Slashdot Mirror


LHC Discovers New Particle That Looks Like the Higgs Boson

The wait is over: new submitter Roger W Moore (among many, many other submitters) writes "The ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN have just announced the discovery of a new particle which is consistent with a Standard Model Higgs boson. There is still a lot of work to do to confirm whether this really is the Higgs, and if so whether it is a Standard Model Higgs, but this is a major result."

396 comments

  1. Found at 125 GeV by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Does somebody mind to explain why a particle that gives mass is... that heavy? (no pun intended, just my total ignorance. Intuitively I'd thought it'd be very light, since it's used to give mass to other particles)

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    1. Re:Found at 125 GeV by masternerdguy · · Score: 1, Informative

      I think thats the energy level needed to isolate it not the mass of the particle itself.

      --
      To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
    2. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Higgs particle is just the particle manifestation of the Higgs gauge field. Think of it as a huge block of jello through which all massive objects move. 125 GeV is the energy required to scoop out a bit of that jello and isolate it.

      --
      Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
    3. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because dealing with so many particles that he deals with on a daily basis is heavy.

    4. Re:Found at 125 GeV by jampola · · Score: 4, Funny

      Dr Emmet Brown called. His response. "Whoa.... This is heavy!"

    5. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Pro-feet · · Score: 1

      We know all about the Standard Model Higgs boson, except its mass which is a free parameter; at least in the Standard Model. We knew also that it couldn't be too heavy (~1TeV) or theoretical problems would arise that need new physics to remedy.

    6. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Pro-feet · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, no, it is really the particle's mass.

    7. Re:Found at 125 GeV by tmosley · · Score: 5, Funny

      That sounds disturbingly like aether theory.

    8. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod:-1 Completely clueless

    9. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Pro-feet · · Score: 2

      Reference? This makes no sense at all. You got binding energy upside down, and that has nothing to do with the Higgs boson, which has a fixed mass.

    10. Re:Found at 125 GeV by simcop2387 · · Score: 2

      if you think it's disturbing now, realize that the mass that that field gives everything will also bend and twist light like aether was thought to!

    11. Re:Found at 125 GeV by agentgonzo · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I don't understand this either. If the Higgs boson gives all other particles mass, how can it weigh 133 times more than a proton? What gives the proton mass? It can't be 1/133th of a Higgs surely?

    12. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Swampash · · Score: 0, Troll

      What tard moderated that Informative?

    13. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Rei · · Score: 3, Informative

      Photons are massless and don't interact with the Higgs field. In fact, it's the opposite of æther theory - almost everything *but* light (and a few other particles) interacts with it ;)

      --
      Rock Us, Dukakis.
    14. Re:Found at 125 GeV by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Photon propagation is affected by gravity, though.

    15. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does light bounce off objects like mirrors then? Why are they attracted at mass at all? If completely massless, wouldn't they be able to escape a black hole?

    16. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Carewolf · · Score: 3, Informative

      Photons are massless

      Yes and no, photon has no mass at rest, but photon never rest. When moving they have the effective mass of their kinetic energy.

    17. Re:Found at 125 GeV by dkf · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Photon propagation is affected by gravity, though.

      But the Higgs mechanism isn't there to explain gravity. It's there to explain why some particles have rest masses at all. AIUI, a large part of the mass of a proton or neutron is explained by the energy stored in the Strong Nuclear binding field that couples the component quarks, but the Higgs mechanism is there to explain the rest.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    18. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny that, considering that relativity is essentially a fixed version of aether theory:)

    19. Re:Found at 125 GeV by zygotic+mitosis · · Score: 4, Informative
      What the hell, people??? Parent has binding energy right. The particles alone are heavier. This goes for chemistry, as well as nuclear chemistry, as well as nuclear physics. For example, helium: Wolfram Alpha tells me that 2n + 2p = 6.695E-24 g

      The mass of helium is 4.002602 g/mol. Divide by Avogdro's number, and a single atom of helium weighs 6.646E-24 g. The difference in mass is what powers the sun. Parent is simply making the same argument on the scale of a proton split into its parts.

      (disclaimer: I know, blabla deuterium, not protons and neutrons. However, see the definition of a state function.)

    20. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Fixer40000 · · Score: 4, Funny

      More importantly, with increased knowledge of the subatomic mechanics of mass we may still be on track for hoverboards and flying cars by 2015!

    21. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bending light... Sounds like curved (space-time)... And that sounds like bullshit.

      If a game stored on a flat disc in binary, does the disc bend when the world is viewed through the curved lens on the screen? Or is it just your perception when that happens?

    22. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dr Emmet Brown called. His response. "Whoa.... This is heavy!"

      I'm pretty sure that it was Marty McFly made this comment, to which Dr. Emmet Brown responded with, "There's that word again... heavy. Why are things so heavy in the future? Is there a problem with the earth's gravitational pull?"

