Slashdot Mirror


CERN Announcing New LHC Results July 4th

An anonymous reader writes "The Higgs boson is regarded as the key to understanding the universe. Physicists say its job is to give the particles that make up atoms their mass. Without this mass, these particles would zip though the cosmos at the speed of light, unable to bind together to form the atoms that make up everything in the universe, from planets to people. From the article: 'Five leading theoretical physicists have been invited to the event on Wednesday - sparking speculation that the particle has been discovered. Scientists at the Large Hadron Collider are expected to say they are 99.99 per cent certain it has been found - which is known as 'four sigma' level. Peter Higgs, the Edinburgh University emeritus professor of physics that the particle is named after, is among those who have been called to the press conference in Switzerland."

54 of 226 comments (clear)

  1. This would have been first post. by daveashcroft · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...but it doesn't carry any weight anymore.

  2. Heavy! by ruiner13 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Marty McFly: Whoa. This is heavy.
    Dr. Emmett Brown: There's that word again. "Heavy." Why are things so heavy in the future? Is there a problem with the Earth's gravitational pull?

    --

    today is spelling optional day.

    1. Re:Heavy! by canajin56 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's a funny line, but when Doc Brown was born people were probably already using "gravitas" to describe something serious, and "weighty" to describe a topic of conversation has probably been around for centuries ;)

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
  3. The real question is... by StripedCow · · Score: 4, Funny

    Does it have round corners?

    --
    If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    1. Re:The real question is... by martas · · Score: 2

      So now we know how the universe ends: in a patent infringement lawsuit between Apple v. God.

  4. Risky experiment by PTBarnum · · Score: 4, Funny

    If we prove that the God Particle exists, will it vanish in a puff of logic?

  5. Who is this Higgs... by rcasha2 · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...and why is everyone trying to get a peek at her bosom? :)

    1. Re:Who is this Higgs... by vlm · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...and why is everyone trying to get a peek at her bosom? :)

      Wrong end. You're thinking of mesons, specifically one made out of two "top" quarks. They follow the anti-heisenberg uncertainty principle where the better you can see their position, perhaps because they're unconfined, then the better you can see the effects on them of momentum and vibration/oscillation. I like high energy/high mass mesons like that, but Higgs is not a meson so it's all rather irrelevant.

      Higgs particle, speaking to husband: "Honey, does this Large Hadron Collider make my butt look fat?" They would have been more likely to get a peek if they told her it was the "Petite Hadron Collider", or if they told her there was a shoe sale there.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  6. Re:It isn't a sub atomic particle party until... by xQuarkDS9x · · Score: 3, Funny

    If Mr. Freeman's invited better have some crowbars and other weapons ready in case alien creatures and head crabs jump out of the machinery! :)

    --
    You must master your joystick like a fisherman masters bait! - Gimpy
  7. Let's get this one out of the way by davidbrit2 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yo mamma's so fat, CERN used her to find the Higgs-Boson with four-sigma certainty.

    1. Re:Let's get this one out of the way by paiute · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yo mamma so stupid, she thought the Higgs Boson would be found in the 149-206 GeV/c2 mass range.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    2. Re:Let's get this one out of the way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yo mamma so stupid, she forgot to calculate the rate of Beta events with a standard dilepton invariant mass at a subleading order in the hybrid expansion when she was reducing the perturbative uncertainty in the determination of Vub from semileptonic Beta decays.

    3. Re:Let's get this one out of the way by ArsonSmith · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yo mamma so stupid, she ... uhh scored ... umm very low on an ... uhh IQ test.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    4. Re:Let's get this one out of the way by Jesus_C_of_Nazareth · · Score: 2

      Your post and those that follow reminds me of why, after all these years and many accounts, I still browse Slashdot. Kudos, my son. You'll be getting a pool in your heavenly mansion and full buffet privileges.

      JC

      --
      JC
  8. Re:when these genius people are 100% by schroedingers_hat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The thing about smart people is that they're never 100% sure of anything. They think too much for that.

  9. "one in a a trillion" event by peter303 · · Score: 5, Informative

    During a run they record billions of collisions and terabytes a day. Even so that is just a tiny fraction of so-called "interesting collisions"; most routine data goes unrecorded. Over the months they have recorded trillions of collisions, each which represents the state of several thousand detectors. Then they search for Higgs decay candidates off-line. There are several potential decay patterns, so the search may be done multiple times. Last year's "hint" of the Higgs was 3-5 anomalous events at a likely energy at two colliders. They'd like at least a dozen, for 4 to 5 standard deviations above the noise before they call it a new particle. This is searching for one significant event on average out of each trillion recorded.

