then it's going to make the entire ATLAS Collaboration look bad because the information was not meant to be shown publicly yet (ie if there's a mistake in some code somewhere and it gets caught during the coming weeks of review before the paper is even approved for internal ATLAS distribution, and months before it's approved for public consumption, then the ATLAS conveners will look stupid simply because a lot of scientists got a little too excited and jumped the gun)

    28. Re:It's little more than speculation by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      Time for you guys to get laid. Here's the line - "When I fuck I'm not an intellectual."

    29. Re:It's little more than speculation by SloWave · · Score: 0

      Actually, you can take your pick if you just want to believe in something without caring if it is verifiable. Choose one that makes you feel good.

    30. Re:It's little more than speculation by siglercm · · Score: 1

      +1, IN SPADES.

      Someone with mod points, *please* mod parent up :)

      --
      sigfault (core dumped)
    31. Re:It's little more than speculation by matunos · · Score: 1

      MAGIC MAN DONE IT!

    32. Re:It's little more than speculation by johanw · · Score: 1

      US shot down the SSC project. :-( That could have been an even more powerfull accelerator.

    33. Re:It's little more than speculation by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      " if the paper turns out to be wrong then it's going to make the entire ATLAS Collaboration look bad"

      Who cares about looks? Only shallow ppl. If you ignore them, they'll have to find some other way to get attention than focussing so much on looks all the time.

    34. Re:It's little more than speculation by sjames · · Score: 1

      That's exactly why you have to bolt on some sort of very expensive and totally impractical military application.

    35. Re:It's little more than speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If the rate production is too low, then it would not yet be observed since they have not yet accumulated enough luminosity to see the Higgs anyways. But you are right, this is clearly speculation, ATLAS is probably pretty perturbed that something like this was leaked to the media. From my sources, the person in charge of this analysis, is just carrying over an analysis from LEP where they tried to claim the same thing. Looking to see what happens, but I am confident that this isn't much.

    36. Re:It's little more than speculation by Dracophile · · Score: 1

      I don't know why this particular event is getting so much attention.

      Well, it is the "god particle", you know. Once it is discovered -- I guess "revealed" is a better word for this one -- once it is revealed, it will be the trumpet call of the Lord or some such bullshit.

      Seriously, Leon Lederman made a big mistake with that book title. (No, I don't like "champagne bottle boson", either, and I'm surprised that the French haven't sued someone over it anyway.)

      --
      Athy, athier, athiest.
    37. Re:It's little more than speculation by Alomex · · Score: 1

      It's a huge waste of money: too much capital for too little in return. This kind of money would have been enough to give a job to every unemployed PhD in physics out there for life.I bet way more results would have come out of that group (including a cheaper way to detect the so far elusive Higgs Boson) than we will ever learn from the LHC, boson or no boson.

    38. Re:It's little more than speculation by Werthless5 · · Score: 1

      Do you actually know how much the LHC costs per year?

    39. Re:It's little more than speculation by InfoJunkie777 · · Score: 1

      I too love it when the "Standard Model" gets broken. It is held together by duct tape and Gorilla Glue as it is. Too many particles with no explanation why they should have this mass or spin, or whatever. No predictions, just observations. Like M-Theory better, but understand it is weak these days as well. That being said, I hope the physicists eventually DO come up with a new theory of Everything. BTW ... LOVE your sig!

      --
      Don't explain computers to laymen. Simpler to explain sex to a virgin. -- Robert A. Heinlein
    40. Re:It's little more than speculation by elsurexiste · · Score: 1

      "Heavy BSM"?

      I guess my mind is corrupt...

      --
      I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
    41. Re:It's little more than speculation by Alomex · · Score: 1

      I know how much it cost to build: $9 billion. At an average cost of $140K per physicist (including benefits) this is enough to hire 1,800 physics PhDs.

    42. Re:It's little more than speculation by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Too many particles with no explanation why they should have this mass or spin, or whatever. No predictions, just observations.

      You cannot explain the fundemental building blocks of the universe, if you could then they wouldn't be the fundemental building blocks. Also if the Higgs is not a prediction, then what is it?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    43. Re:It's little more than speculation by lennier · · Score: 1

      I know how much it cost to build: $9 billion. At an average cost of $140K per physicist (including benefits) this is enough to hire 1,800 physics PhDs.

      $9 billion for pure science? Wow, that's a lot of money!

      That would be - well - almost enough to clean up one commercial nuclear power plant accident.

      Not that anyone's counting or anything.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    44. Re:It's little more than speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact it's nothing at all different than any one of the other particles in the standard model that were predicted and later found. Well, one difference, there are no other particles left in the SM ...

      Aside from you implying that experimental evidence is not profoundly important to the advancement of science, I disagree with your statement that it is the last particle left in the standard model. If I understand this topic correctly (based on simplified descriptions) the LHC can also possibly prove the existance of super-symmetry particles, although this is less likely than it finding the Higgs.

