Slashdot Mirror
LHC To Narrow Search For Higgs Boson
New submitter mraudigy sends this quote from Physorg:
"CERN scientists say their data from two main experiments using CERN's $10-billion Large Hadron Collider under the Swiss-French border will be made public next Tuesday, but any firm discovery will have to wait until next year. They say the data helps narrow the region of the search because it excludes some of the higher energy ranges where the Higgs boson might be found, and shows some intriguing possibilities involving a small number of 'events' at the lower energy ranges."
You know what, it's pretty damn cool.
To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
It's been awhile since I've checked. hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com Looks like we're still safe.
CERN seems for some reason to have popped up in a number of media sources today. Some of the more tabloid ones I follow have written that they are going to announce the finding of the Higgs boson. More credible sources seem to indicate that they simply "feel close" or that they have excluded the existence from a certain range.
So what's the news here? If you exclude it from range X, doesn't that still leave ranges Y and Z and the potential for not finding it at all? What's new?
the LHC is a great idea, and is giving us insight to how the universe works.
IT's not a waste of money.
Sciecen is not a religion.
to Quote Tim Minchin:
Science adjusts its views
Based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation,
so that belief can be preserved.
That why science can not be a religion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGuXCuDb1U
Until you can grasp that, please don't think you can sit at the adult table.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I presume at the magic energy level you'll see an increase in particles detected. These would be decay particles of new particle created. Then these decay particles would have to be of the right kind that could decay from a Higgs, deduced by charge, energy, direction, lifetime ... They record trillions of candidate collisions which will have to be sifted for various hypotheses.
I read recently they are still studying an energy bump in the final runs of the Tevatrron. Whether it really exists and possibly a new particle.
coming up with wacky ideas to collect & consume HUGE sums of money, at least science comes up with something good on occasion but the LHC is not one of them
Wacky ideas to collect & consume huge sums of money? I take it you've never encountered a collection plate. The Higgs field is not just something pulled out of a hat, it is a heavily studied and well developed theory that fits well into the standard model as we know it. The LHC is one of the best, if not the best, possible chance for humanity to verify the correctness of our understandings of the universe insofar as we've developed it. Like Sagan said, stardust thinking about stardust. Sentient intelligence forming theories and models of the nature of our own existence. While it can be claimed that religion attempts to do the same thing, scientific endeavors such as the LHC push the limits of understanding in ways that religion will never, ever do by its very nature.
Some scientist can have an almost religio-fanatical belief in unproven theories, but equating the collective sum of brilliant minds at LHC to fringe theorist is a travesty and misleading to those who abide by the scientific method.
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
Have gnu, will travel.
"can be" != "are", and you know what? Religion can be as bad as science. The Vatican does some fairly important astro work.
... science comes up with something good on occasion but the LHC is not one of them
And you can explain definitively why that's so? I'll make popcorn.
No really. I'm making popcorn.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
I think a survey should be taken if we really believe that a Higgs particle exists. What if a Higgs effect is made up of hundreds of particles that when considered in whole look like Higgs? Because our anthropomorphic models predict the particle does not mean we will find it in nature. Gravity is a similar concept, but very useful despite not knowing what gravity is.
Both CMS and ATLAS are seeing bumps in certain Higgs channels around 125 GeV. While the bumps aren't big enough to be press-release worthy (2-3 sigma), a lot of particle physicists think that this is it. There will be an announcement on Dec 13th, and from now on it'll just be a matter of waiting till the bumps are 5 sigma and we can say for sure sure.
Totally with you on the "not a religion". That's a dumb meme.
As for "not of waste of money", I'd call that "not proven", at least in the case of the LHC. Maybe yes, maybe no. Worth the gamble, in my opinion, though it's close. $9 billion buys an awful lot of research into, say, batteries or cancer treatment.
And a group of scientists have never been wrong even if they work at the LHC? Right. I think a little humility is needed. Because their heads are big and full of nothing, as Socrates would say, they must be respected? Gimme a break. They could all be morons in the context of the next horizon in human understanding of nature. Sure, they have a great understanding of old theories and old math, but that does not mean in anyway that this knowledge translates into the next generations of knowledge.
Page where the Dec 13th talk material will appear:
http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=164890
The humility is there. If a result is wrong it is rejected and life goes on. I don't really know what you're referring to by old theories and old math. It it were not for the old theories and old math, when commeth the new theories and new math? After trying the old ones out first, that's when.
My point was that in general, hard-line religion does not participate in the 'discard the old and wrong and in with the new and less wrong' philosophy. Sure there are religious scientist and spiritual physicist and blah blah blah, but if we are going to paint in large generalizations, I think it is safe to say that when it comes to fact and fiction, the progression of science, the progression of, well, civilization to that effect, I think a line can be pretty distinctly drawn between science and religion. Both science and religion are composed of things that are not and cannot be fully certified 100% genuine fact. But I think we can agree that between the two there are vast differences in how they handle the gaps in their powers of rational explanatory abilities.
