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.
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
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
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?
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.
Have gnu, will travel.
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.
FUCK YOU, you science fucks!
You will all burn in hell like the arrogant cunts you are! HOW DARE YOU question GOD!!!!!!!!!
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
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?
Were the theories of Einstein built on old knowledge?
Yes, they were posited to explain old knowledge.
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
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.
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.
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