    45. Re:It's little more than speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you mean outside the mass-range that was excluded?

    46. Re:It's little more than speculation by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      You mean less than half the scientists working in Vienna alone? And 140k per scientist is totally useless if they don't have the tools to do stuff. 140K won't buy you much in the way of instrumentation in any field.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    47. Re:It's little more than speculation by Rysc · · Score: 1

      Perception affects funding. If you care about the experiment you should care about how it looks.

      --
      I want my Cowboyneal
    48. Re:It's little more than speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's impossible to keep such rumor from spreading. While Atlas has nothing to do with the leak officially, so they don't care if it turns out wrong. I will wait for the official news though, no doubt it will be done very fast.

    49. Re:It's little more than speculation by Alomex · · Score: 1

      You are confused. I never questioned the fact that the money was allocated to science. The questions is to what specific program in science. I think the choice was a bad one.

    50. Re:It's little more than speculation by Alomex · · Score: 1

      I mean the equivalent of 18 top notch physics departments.They would be presumably be attached to existing laboratories with the mandate of designing better experiments that can be tested more cheaply.

    51. Re:It's little more than speculation by tqk · · Score: 1

      ... if the paper turns out to be wrong then it's going to make the entire ATLAS Collaboration look bad

      Who cares about looks? Only shallow ppl.

      At the pedestrian level of you and I, I agree. However, those getting the funding and those providing the funding very much do need to care about looks (these days, the buzz word is "optics"). A lot of prestige is on the line, and a lot of promises have been made.

      Remember the SSC?

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    52. Re:It's little more than speculation by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      You know that there are people working on the more cheaply thing--even at CERN. There are real physically limits to what you can do and with what. The LHC is at those limits with todays technology. We are not in fact as stupid as you seem to think we are.

      Incidentally more than 18 top notch physics department are involved and benefit from the LHC.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    53. Re:It's little more than speculation by pclminion · · Score: 1

      Because the LHC has been created, and funded, largely by "selling" the Higgs as a super-special "God particle". In fact it's nothing at all different than any one of the other particles in the standard model that were predicted and later found.

      You see no value in proving the ultimate correctness or incorrectness of the entire Standard Model of physics? Do you want to sit back and say "Well, we've been right so far, so why dig deeper?" It doesn't matter to you whether we're completely wrong about everything?

    54. Re:It's little more than speculation by bobzieruncle · · Score: 1

      And isn't anything "Beyond the Standard Model" very likely caused by our Benevolent Spaghetti Monster? :D

    55. Re:It's little more than speculation by bostongraf · · Score: 0

      If you have a better idea for determining the structure of the universe then please let us hear it.

      How about this?

      He said better, not cuter.

    56. Re:It's little more than speculation by mldi · · Score: 1

      Cuter? Jeepers. I've never read a horror that's given me so many nightmares before!

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
    57. Re:It's little more than speculation by mldi · · Score: 1

      M-theory provides even less as far as falsifiable predictions goes, doesn't it?

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
    58. Re:It's little more than speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      M-theory provides even less as far as falsifiable predictions goes, doesn't it?

      As I said in my post, M-Theory is not much better except is DOES have a "theory of everything" but cannot be proven true or false - it is correct what you say.

    59. Re:It's little more than speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too many particles with no explanation why they should have this mass or spin, or whatever. No predictions, just observations.

      You cannot explain the fundemental building blocks of the universe, if you could then they wouldn't be the fundemental building blocks. Also if the Higgs is not a prediction, then what is it?

      I guess I spoke with too little knowledge. Lots of Standard Model apologists out there, from what I see. I see no reason fundamental building blocks could not be explained, but will view the youtube video and see.

  7. Non news by JamesP · · Score: 1

    Let's at least wait for the darn thing to be published.

    And knowing how things go in scientific circles it will probably go like this:

    Tevatron publishes a 3ð experiment and later refines it to 5ð "controversial, nothing, fluke"
    LHC publishes a 3ð experiment that may be Higgs but with wrong mass, charge and color: "OMG Higgs was discovered"

    --
    how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    1. Re:Non news by JamesP · · Score: 1

      Ok, darn I mean not ð

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    2. Re:Non news by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Heh, you didn't think you could use the sigma sign on slashdot did you? News for nerds, where scientific notation is frowned upon.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:Non news by JamesP · · Score: 1

      Yeah, maybe we have to write it in Latex notation: \sigma

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    4. Re:Non news by jamesh · · Score: 1

      They've tried this trick with political policy... "lets leak some possible future policies and see what the reaction is...". Now the scientists are at it too!

    5. Re:Non news by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Nah, if it was possible you'd use the HTML entity. Many are allowed, just not that one. Examples:

      &gt: >
      &lt: <
      &aelig: æ
      &oslash: ø
      &aring: å

      However:
      &sigma:

      In fact, none of the greek letters will work. Or pretty much anything else from maths etc.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    6. Re:Non news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need various funky letters because our conversations are perforce embedded in human languages, some of which need those.