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
Last I "heard", gravity was caused by the bending of the fabric of space time. In other words, there IS no gravity - you just move through space according to Newton's first law of motion...it's just that space is curved.
But nice try.
The next generation's advances can't come out of nowhere. They build on the progress of previous generations. Every scientist who has ever discovered anything realizes this.
Ah, a philosopher. Who quotes dead Greeks and can't spell "cite."
A little less "adult table" and a little more listening and you might learn something.
Wow, someone that thinks they are sitting at the adult table because they have a quip of a poem and a youtube video.
There is a lot of religion in science. For instance, what is responsible for gravity? Last I heard, we still do not know. Is it any less of a powerful concept?
"We don't know" is not a religion.
But if we want to talk about adults, how do we address Socrates assertion that the only wisdom is that we know nothing?
"It's metaphorical".
This tells me that the knowledge coming out of science is nothing but anthropomorphic models of nature that are highly coincidental.
Are you seriously attributing more value and wisdom to a single Greek philosopher who lived thousands of years ago than to the mass of human knowledge and understanding that has accumulated since then?
Anyone that believes science knows anything is also not sitting at the adult table.
So we should tell all those engineers that use the models produced by scientific knowledge that they don't know anything and should stop building spaceships, computers and robots?
I was more commenting on the assertion about the collective sum of brilliant minds. My point was that they may be the most brilliant minds of what we "know" today. But it is entirely possible we have exhausted the models we have produced based on this current state knowledge. These minds might be fruitlessly spinning their wheels in the mud without some sort of breakthrough that throws away old assumptions and theories. But because they are brilliant means nothing is what I am saying.
I agree that science, or the scientific method, is quite humble.
I am also not sure of the assertion that knowledge only comes through trying out old knowledge. New knowledge that comes from old knowledge is probably a tweak of old knowledge to accommodate the hypothesis that broke the old conclusion. Also, all knowledge is not empirical if I interpret what you are saying directly. This may be more of an eeking out of knowledge than a fundamental shift in thinking. Were the theories of Einstein built on old knowledge?
Who questioned God? Why is even God being brought to this discussion?
Not sure if you are being sarcastic. Space-time fabric sounds like anthropomorphic fantasy. Have you touched a space-time fabric? How do you know it is real and not just a man-made model that is coincidental with nature? Is coincidence the same thing as reality? Sounds like religion. Does that mean it is any less useful? Nope.
Have you touched x-rays? Have you felt them? How do you know they're not a mad made model that is coincidental with nature? Geez, I guess that means they don't exist. Just anthropomorphic fantasies after all. Omg, my world view just fell to pieces...
Um, just because we do not know reality, does not mean that our models are not useful. Is that what I said?
I am seriously attributing more value and wisdom to one Greek than the mass of human knowledge. I actually think that this one Greek is the grandfather of modern philosophy of which the scientific method sprung from.
Hmm, a comment about nothing. I was not aware that it has been decided that quoting dead Greeks is foolish.
The adult table was not my remark but I am all ears for any wisdom you would like to share.
... the difference between a mathematical model of how some scenario behaves, and a religion, is enormous. Can I check - is that actually your point? Because physics is, ultimately, a collection of algorithms that tell us how we expect a given situation to evolve. Nothing more, and nothing less. The interpretation of gravity as the "bending" of the "fabric" of spacetime comes from an extremely successful (and, when applied outside of its range of validity, inaccurate) set of algorithms. [Total aside: it's extremely persuasive, given that it follows almost directly from pointing out that acceleration cancels gravity and that gravity imparts the same acceleration on objects of wildly different masses, which is the hallmark of fictional forces such as coriolis or centrifugal forces -- they *definitely* exist, and don't let some high-school graduate tell you different, but they only exist when you view them from a weird reference frame. Change the reference frame and the force vanishes. This is a way of approaching the "weak equivalence principle", and is a major underlying philosophy of general relativity. But while it may be extremely persuasive, it's also inaccurate when you apply it outside of its realm of validity, such as in volumes of the order of 10^-40m across.]
So GR gives a good example of physics as a collection of algorithms - and then it's your choice whether you believe the interpretation or not. Personally I find it very convenient to believe the interpretation, at least when I'm working within the theory since it doesn't exactly impact on my everyday life otherwise. But that's a choice and I know of eminent physicists (and Weinberg is a good example, or at least used to be; I don't know if he's changed his viewpoint in the last 35 years though) who don't really entertain the curvature interpretation as anything more than a mathematical convenience.
In that sense, maybe you could judge it as "religion" - but I'd still suggest that that's pushing the definition of "religion" somewhat.