    23. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Rei · · Score: 1

      Reflection is not due to attraction. The incoming light induces a corresponding oscillation in the electrons of what it's striking which is re-radiated. As for black holes, gravity bends space itself. The light is traveling in a straight line, but space is curved.

      --
      Rock Us, Dukakis.
    24. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Pro-feet · · Score: 1

      Try that with quarks, that have almost no mass compared to the proton or neutron? Fail. The Higgs boson in that story? Fail. Variable Higgs mass depending on context? Fail. Sorry dude...

    25. Re:Found at 125 GeV by yet-another-lobbyist · · Score: 1

      A photon bounces off mirrors because the electromagnetic field which describes the photon probability density is governed by Maxwell's equations. And according to those, and electromagnetic wave is reflected off a mirror (a perfect metal, for instance). Another way of looking at it is that photons interact with charges. When a photon approaches a metal, it stirs up the charges (electrons) inside the metal, which, in turn, interact with the photon (electromagnetic field) to change the photon's direction.

      The way gravity affects the trajectory of photons is because (according to the theory of general relativity) mass distorts space-time itself. In this picture, you could think that the photon flies "straight" in a "bent" space-time.

    26. Re:Found at 125 GeV by yet-another-lobbyist · · Score: 3

      Yes ggp has binding energy right. Except this has nothing to with the Higgs Boson. Higgs Boson is about why particles have a rest mass, i. e. the mass that elementary particles still have after taking everything apart (so that binding energy/mass does not play a role).

    27. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Young+Master+Ploppy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why does light bounce off objects like mirrors then?

      Because of electromagnetic interactions with the atoms on the surface of the mirror

      Why are they attracted at mass at all?

      Because, as Einstein's famous General Theory of Relativity explained, gravity is not just a force between two masses like you were taught at school, it's actually a curvature of the geometry of space-time. The maths gets really complex really quickly, hence the web is full of analogies like the rubber-sheet model that can lead laymen to appealing but incorrect conclusions. But when you do do the maths, it works astonishingly well - and it's the simplest explanation we have that fits all the observed data.

      If completely massless, wouldn't they be able to escape a black hole?

      See the previous answer - no, they wouldn't, because it would need an infinite amount of energy to do so. When you do the math (one example chosen at random is here, there are many others) it turns out that the curvature of space-time becomes so strong near a black hole that inside the event horizon, space and time kind of switch roles - to move further away from the centre would mean moving backwards in time.

      Sounds a bit kooky in words, true, but makes perfect sense in mathematical terms - and again, GR's predictions have been experimentally verified time and time again.

      --
      http://instantbadger.blogspot.com
    28. Re:Found at 125 GeV by yet-another-lobbyist · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's because of what someone else explained further above: Higgs field is a quantum field, which fluctuates constantly. Particles spontaneously emerge and disappear all the time. Same thing is true for photons: even in a perfectly dark room, you have spontaneously photons appearing and disappearing. This leads to the so-called zero-point-field. Even when there are no "real" photons in a dark room, the electromagnetic field is not zero. It fluctuates around zero due to these so-called "virtual photons". Same is true for every quantum field. To generate a "real" Higgs particle you need 125 GeV. Virtual bosons come and go all the time (for free). Interaction with "massive" particles gives them their mass.

    29. Re:Found at 125 GeV by PiSkyHi · · Score: 1

      The Higgs is a lot of food for thought. General Relativity shows us that the degree of gravity in spacetime depends upon the mass and its distribution. Now we can probably build a GR model that refers to the Higgs field and this would cover all matter above it. I say probably because I can't conceive of it yet - I need time and basically some really smart people to do the work for me.

    30. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually that's Marty McFly.

    31. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Photons always travel in straight lines. The presence of atoms and the gravity field generated distorts the fabric of space-time without the little photons noticing. They don't notice gravity either. As far as they are concerned, they are still traveling in a straight line, even if they do end up several million light years off track.

      Though the effect of that long distance travel is to wear them out a bit. Every few thousand light years they lose a bit of energy and get red-shifted (the Doppler effect). Where that energy goes is another mystery...

    32. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the reason that it is that heavy is that it interacts that strongly with the Higgs field whose field particle it is. AFAIK that self-interaction is exactly which causes the symmetry breaking which is responsible for a non-zero vacuum Higgs field. Since the interaction with this Higgs field is what gives the particles mass, a zero vacuum Higgs field would mean no mass for any particle. So basically the Higgs field giving its own particle a mass is prerequisite for giving all other particles a mass, too. A massless Higgs particle couldn't work.

      However take all of the above with a grain of salt, because while I'm a physicist, I'm no high energy physicist, and therefore I might have gotten something wrong.

    33. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Because energy was never equivalent to mass and Einstein's only contribution to humankind was the photoelectric effect.