      But when you get talking tech, remember: News for nerds, stuff that's ASCII.

  8. Nah it's just by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's just a "Budgeton". these things appear whenever funding gets shaky.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Nah it's just by Sla$hPot · · Score: 1, Troll

      You got it!
      The greater the economical pressure the heavier the budgeton.
      When the economy heats up again the budgeton vaporizes and new theories arises. It repeats it self as a circular wave funtion. As it moves it creates randomness on the worlds stock exchanges. However it does not obey schrödinger uncertainty principle. Insiders know about this.

    2. Re:Nah it's just by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Yep. Of course. All scientists are in for the FUNDING. Because doing pure science pays the bills so well.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    3. Re:Nah it's just by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 0, Troll

      Third rate physics PhD, eh? Feeling high and mighty because you passes computer "science" 101? Join up with the creationists, they are around your intellectual level. Seriously, that's what passes for the nerd community these days? Revolting.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    4. Re:Nah it's just by lightknight · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yes, third rate physics PhDs. Plenty of them out there. If you read published papers, you will see a lot of them. It's not just spelling and grammar errors, which can easily be forgiven (they aren't English majors). It's crap research: they are plagiarizing someone else's work and passing it off as their own, they are performing experiments and fudging the results, they are performing experiments that could be considered fraudulent (grant is to study gravitational lensing, money gets spent on other things (like a trip to Vegas), actual research involves spending a day sifting through stock photos from an eclipse).

      I have never taken Computer Science 101. But hey, nice attempt at shifting the conversation to a personal attack.

      Creationists? On a bit of a fishing expedition here, aren't you?

      And then you attack /. Excellent. I can tell from your UID that you've haven't been on the internet very long, so here's some free advice: not everyone on the internet is going to agree with you, and it's not personal. Here's a *hug* because your parents forgot to give you one.

      Now get back out there, and troll as you have never trolled before!

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    5. Re:Nah it's just by Angostura · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ... most of those scientists could afford their own labs. Not because they had a lab, then discovered something, but because they discovered something, then bought a lab with the proceeds from that discovery.

      Actually, I think you'll find that many, perhaps most of those scientists were actually either independently wealthy gentry who pursued science as a gentlemanly hobby, or were lucky enough to have wealthy patrons.

  9. MASS EFFECT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So basically if we discover the particle that gives mass, then we figure out how to manipulate the particle that gives mass, does that mean we get mass effect drives? Because that would be AWESOME.

    1. Re:MASS EFFECT! by OolimPhon · · Score: 1

      So basically if we discover the particle that gives mass, then we figure out how to manipulate the particle that gives mass, does that mean we get mass effect drives? Because that would be AWESOME.

      Yup. Unfortunately, your spaceship has to be 17 miles in diameter...

    2. Re:MASS EFFECT! by tqk · · Score: 1

      Yup. Unfortunately, your spaceship has to be 17 miles in diameter...

      Cue obligatory Death Star drivel ...

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
  10. Please stop with the 'god particle' ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously....

    1. Re:Please stop with the 'god particle' ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if it were to be found on Easter, then it would be proof that God created everything!

  11. More detail for non-scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Higgs-Boson is a predicted but until now unobserved particle (entity smaller than an atom) that is expected to have high mass.

    The problem is that detection of this particle is very costly, involving a particle accelerator the length of nearly 35 football fields and a matching scale beneath it. Other particles are crammed together with great force many times per second using this accelerator, and if a heavy Higgs-Boson particle is created, the building weighs a little more than normally expected for a short time.

    As you might have guessed, any sort of event that causes things to weigh slightly more or less, such as tectonic plate movement, tidal forces, or the rising of the sun must be anticipated and corrected for lest the system produces a false positive. A false positive is an ion (or particle) that looks positive at first, but is actually not. This leads to the occasional and premature celebration of the discovery of the Higgs-Boson, which is why this story is currently considered a rumor.

    1. Re:More detail for non-scientists by FeepingCreature · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Beautiful. They should have hired you for Look Around You S2.

    2. Re:More detail for non-scientists by bunratty · · Score: 1

      Can't tell if you're a troll or just misinformed. In any case, the story about how we detect it by whether is causes things to get heavier is BS. We detect it like any other heavy, short-lived particle -- by examining the particles that it decays into.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    3. Re:More detail for non-scientists by Dracophile · · Score: 1

      The problem is that detection of this particle is very costly, involving a particle accelerator the length of nearly 35 football fields and a matching scale beneath it.

      Are those imperial football fields or metric football fields? It's hard to convert to Libraries of Congress without knowing.

      --
      Athy, athier, athiest.
    4. Re:More detail for non-scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a particle accelerator the length of nearly 35 football fields

      It's quite a bit longer than that, in fact it is 27 km long (nearly 17 miles). See [url http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lhc]wikipedia[/url]

  12. Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the year 2011, scientists at Switzerland discovered the remains of an ancient particle. In the decades that followed, these mysterious particles revealed startling new technologies, enabling travel to the furthest stars. The basis for this incredible technology was a force that controlled the very fabric of space and time. They called it the greatest discovery in human history. The civilizations of the galaxy call it... MASS EFFECT.