Some scientist can have an almost religio-fanatical belief in unproven theories, but equating the collective sum of brilliant minds at LHC to fringe theorist is a travesty and misleading to those who abide by the scientific method.
I'd say all scientists have this property when it relates to their own specific region of study/interest, and the scientific method as a whole depends on this. If there is no competition for the correct answer, how would it be found in the first place? Challenging preconceived ideas is the only way forward.
I don't know what universe you live in, but I'm touching the space-time fabric constantly. In fact, I happen to be a part of the space-time fabric.
kurzweil_freak
5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.
A rose by any other name is still a rose. Get the picture? Just because we call concepts X and in nature it refers to it as Y doesn't mean it's somehow less dubious. We give things labels to help further our understanding. How you could be so dense on the topic and use phrases that you clearly don't understand is profoundly disappointing.
pffffft! I'M warping the space-time fabric all the way out to infinity.
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
I am not sure why you want to conclude stuff, but your conclusion is incorrect. Because we do not know if there ARE x-rays does not make the fact that we understand that a given set of inputs dependably generates a set of outputs less useful. To say that there is in fact x-rays IS A religious assertion as we may discover/invent that x-rays are a combination of thousands of phenomena. Does that mean it is any less useful?
If we know so much about particles and what we know is nature, then why do we need a particle collider? We know there are neutrons and protons and electrons. They must be the end-all at least they were for sometime for many scientists. It could not possibly be that those were man-made models that embodied a collective of sub atomic particles(again more man made models) acting collectively to produce an effect of what we think of as a proton or neutron. How do you think we create equipment to look for things? Is the equipment naturally endowed to understand what an xray or particle is? You do live in a fantasy world.
Which proves that you know absolutely no practicing physicists.
The philosophers, Socrates included, are the ones with the big head full of nothing.
The philosophers didn't put a man on the moon or a GPS system in place, the scientists and engineers did after they tossed the philosophical bullshit in the trash and started looking for theories with reproducible results.
Forgive me. I didn't know you were going down that path. This isn't philosophy where you argue about whether or not reality is "exists". We don't assume we're in the Matrix where every sensory input is treated only as a sensory input. How do you know there's a computing device in front of you? Have you touched it? Actually no - your skin just senses inputs from your fingers and your eyes are receiving light signals. You have no way of knowing whether or not you're really touching your computer. You also don't really know if you're wearing clothes or not. All you have is sensory inputs and no insight into "reality".
Pretending and playing with philosophy is fun. But no one really cares about academic epistemological problems here.
Were the theories of Einstein built on old knowledge?
Yes, they were posited to explain old knowledge.
It is religion if we say that science produces knowledge that is reality.
As I see it, science is a technology that produces higher qualities of usable knowledge. Religion does not produce knowledge. It is apples and oranges when arguing one against the other.
My other argument is that if science is BS, as Socrates may say, it is very effective knowledge. Do we care if it is reality so long as my plane can create lift or that I can power my computer with electricity? No, so long as the algorithms that create the effect are always valid. I think this is a more humble approach that science asks us to consider so that it can continue creating new knowledge.
pffffft! I'M warping the space-time fabric all the way out to infinity.
Technically speaking, you have mass so you are warping the space-time fabric for an infinite distance in all directions. Assuming space-time is infinite.
!!!!!!!!!
I think that answers your questions.
Were the theories of Einstein built on old knowledge?
Quite so. The mathematics of non-euclidian geometry. Differential equations. Integral calculus. All The Prior Physics Knowledge Before Him. Newtonian physics. The key takeaway I present is that yes, while Newtonian physics is not 100% an explanation, it does a damn good well job within certain experimental limits. Not to mention that all of these topics existed before Einstein, but all of these topics were used as springboards in his miracle year to further develop photoelectric effect, Brownian motion, and special relativity. Of course new ideas and theories are needed. The affixing of the speed of light and assuming the malleability of space and time in the presence of mass-energy was a breakthrough in thinking, but the crucial dependency was that this was done while 'standing on the shoulders of giants'.
Continual incremental developments, even if not 100% correct, are almost always beneficial to the collective sum of science. It isn't that humans are evolving 'smarter' as time goes on, its mostly science that sheds the worthless and keeps that of value insofar that the knowledge and experience gained has a use to somebody, somewhere, or at least will eventually at some time. And if it doesn't, throw it away, modify your current theories, expand them, ad inifinitum.
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
It can be. Just declare the all encompassing laws that govern the universe as your god. A god that has commanded you to swell upon its meaning.
Because Gravity was observed and described, not dreamed up and dictated.