    1. Re:"one in a a trillion" event by jovius · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I wonder how many and what particles have been released by the high energy collisions happening in the universe since the big bang... Could there exist a significant field of some exotic particles just because of random head on collisions of cosmic rays in space?

    2. Re:"one in a a trillion" event by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Almost certainly.

      This is one of the arguments that had to be deployed against some bozos who warned against starting up the LHC on the grounds that it might create a subminiature black hole.

      We already see cosmic rays at higher energies than the LHC can reach. We just can't study their effects at will. However, it's clear that they either haven't created any black holes, or any such black holes are too small to accrete any nearby matter, and have fallen to the center of the Earth where they don't hurt anything.

    3. Re:"one in a a trillion" event by dotancohen · · Score: 4, Funny

      ... and have fallen to the center of the Earth where they don't hurt anything.

      Fallen? And what do you thing happens when they get there with some velocity?

      Such black holes almost certainly exist, not only in the Earth but in all other large bodies as well. But they aren't "fallen" in the center, but rather orbiting the body inside of it, possibly eating a few atoms on each orbit. In any case I wouldn't call that "harmless" but rather "mostly harmless". I wouldn't mind one passing through my fingernails, but I might be upset if it ate away at a bit of my brain.

      Maybe this explains memory loss... Scientists!

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    4. Re:"one in a a trillion" event by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Informative

      you have to understand how small the event horizon is on something like this. The chances of it hitting ANY atom in your brain is so low that it's more likely that the planet would get hit by a full sized black hole than one of these tiny ones. Not only can they pass through matter and not hit atoms, they can pass through atoms and not any of its constituent particles.

    5. Re:"one in a a trillion" event by Lost+Race · · Score: 2

      No, black holes are not entirely dark. They emit Hawking radiation. Dark matter emits nothing.

  10. Re:when these genius people are 100% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For 100% certainty you need religion. This is science, no guarantees other than "Best available knowledge."

  11. Fundamental particle masses only by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Insightful

    when they can say with 100% call me

    You can never be 100% certain in science only so certain that no reasonable person would doubt it.

    i want to lose a few pounds...you can have the higgs in those particles back....

    Firstly pounds measure weight, not mass, so it is the Earth's gravitational field that causes your weight. Go visit inter-galactic space any you'll have no appreciable weight (low Earth orbit will have very little effect on your weight though - it's apparent, not true, weightlessness).

    Secondly the Higgs causes the fundamental particles to have mass e..g electron, quarks, W/Z bosons etc. The vast majority of your mass comes from the protons and neutrons in the atomic nuclei which make up your body. This mass is almost entirely to do with the binding energy between the quarks and almost nothing to do with the Higgs. In fact, while the quark masses are hard to measure, the best estimate is that less than 0.1% of a proton or neutron mass comes from the quark masses i.e. from the Higgs.

    1. Re:Fundamental particle masses only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      "pounds measure weight"

      I realize this is a cute 'correction' to establish your superiority, but it's wrong. The avoirdupois pound is defined in terms of the kilogram. cf. second page of http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP447/app5.pdf

    2. Re:Fundamental particle masses only by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

      That type of pedantry annoys the shit out of me.

      Sorry if it annoys you but the distinction is really important here and not mindless pedantry. The Higgs explains _mass_ it does not explain _weight_ because weight is far more complicated and we need quantum gravity to really explain that. Also the poster is wrong - the pound (as used) is a unit of weight, not mass and the poster's confusion arises from the broken, inconsistent definitions of the imperial system.

  12. It's lame news anyway. by Rei · · Score: 3, Funny

    I was expecting an exciting ending to the search, but it just ended up being a big deus ex machina.