    1. Re:Hmm by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      NOT! Everyone knows the Sol system mass relay will be detected by a Nasa probe in 2039 when they finally go and take a look at Pluto and discover it's moon is not a natural formation but some kind of alien device encased in a ball of dirty ice.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  13. Wired article by philj · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here's a Wired article about the rumoured Higgs sighting: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/04/higgs-rumor/

    1. Re:Wired article by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      What a coincidence! That's just down the street from a 7-11 where there was a rumored Elvis sighting on the same day!

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    2. Re:Wired article by tqk · · Score: 1

      .sig:

      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.

      Er, all magic is insufficiently advanced. You're saying technology is indistinguishable from magic, in that neither of them ever work?

      My tech works great. You're doin' it wrong. Can I have your job?

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
  14. Higgs discovery is the long awaited blockbuster. by JoeThoughtful · · Score: 5, Funny

    Strange how such a small rumor has so quickly acquired such large mass.

  15. Stop Calling it "The God Particle" by Nailer235 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Discovering the Higgs Boson would be a huge confirmation of the Standard Model, but it seems like the only reason popular culture cares about it is because of its stupid nickname. Can we just agree to stop calling it "The God Particle?"

    1. Re:Stop Calling it "The God Particle" by heptapod · · Score: 5, Funny

      Indeed, it's just the Jesus Particle. It decayed for your sins and on the third day became Americanium 237.

    2. Re:Stop Calling it "The God Particle" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are offended by other people being offended, why don't you just ... ahhh, crap... I got nothing

    3. Re:Stop Calling it "The God Particle" by Kreigaffe · · Score: 2

      Holy fuck, settle down. Get the stick out of your ass.

      It's not that god is an offensive label, it's simply that it's a misleading label. There's nothing godly about the higgs-boson. Calling it the god particle is really little different than calling coffee the god drink. Yeah, not a whole lot of justification for it, is there? Go crawl back under your rock. You don't even understand why it was mislabeled the god particle in the first place, nor why the label is misleading, not even what any of this even means. You just heard someone say something less than positive about something labeled "god" and got fucking self-righteously offended. Fucking pathetic.

      I'm going to start calling my car the God Vehicle, AND IF YOU DISAGREE YOU ARE NAUGHT BUT A GODLESS WRETCH AND I WILL SMITE YOU WITH MY HOLY CONVEYANCE.

      Please. Get the fuck out.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    4. Re:Stop Calling it "The God Particle" by Sein · · Score: 2

      Leon Lederman started out calling it "The goddamned particle" but his editor wouldn't let him so it got shortened to the "god particle" : http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/jun/30/higgs.boson.cern and the media then ran with it ;)

    5. Re:Stop Calling it "The God Particle" by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 2

      But it is proof of the existence of an un-seen all powerful being who cares enough about our individual ant like lives to bestow special dispensations upon us just for asking... and he tests our faith in him by repeatedly ignoring our righteous worship and punishing us with natural disasters.

      The scientists said so... it is called the God Particle after all.

    6. Re:Stop Calling it "The God Particle" by SquirrelDeth · · Score: 0

      Well at least I don't resort to threatening people. Threatening to "smite" someone with your automobile is most likely a criminal offense where you live. So please put the stick back in your ass so you can stop spewing your diarrhea everywhere.

    7. Re:Stop Calling it "The God Particle" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well you are at it, learn to spell, godtard.

    8. Re:Stop Calling it "The God Particle" by ukemike · · Score: 1

      Discovering the Higgs Boson would be a huge confirmation of the Standard Model, but it seems like the only reason popular culture cares about it is because of its stupid nickname. Can we just agree to stop calling it "The God Particle?"

      Actually it's much more simple and innocent than than. The LHC was built to find the Higgs Boson. It's the biggest, most powerful, fastest, and most costly physics experiment EVAR! We (popular culture) love a success story. We love the drama of rumored success and possible abject failure. It's the drama that is exciting. Among the better educated non-physicists we are also aware that the existence of the HB would be a big confirmation of the current theory, and the absence will be a huge puzzle. How could we not be hanging on the edges of our seats. Give people a little credit.

      --
      -- QED
    9. Re:Stop Calling it "The God Particle" by Kilrah_il · · Score: 2

      It's even worse: some religious nuts are against the LHC, because they think that the point of finding the Higgs boson is to prove/disprove the existence of God (hence, "The God particle"). It's stupid and shifts the spotlight from the actual cool science they are doing.

      --
      Whenever in an argument, remember this.
    10. Re:Stop Calling it "The God Particle" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would that not become Judasium?