Let me ask you, are MRIs something you consider useful? The work done by scientists to get the superconducting magnets setup and working on the tevatron resulted in knowledge and skills needed to make the superconducting magnets used in MRI systems. The work at the LHC provides cutting edge experience working with superconducting magnets and power systems, ultrahigh speed electronics, distributed storage and computing systems, high bandwidth networking and that's aside from the purely scientific benefits. If you design and build something that requires cutting edge electronics, and cryogenics to work and produces a few petabytes of data each year that needs to be distributed internationally and processed, you'll get a lot of experience and new technologies that probably come in handy for non-science related things as well.
"When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it
Doolittle: Hello, Bomb? Are you with me?
Bomb #20: Of course.
Doolittle: Are you willing to entertain a few concepts?
Bomb #20: I am always receptive to suggestions.
Doolittle: Fine. Think about this then. How do you know you exist?
Bomb #20: Well, of course I exist.
Doolittle: But how do you know you exist?
Bomb #20: It is intuitively obvious.
Doolittle: Intuition is no proof. What concrete evidence do you have that you exist?
Bomb #20: Hmmmm... well... I think, therefore I am.
Doolittle: That's good. That's very good. But how do you know that anything else exists?
Bomb #20: My sensory apparatus reveals it to me. This is fun.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Ehm...they can be credited for have gotten the ball going on philosophy, but that ball has grown much bigger since then.
The scientific method we have now we can attribute to much more recent philosophers....which used the reflections from philosophers past that, and on and on and on.
The scientific method we have today we can thank Karl Popper for, and its more then just testing, its about how you use the results to come to conclusion...and quite often, making sure you don't.
http://xkcd.com/683/
Such epistemology would be quite useful before they came up with the "four elements" silliness.
Not an Ex-phil but I've but I have been lectured on this from a friend who majored in this, and groans every time someone recomends the Republic as a beginners course in Philosophy for laymen.
My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
Perhaps science is not religion, but it is beginning to look increasingly similar to it. Physicists have literally lost their mind, spending enormous amounts of money to smash particles, so they can find a tiny little "blip" that supposedly "confirms" theory precious "standard model". It's absolutely insane. Gravity is a purely quantum mechanical force. The same thing that creates the branching structure of time (the non-deterministic nature of QM) also creates a tiny force every time the tree branches. That is gravity. So, every time you observe particle interference you are observing gravity. If you look at the structure of Born's law, it's right there, clearly in the equations if you make the SOLE assumption that everything is a particle (interacts locally). Expand out the equation, and the answer stares you right in the face. Of course, there's probably nobody alive that could understand what I am talking about, parallel universes is such a radically different way of thinking about QM that most people can't comprehend it. And those that can comprehend it are stuck in their ways, and not about to accept any radically different ideas.
Yeah, those "huge" sums of money to fund the entire LHC project. $10 billion eh?
Let's put it another way - would you prefer to have the whole LHC project in its entirety, or 2 weeks of the Iraq War?
Have the troops come home a couple of weeks sooner than planned and you get the LHC for free!
The scientific term for the latter ("faith"), is "schizophrenia". It's a mental disease. Which has its reasons, and its treatments. It's just that it's obviously illegal to "treat" somebody who thinks he feels fine, and doesn't harm anybody. But the problem with schizotypic illnesses is, that one may feel fine, even if one is not. So this is a pretty damn hard thing to solve with out primitive society and morality.
They say the data helps narrow the region of the search because it excludes some of the higher energy ranges where the Higgs boson might be found
"We haven't failed a thousands times. We've just found a thousand ways NOT to make a Higgs Boson"
The Internet has given stupid people the resources of intelligent people.
What makes you think that what we learn from the LHC won't have an application in batteries and cancer treatment? If it weren't for seemingly pointless study of quantum mechanics, none of us would have computers or electronics, and batteries and cancer treatments would be feeble in comparison to what we have now. Understanding fundamental physics underpins absolutely everything we do. I would say that it's impossible for the LHC to be a waste of money, and further that anything else you chose to spend that $9billion on would return a pittance in comparison to the rewards we'll reap from what we're certain to learn with this thing, Higgs boson or none.
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
What makes you think that what we learn from the LHC won't have an application in batteries and cancer treatment?
What makes you think that my intensive study of my navel lint won't have applications in batteries and cancer treatment? Worth at least a billion, don't you think?
I'm all for basic research, but there's a vast ton of basic research that could be funded. The LHC puts nine billion eggs in one basket. Maybe it'll pay off in the biggest, most amazing new technology of all time. Maybe it'll tick off a box on the Standard Model that we can hang on our wall and gaze at proudly.
What makes you think that my intensive study of my navel lint won't have applications in batteries and cancer treatment?
What aspect of your naval lint are you studying and could you give me a budget breakdown?
Maybe it'll tick off a box on the Standard Model that we can hang on our wall and gaze at proudly.
Just like all those other useless aspects of the standard model that we never really needed to know.
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
It is almost as boring as a huge discovery that shapes an entire area of knowledge can be. The only except is that we'll know the actual mass.
Rethinking email