    --
    Rock Us, Dukakis.
  13. Re:Who says it has a "job" ? by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lots of physicists talk like that, it's not a religious statement it's a common was to express ideas. Similar thing in IT, people talk about programs wanting/thinking this or that but nobody actually believes the code "wants" or "thinks" anything.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  14. Re:when these genius people are 100% by vlm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For 100% certainty you need religion

    Or math, the queen of all sciences (ducks from flames)

    Interesting how its the soft sciences and the archaeologists and bio majors who get all the heat from the fundies, but the math majors get no heat despite being arrogant WRT possession of the truth in general and their insistence that the value of PI is an unbiblical irrational number instead of gods written truth of exactly three.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  15. Re:Pre-announcement announcement by Marianne013 · · Score: 2

    On the other hand Fermilab did announce their latest results today: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18677808

  16. Alternatives to Higgs Boson? by jgtg32a · · Score: 2

    Are there any alternative theories to higgs boson, what's the status of them?

    1. Re:Alternatives to Higgs Boson? by dalias · · Score: 5, Informative
  17. *Goddamn* Particle, not God by advid.net · · Score: 4, Informative

    If we prove that the God Particle exists,[...]

    Do you mean the Goddamn Particle ?

  18. Re:when these genius people are 100% by meekg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Heh, that's because the Math type have never ever proved (or even claimed) anything that is related to the real world.... In this respect, they are like fiction writers, 100% sure about what's happening in their world :)

  19. Re:Interesting Date Choice by Antipater · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well, yeah. It's the particle that gives things mass. It's only fitting that they announce it during the celebration of the fattest nation on Earth.

    --
    Everything is better with chainsaws.
  20. More background on the Higgs search by vinlud · · Score: 3, Informative

    A great blog to read about the ongoing research and in depth particle physics articles is Matt Strassler's website: http://profmattstrassler.com/2012/06/27/this-sites-background-articles-on-the-higgs/

    --
    Repeat after me: We are all individuals
  21. Beyond the Higgs Boson? by CMYKjunkie · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Since I am too lazy to RTFA and since some people here are surely smart in this field, can you answer this: is there a particle BEYOND the Higgs that will be looked for next? That is to say, "we" always think we have found the smallest particle/farthest object/oldest artifact/etc. but then we later realize there is something smaller/farther/older/heavier/etc. Can we expect that to happen here as well?

    1. Re:Beyond the Higgs Boson? by ArsonSmith · · Score: 4, Funny

      nothing else. This is the last thing we need to discover then we're done and can get on with life.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    2. Re:Beyond the Higgs Boson? by revelation60 · · Score: 2

      Good question. The particles that will probably be searched for next are light supersymmetric particles. They have a very high energy scale however, so it will take a long time to build and consequently it will take a while to verify if susy is correct (especially because a lot of parameters can be tweaked to increase the mass of the new particles). These particles however, are not elements that form any of the particles in the standard model, they are simply additions.

    3. Re:Beyond the Higgs Boson? by jfengel · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, there is. The Higgs completes the Standard Model, which covers a lot of stuff, but leaves a lot of crucial questions unanswered. It doesn't explain why we see a universe of matter and not antimatter; it doesn't explain why the mass of the particles are what they are; it doesn't explain the egregious discrepancy between observed vacuum energy and the theoretical one ("egregious" meaning "a factor of 10^120").

      There are models that do cover these things, and these models predict particles not currently observed. One of the most promising is called "supersymmetry", and the particles it predicts have names like "sleptons" and "squarks" and "neutralinos".

      There's a very, very faint hope that the LHC might find them, but it's probably not powerful enough even if they exist. So the first step isn't to start a new search, but to examine the Higgs more closely and see if we can narrow the hunt.

      There's also a search in a different direction, for the graviton, in an attempt to unify general relativity with the standard model. (The Standard Model takes special relativity into account, but not general relativity.) Those experiments are already underway, and sadly they're not turning up anything, which is a little discouraging. And worse, it's not the kind of null result that they can use to throw out the old model and begin on a new one, because they didn't expect to see much.

      Still, they soldier on. There's always more work to do. This is the end of one phase of physics, and the beginning of another.

  22. Re:It isn't a sub atomic particle party until... by idontgno · · Score: 2

    But his half brother Morgan can make it.

    Ah. The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. And we all know that the right man for the search for the God particle is someone who's acquainted with the role.

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  23. Re:when these genius people are 100% by evanbd · · Score: 2

    For 100% certainty you need religion

    Or math, the queen of all sciences (ducks from flames)

    Really? I don't think 100% certainty means what you think it does. Have you ever made a mistake proving a theorem? Has a peer-reviewed published theorem ever later been found to have a mistake? Is it even remotely possible that it will happen in the future? If so, you need to assign a level of certainty to any given theorem: a probability that it has a mistake. As it gets used more a scrutinized more, that probability declines dramatically, but it can't reach zero. Zero and one are not probabilities. There's a big difference between 0.99999999, or any other finite number of nines, and infinite nines. For the same reasons that infinity is not a real number, zero and one are not probabilities or certainties.