    11. Re:Stop Calling it "The God Particle" by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

      Riiiight. because the religious nuts who are against the LHC because it's trying to prove/disprove the existence of God would be fascinated by the "cool science" if we just called the particle something else.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    12. Re:Stop Calling it "The God Particle" by JamesP · · Score: 4, Funny

      Let's call it the HFCS particle, since it makes everything heavy...

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    13. Re:Stop Calling it "The God Particle" by sznupi · · Score: 1

      I'm offended by you implying that the evil supreme being I worship - and, in truth, vast majority of humans / the Demiurge (and more: revelations in zima post, faster to link that way ;p ) just keeps them in the darkness, for its own means - isn't a god.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    14. Re:Stop Calling it "The God Particle" by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      The Satan Particle.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    15. Re:Stop Calling it "The God Particle" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Goddamn Particle. The name got shortened for PC reasons.

    16. Re:Stop Calling it "The God Particle" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer the "demiurge Particle", because, y'know, it might be composed of even smaller and more fundamental particles...

    17. Re:Stop Calling it "The God Particle" by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Coffee is not a god drink....

      a good Mead or beer, now that's a drink of the gods.... but certainly not coffee. Even a really good coffee.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    18. Re:Stop Calling it "The God Particle" by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      So the Cthulhu particle then?

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    19. Re:Stop Calling it "The God Particle" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are as insightful as a steaming pile of turds. Blow it out your ass douche bag.

    20. Re:Stop Calling it "The God Particle" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You didn't watch the commercial? It's called corn sugar now, dextrose be damned.

    21. Re:Stop Calling it "The God Particle" by poly_pusher · · Score: 1

      I agree that the term is abused.

      Don't forget, science IS cool and it's just very difficult to convey that to the average person. If calling the Higgs "The God Particle" piques some kids interest because it sounds really cool then I have no problem with it. If it causes someboody to say "what do you mean god particle?" Then I am all for it.

      It attracts attention to something I am very happy the general public is now aware of.

    22. Re:Stop Calling it "The God Particle" by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Actually it's much more simple and innocent than than. The LHC was built to find the Higgs Boson. It's the biggest, most powerful, fastest, and most costly physics experiment EVAR! We (popular culture) love a success story.

      This isn't true, except for the part about popular culture. The rest is a reflection of how popular culture builds myths around science. The LHC wasn't "built to find the Higgs Boson", and indeed would go down in history as a much more spectacularly successful experiment if it in fact falsified the theory of the Higgs. Finding the Higgs exactly where we expected it, with nothing else interesting about it, would be the worst possible result. Not that that would be bad, mind you -- anything that expands our knowledge and understanding is good. It's just, from the point of view of a scientist, the least good result, and would be a bit of a disappointment when you consider the much more exciting possible results.

      We built accelerators because they have, in the past, revealed new particles and things about the way the universe works. The most spectacularly successful experiments of this sort have been the ones that found things we weren't even looking for. If you really think the LHC was built to find the Higgs, you have a heck of a lot to learn about experimental physics. As Isaac Asimov once noted, the most exciting phrase to hear in science is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "Huh... that's funny..."

      If the LHC finds the Higgs, exactly as predicted, and nothing else, it'll have been one of the most spectacularly lame experiments in history... not entirely useless, but... very disappointing in any case.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    23. Re:Stop Calling it "The God Particle" by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Prometheus Particle. He's even related, to the symbolic representation of Satan. People in question will find a reason to rally against things "satanic", things from Hell.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    24. Re:Stop Calling it "The God Particle" by lgw · · Score: 1

      I'm going to start calling my car the God Vehicle, AND IF YOU DISAGREE YOU ARE NAUGHT BUT A GODLESS WRETCH AND I WILL SMITE YOU WITH MY HOLY CONVEYANCE.

      What a coincidence, Jesus Built My Hotrod too!

      You know, it's time for the lameness filter to go. If it really worked, half the articles on /. would never show up. As it is, it's all false and no positive.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    25. Re:Stop Calling it "The God Particle" by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 2

      Calling it the god particle is really little different than calling coffee the god drink.

      It's not?

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
    26. Re:Stop Calling it "The God Particle" by sznupi · · Score: 1

      It's good to remember also some other things Asimov wrote. Maybe hoping for some surprising stuff... but better not to expect it.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    27. Re:Stop Calling it "The God Particle" by pitchpipe · · Score: 1

      it's just the Jesus Particle.

      Wouldn't that just be a small portion of the iPhone?

      I thought it was the Zombie Jesus Particle: it ate a souliton, but it really wanted BRAINSium.

      --
      Look where all this talking got us, baby.
    28. Re:Stop Calling it "The God Particle" by glwtta · · Score: 1

      If it's not the God Particle, then how come this discovery has come out, arisen you could say, on Easter Sunday? Answer that, smart guy!

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    29. Re:Stop Calling it "The God Particle" by TexVex · · Score: 1

      And here's the citation needed

      --
      Fun with Anagarams! LADS HOST, SHALT DOS. HAS DOLTS. AD SLOTHS, HATS SOLD. ASS HO, LTD.
    30. Re:Stop Calling it "The God Particle" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kreigaffe means giraffe cocksucker in Swahili.

