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."

8 of 99 comments (clear)

  1. Time to check again by residieu · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's been awhile since I've checked. hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com Looks like we're still safe.

  2. Re:Physics by peragrin · · Score: 4, Funny

    actually at the energies involved it is pretty damn hot.

    --
    i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  3. Re:scientists can be as bad as religion by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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 /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  4. Re:Source for the bizarre CERN-mania today? by boristhespider · · Score: 4, Informative

    It means there are now tight limits on where it could possibly be. No-one is claiming it's been found (well, other than the tabloid press you mention who've been doing the damndest to do exactly that), but that now there are only narrow ranges where it could lie. The nice thing is that they *are* ranges. I'm old enough to remember when all we could say about the mass of the Higg's boson was that it was above something like 100GeV, and now we know that if it does exist, it's in increasingly narrow sections of parameter space.

    What I'd like is that it isn't there. Partly because I've never been entirely comfortable with the Higg's (or in some respects the direction of particle theory since about 1970 or so), but mainly because if it is there I'm liable to lose a bet I'd much rather have won.

  5. what does a Higgs look like? by peter303 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  6. Re:scientists can be as bad as religion by cosm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  7. Re:Physics by marcosdumay · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not finding the higgs may be the most exciting thing the LHC does. Finding it will be boring.

  8. Re:Physics by andre.david · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For instance, what if the effect we attribute to a particle is responsible when hundreds of particles interact in aggregate? Maybe this is all being handled, but one particle to rule them all seems like it is an idea out of fantasy.

    We understand different things at different levels. And when we do not have some fundamental understanding, we build what we call effective theories. It may very well be that the Higgs boson is composed of other particles. Even if it is, this entity has a role in interactions, which is not diminished whether it is composite or fundamental.

    Take the atom. It was indivisible for a long long time. Then we figured out there was a nucleus, 99.9% empty space and electrons. Then the nucleus turned out to have protons and neutrons. And then it turned out that protons and neutrons are made of quarks and gluons.

    At each level, we can have a working tool that explains to a good level of accuracy what is happening at that level. Take the example of gravity: Newton's laws work for 99% of what we do. There is no need to go for Special or General Relativity until you really consider gravity in scales which are not human: galaxies, etc.

    So, no one is looking for a particle to rule them all. And no one is claiming that we have finally reached a final understanding of matter. Or energy.
    In fact, finding the Higgs boson predicted by the Standard Model would fill in a piece in the puzzle, but not finish all puzzles.