  24. Re:Who says it has a "job" ? by jihiggs · · Score: 2

    its me :D yes, higgs is my real last name.

  25. Re:Who says it has a "job" ? by the+gnat · · Score: 2

    Lots of physicists talk like that, it's not a religious statement it's a common was to express ideas.

    Biologists can be even worse sometimes - they'll make casual reference to evolution "designing" a particular adaptation. The urge to anthropomorphize natural processes is apparently very strong, even among people who are trained to look for rational and non-supernatural explanations. But I have to admit I wince every time I read something like that.

  26. Re:when these genius people are 100% by liquidweaver · · Score: 3, Informative

    Wrong. Read the article s/he linked, it's pretty interesting.
    You and the quarter might be nuked before it hits the ground. Ridiculously small probabilites still subtract from the probability you stated of 1.

    --
    mov ah, 4ch
    int 21h
  27. Re:Who says it has a "job" ? by vlm · · Score: 2

    ain't gonna ask about the one that's the big black hole

    Thats the goatse particle. Agreed, best left unobserved. Its metastable and decays emitting Santorum particles, which are toxic little things also best left unobserved.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  28. Fermilab Press Release today regarding the Higgs by stox · · Score: 4, Interesting
    --
    "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
  29. Re:Who says it has a "job" ? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

    It's not just the urge to anthromorphise, it's that there are a lack of useful words to describe it otherwise. You can avoid anthropomorphised words, but the result is usually longer and other scientists (the intended audience) understand just fine.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  30. So wrong. by microbox · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You and the quarter might be nuked before it hits the ground. Ridiculously small probabilites still subtract from the probability you stated of 1

    If nukes aren't part of your model, then they are not part of your model.

    Probability is founded in set theory. Probabilities are assigned to events, which are sets of outcomes in you *defined* probability space.

    It is a *model* that is *applied* to the world. In the model, 0 and 1 are real probabilities. That has nothing direct to do with the real world.

    --

    Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
  31. Re:when these genius people are 100% by isorox · · Score: 2

    The thing about smart people is that they're never 100% sure of anything. They think too much for that.

    Are you sure about that?

  32. It is not an urge by microbox · · Score: 2

    The urge to anthropomorphize natural processes is apparently very strong

    That mind contains different information processing centres that (surprise) process information in specialised ways. There is a module that sees everything as sentient, finding sentient causes and effects, and making predictions based on a model of personality. This module can be applied to /anything/, which is very cool if you think about it from a programming point of view. Since all the modules are always online (baring brain damage), you will see a person, and simultaneously model their personality and the physics of their body. (e.g., can they sit in that small chair?) You will see a higgs boson, and automagically assign some personality model to it.

    If you close one eye, then you can see the entire universe as being nothing but sentience -- the very atoms conscious in some way.

    --

    Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
  33. Re:when these genius people are 100% by schroedingers_hat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes.
    I'm 100% sure of it. That's how I know there are plenty of people smarter than me.

  34. Re:Time travel by Genom · · Score: 2

    First they need the IBN 5100.

    El Psy Congroo

  35. Re:when these genius people are 100% by Afecks · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You're just adding yet another possibility. It's trivial to reword it. What is the probability that a coin will land heads, tails or on its edge? The probability is 1. It has to do one of those if those are all the possibilities. What is the probability that it will do none of those things? The probability is 0. Whatever other possibilities you want to add, exploding into marshmallows, being nuked while inside a fridge, getting a top 10 single on the UK pop charts, etc, doesn't matter. If you list all the possibilities, the probability that it will be one of those is 1 and the probability that it will be none of those is 0. Basic. Fucking. Logic.

    Also, a perfect coin is a definition. It's not some value judgement.

  36. Re:Fermilab Press Release today regarding the Higg by toQDuj · · Score: 2

    Wow, what an amazing "us too!" article. Basically, that press release says they could not see anything with any certainty, and they are waiting for the results of the LHC to say "oh yes, there it was all along!".

    Tevatron lost funding, SSC lost funding, you lose the results, science loses. Go talk to your politicians.

    --
    Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.