    31. Re:Stop Calling it "The God Particle" by Kaz+Kylheku · · Score: 1

      Let's swap terminology with computer science, thereby righting two wrongs.

      Let's call it the "root" particle (root of all mass), and the privileged user on a system should be "god" (all powerful). :)

    32. Re:Stop Calling it "The God Particle" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the name is completely taken out of context. It was originially referred to as "The Goddamned Particle" in Leon Lederman's book of 1993 because it was so elusive. The editor didn't like the foul language and changed the name to The God Particle. I suggest we revert back to calling it as Lederman intended to.

    33. Re:Stop Calling it "The God Particle" by tqk · · Score: 1

      While you are at it, learn to spell, ...

      FTFY. First rule for grammar nazis: while you are at it, learn to proofread. Even atheists know about the "He who is without sin, cast the first stone" principle.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    34. Re:Stop Calling it "The God Particle" by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 1

      I read somewhere that the name 'God Particle' came from a book, where it was originally going to referred to as the 'Goddamn Particle', but that the editor suggested that it be changed.

      Mention God and you'll wish you hadn't. It's a swamp. Unfortunately God's strewn it's name throughout the language like a bunch of mines to step on. Try to avoid saying 'God' and you'll sound like Ned Flanders, and everyone will assume you're obsessed with such.

      --
      ...
    35. Re:Stop Calling it "The God Particle" by Kreigaffe · · Score: 1

      That is awesome, I didn't know that. All is now right with the world -- I can stop being peturbed with a physicist, and merely add to being peturbed with editors. Nothing against editors, it's simply their job to be aggravating.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    36. Re:Stop Calling it "The God Particle" by Kreigaffe · · Score: 1

      Oh lighten up. That is most likely the only time in your life you will ever hear anyone ever utter that phrase. Smite you with my holy conveyance? Come on. I can't think of anyone outside me and the Pope that would have grounds to say that, and I don't think the Pope is the sort of guy that would. Enjoy my inanity, I thought it was fairly clear that by that point I was saying ridiculous things to be ridiculous and entertaining.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    37. Re:Stop Calling it "The God Particle" by Kilrah_il · · Score: 1

      No, but at least they won't attack it; they will just be indifferent, just like they are to all the other science going on in the world.

      --
      Whenever in an argument, remember this.
  16. It is the God-summoning particle by paiute · · Score: 1

    Discovery of the Higgs will lead to the theory which describes the unification of all forces, which will trigger the end times: Heaven on earth and the revealing of all truth.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/19550880/GUT-The-Grand-Unified-Theory-A-oneact-play-with-seven-blackouts

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  17. Actual quote from the Higgs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    “The reports of my existence are greatly exaggerated”

    1. Re:Actual quote from the Higgs by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure Higgs exists - he was up on stage receiving an honorary professorship right before I was awarded my PhD...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:Actual quote from the Higgs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hehe, reminds me of the time I met Einstein...

    3. Re:Actual quote from the Higgs by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      I walked on the moon.

      --
      I come here for the love
  18. Publisher? by mounthood · · Score: 1

    Was this published by Social Text?

    --
    tomorrow who's gonna fuss
  19. I've read the internal note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Someone left a copy of the note on the printer in my office building. (I work on CDF at Fermilab, but there are others in the building who work on ATLAS at CERN.) The gist of the article is that they found a bump in the diphoton mass spectrum at a mass of ~115 GeV. If the Higgs exists, it is expected to produce a bump in that spectrum, and 115 GeV is a very probable value for the mass of the Higgs. (Experiments at LEP ruled out masses up to 114 GeV, but a mass as low as possible above that fits best with other measurements.)

    Now, the inconsistencies: The bump that they found is ~30 times as large as the Higgs mass peak is expected to be. However, due to field theory that I don't want to get into here, the Higgs peak in this spectrum could be larger than expected if there exist new, heavy particles that we haven't discovered yet. The latest published result from CDF sets a limit of about 30 times the expected rate at 115 GeV in the diphoton channel. (Yes, this means that, if you're optimistic enough, there's just enough wiggle room to fit a Higgs in there while accommodating both measurements.)

    The internal note is very preliminary and uses a crude background estimate; I'll have to see a more thorough analysis before I make any judgment on it. We shouldn't have to wait very long; I expect that after this leak, they'll be working overtime to push out a full published result as soon as possible.

    1. Re:I've read the internal note by bmuon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yup, further analysis is needed to confirm it is the Higgs or something completely new. The Resonaances blog has good speculation cover as usual.

    2. Re:I've read the internal note by ron_ivi · · Score: 1

      Awesome that Anon Coward at slashdot is among the more reliable sources of science information these days.

    3. Re:I've read the internal note by BitterOak · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I have a question for CDF folks:

      If this does indeed turn out to be a viable Higgs candidate, is its mass sufficiently low that the result could someday be duplicated/confirmed at Fermilab? Would it require more running time than is currently planned for the Tevatron? Would it possibly lead to an extension in order to confirm the LHC result?

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    4. Re:I've read the internal note by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      My question is: is this "anomaly" statistically any better, so far, than the one recently found with the Tevatron? Should we really be getting excited about either one... yet?

    5. Re:I've read the internal note by Werthless5 · · Score: 1

      Very nice summary. IIRC, they're using the same continuous background estimate that is recommended by the official ATLAS Higgs group. Of course, I could be wrong, but that's why the note is undergoing review (like all notes do) before it's approved as an ATLAS internal note.

      My hope is that the group did actually find the Higgs. There's not much meat in the paper, but they do provide a lot of references to official Higgs group notes, so there's a chance that they did everything properly and made a real discovery. The paper is under review, and the normal timeline for that is maybe a couple of weeks or more, so we just need to wait and see.

    6. Re:I've read the internal note by FreakyGreenLeaky · · Score: 1

      I'm curious, let's say this is the Higgs. What then?

    7. Re:I've read the internal note by Werthless5 · · Score: 1

      If the content of the paper is deemed acceptable by the ATLAS Collaboration after significant scrutiny, which will be at least a month if I had to guess, then yes, we should be really excited about this. It's not just an anomaly, it's a pretty clear bump in the data over the background. Even if it's not a Higgs, it's still a sign of interesting new physics if everything gets approved.

      But again, that's only if the ATLAS Collaboration approves the result. It takes time to verify

    8. Re:I've read the internal note by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

      Search for the next lower turtle.

    9. Re:I've read the internal note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note also that just because its a bump in the data doesn't mean its something new. It could be a mismodeling of backgrounds, an artifact of a detector issue, some grad student just plain messing up, some other systematic effect, etc. There is a reason half done results are not normally released. ;) Also the real confirmation also will be if CMS sees the same thing.

    10. Re:I've read the internal note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dumbass copy/pasted this word for word from a blog linked in the summary! God damn the stupidity of the people "modding" on this site has no bounds. In fact, it's been found to have a 30 times larger cross section than expected.

  20. Wait what? by RenHoek · · Score: 1

    So we've got a Schrödinger memo here.. It is, could be or isn't, but in the end nobody knows what the fuck.. :)

    1. Re:Wait what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So we've got a Schrödinger memo here.. It is, could be or isn't, but in the end nobody knows what the fuck.. :)

      All you need is to open the box.

    2. Re:Wait what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couldn't you just smell the box?

  21. Re:Higgs discovery is the long awaited blockbuster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    isn't it meant to be the essence of mass?...

  22. The "God Particle" has a sense of humor. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will be showing itself randomly just to screw with those annoying physicists that keep trying to disturb it. Let's just hope it doesn't get mad.

  23. Actually, it does by Kupfernigk · · Score: 0
    It says that the light was separated from the darkness, an obvious reference to the splitting of the Universe into the parts that do, and do not, interact with em radiation. The Bible predicts dark energy and dark matter*

    *No, of course it doesn't.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  24. Could everyone stop taking about it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously it's not science until it's reproducible. They don't detect just one particle, they detect multiple. Then they need to repeat it again and detect a similar number of events in the same amount of time. Then they optimize conditions and make a better detector now that they know what to look for. And then they change conditions such as doing it six months later on the opposite end of the earths orbit. A new particle takes six months to a year for initial confirmation.

    Also if it's real.. it isn't the higgs as we have predicted so it's essentially a new particle somewhat similar to the higgs although I'm sure it will probably still end up being called that considering what has been spent if it all pans out.

  25. Re:Higgs discovery is the long awaited blockbuster by JamesP · · Score: 1

    Yeah, it spontaneously broke the symmetry between certainty and attention drawn. Or maybe it didn't.

    --
    how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
  26. Higgs-Boson particle walks into a church... by rueger · · Score: 4, Funny

    Priest says "Hey! You're not allowed in here!"

    HB says "Oh yeah? Without me you've got no mass!"

    Buh-duh_boomph... I'm here all week...

    1. Re:Higgs-Boson particle walks into a church... by defaria · · Score: 1

      Try the veal!

  27. The great thing about the standard model: by Slutticus · · Score: 1

    Just add some duct tape to it and all this will make sense!
    But seriously, this is great. Either way, this sounds like an interesting discovery and I'm happy to be able to follow this as it unfolds. Rumors or no, this is what makes science exiting and there are far too few moments like this anymore....
    I'm going to go listen to "still alive" now. Here's to science...

  28. Re:Higgs discovery is the long awaited blockbuster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder what would give the rumor its mass?

  29. It used to be "The God DAMN particle" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    some cretin book editor changed it. Sold more books because of it too.

  30. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My kingdom for mod points! Your remark would deserve a +6 if such a thing existed.

  31. God particle by martin-boundary · · Score: 1
    Why do people insist on calling the Higgs a god particle? Do they not realize it makes them sound stupid? Not to mention that's a lot of gods per square inch of matter, no wonder Good and Evil are so mixed up.

    Who started this trend anyhow and how can we make it stop?

    1. Re:God particle by Intron · · Score: 1

      Blame Leon Lederman. He's the guy that came up with that name to sell his book. You think anyone would have bought a book named "The Higgs Boson"?

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    2. Re:God particle by radtea · · Score: 1

      Do they not realize it makes them sound stupid?

      Nope, because they are stupid, and trying to sell physics to stupid people, who for some unaccountable reason control pretty much all the money in the world.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  32. .jpg or it didn't happen! by IrquiM · · Score: 1

    .mpg would be fine too...

    --
    This is blinging
  33. Rumors of Higgs Boson Discovery At LHC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not holding my breath. The team at CERN wont release anything till they checked out the data backwards, forwards and in all known dimensions,OK I'm just kidding! No doubt there will be a major press release with all known physicists getting their oar in, after all its referred to as the Gold particle. Just in time for Easter, pity its not egg shaped! hoho Beecee

  34. Re:Higgs discovery is the long awaited blockbuster by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

    It was spreading so fast, it's just relativistic mass.

  35. Slashdot makes a very poor Fark by zephvark · · Score: 1

    Would the alleged editors please pay just a little attention? "It's not entirely clear at this point if the memo is authentic... This could be a flat-out hoax or a statistical anomaly or... " or anything but a story. Have some shame.

    1. Re:Slashdot makes a very poor Fark by tqk · · Score: 1

      It's not entirely clear at this point if the memo is authentic ... This could be a flat-out hoax or a statistical anomaly or ...

      or anything but a story. Have some shame.

      O come on, live a little. I think it's perfectly acceptable to report that you've heard wildly conflicting reports from various sources that some fairly sharp folks just perked up about something and said, "Say what? Is that what was predicted?"

      It's also educational. Now I know why god particle came in, and learned a few more things about HEPP. It's been a good day.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
  36. Could there be two discoveries for gravitation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The discovery of gravity’s exact mechanism along with that of dark matter has already taken place, way back in fall 2010. It is impossible to find any traces of Higgs boson as a QCD particle in the Hadron collider, neither can it show the existence of dark matter. The details of my discovery of how gravitation exactly works, http://www.anadish.com/ , and how it is produced in the framework of quantum mechanics are lying in wraps with the USPTO and I can only make it entirely public after there is clarity on how the USPTO is going to settle the issue of secrecy on my application. I consciously did not report to any peer-reviewed journal, fearing discrimination and possible piracy, because of my non-institutional status as a researcher. However, if the USPTO also continues with their non-committal secrecy review under LARS Level 2, then, anyway, my discovery may not get published for a long time to come, in spite of me having filed the US patent application (US 13/045,558) on March 11, 2011, after filing a mandatory Indian patent application on January 11, 2011.

  37. Another discovery of how gravitation works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The discovery of gravity’s exact mechanism along with that of dark matter has already taken place, way back in fall 2010. It is impossible to find any traces of Higgs boson as a QCD particle in the Hadron collider, neither can it show the existence of dark matter. The details of my discovery of how gravitation exactly works, http://www.anadish.com/ , and how it is produced in the framework of quantum mechanics are lying in wraps with the USPTO and I can only make it entirely public after there is clarity on how the USPTO is going to settle the issue of secrecy on my application. I consciously did not report to any peer-reviewed journal, fearing discrimination and possible piracy, because of my non-institutional status as a researcher. However, if the USPTO also continues with their non-committal secrecy review under LARS Level 2 (find the PDF of Private PAIR of the USPTO on my site), then, anyway, my discovery may not get published for a long time to come, in spite of me having filed the US patent application (US 13/045,558) on March 11, 2011, after filing a mandatory Indian patent application on January 11, 2011. Till, I find a clue to come out of the maze of government regulations, unless, of course, the USPTO decides to put it out of secrecy.

  38. really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so what about that flashforward? It would at least be interesting for everybody.

  39. Uhhh... Settle Down Kiddies.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All this excitement of an 'anonymous' post on a blog.

    Did any of you actually read the article?

  40. Is it really not? by dacarr · · Score: 1
    Being that we've never seen it and have theories about it, is it possible that the particle is indeed the Higgs boson, and it's just not doing what we think it's going to do?

    (Note - no background in particle physics. Except for particles as large as, say, an apple dangling from a tree in gravity. =) )

    --
    This sig no verb.
  41. If it's not reproducible, it's not science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it's not reproducible, it's not science

  42. Multiverse! by splitreason · · Score: 1

    The Multiverse is coming..

    --
    Splitreason Clothing | Gear for geeks and gamers.
  43. Re: Higgs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only official ATLAS results, i.e. results that have undergone all the necessary scientific checks
    by the Collaboration, should be taken seriously, ! The rest is just a silly talk !

  44. I want to fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Somebody get working on an antiboson