    34. Re:Found at 125 GeV by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      If you mean luminiferous aether, you're about fifty years too late. Quantum electrodynamics, the most successful theory ever, holds that there is an all pervading field, through which disturbances we call "photons" or "light" propagate.

      That's right, idiots who hold up luminiferous aether as some kind of failing of science seem to be completely unaware that our current understanding of reality includes something that precisely matches the basic description of luminiferous aether.

    35. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Teknikal69 · · Score: 1

      What you have to remember about black holes is they even twist space around them so anything going past that event horizon is going to be in a crazy whirlpool of spacetime so escape is impossible even if something is completely massless. Granted this is just based my own thoughts and not based on any real understanding of physics.

    36. Re:Found at 125 GeV by RaceProUK · · Score: 4, Informative

      Particle mass is usually in eV, because if it was measured in the normal SI unit (kg), the numbers would be extremely small. Using eV makes the calculations easier, and makes reporting easier too.

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    37. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Calos · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's shorthand, it's GeV/c^2, which is in fact a mass.

      --
      I vote based on politicians' actions, unless contrary to my preconceptions. Often wrong, never uncertain. #iamthe99%
    38. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Aardpig · · Score: 1

      Haven't you got this the wrong way around? If it weren't for the binding field energy, the masses of protons and neutrons would be *larger* than the sum of the masses of the constituent quarks. That is, the binding energy is negative, and subtracts from the Higgs-imparted quark masses to give the resulting proton and neutron masses.

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    39. Re:Found at 125 GeV by RaceProUK · · Score: 1

      Isn't red-shift the result of relative velocities, not energy loss? (Which removes the mystery of where it goes)

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    40. Re:Found at 125 GeV by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      No, no, it is really the particle's mass.

      Whoa, that's heavy, man! (takes another toke)

      Glad Iraq is over or Hadron Destroyers would already be obsolete. More seriously, this is pretty exciting. I think I'll take a few more math classes so I can better understand it.

    41. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Higgs field is a massive scalar field. The gravitational field is massless (or at least must have a very tiny mass, or the galaxies would not keep together), and in the book Misner, Thorne, Wheeler: Gravitation they made an argument why gravitation cannot be a scalar (but I don't remember it right now).

      Also, in General Relativity, gravitation doesn't really depend on the mass, but on energy and momentum (of course energy and momentum also depend on the mass, so indirectly gravitation does, too, but the point is that it doesn't couple to the mass, but to the energy and momentum).

      However it would still be interesting to know how gravity and Higgs field interact with each other (does the non-zero vacuum Higgs field produce gravitation? Could it even be the mysterious dark matter?)

    42. Re:Found at 125 GeV by tc1415 · · Score: 1

      Argh! Post to undo bad moderation... why can't we have an undo moderation button?

    43. Re:Found at 125 GeV by flargleblarg · · Score: 4, Funny

      Electron volts per eye roll?

    44. Re:Found at 125 GeV by RaceProUK · · Score: 2

      In the sense that luminiferous aether failed to adequately describe physical phenomena, then yes it was a failure of science. However, it can also be viewed that that failure helped spur scientists on to discover quantum electrodynamics. Which means it wasn't a failure.

      That's the beauty of science - if a theory is proved wrong, it's no big deal - a new theory is created to pick up the pieces.

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    45. Re:Found at 125 GeV by painandgreed · · Score: 2

      Isn't red-shift the result of relative velocities, not energy loss? (Which removes the mystery of where it goes)

      Both actually. Red shift can be caused by the result of relative velocities but it can also be caused by moving out of a gravitational field which results in energy loss. For that matter, it can also be caused by the expansion of space over time via Hubble's Law.

    46. Re:Found at 125 GeV by tmosley · · Score: 1

      I thought the last sentence there was what everyone said was the case. I never heard of these other concepts.

    47. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it is. If you follow speculation that the higgs is not only responsible for mass, but our 3 physical dimensions (Take a "2d" piece of paper, and a "1d" pin. Poke the pin perpendicular through the plane of the paper. The entry hole, like any other orbital mechanism in the universe, has energy that orbits around this hole to give us mass), it explains gravity as well, as gravity would be a draw like water swirling down a drain.

    48. Re:Found at 125 GeV by tmosley · · Score: 1

      The only "failure of science" is deviation from the scientific method. Having a hypothesis or a theory that is later proven wrong through observation is no failure, it is a TRIUMPH!

      This is why a lot of people are rooting for a Higgs Boson that does not match what has been predicted.

    49. Re:Found at 125 GeV by kievit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Beware that there are 2 kinds of mass: (1) inertial mass and (2) gravitational mass. In principle, the Higgs particle helps explain the inertial mass, that is, the resistance of an object to a change in motion. Hence the (in my opinion somewhat poor) analogies of the Higgs field to a snow field or a bowl of syrup, where some particles are sticking into more deeply than others. It's only because of the equivalence principle that inertial and the gravitational mass are indeed "equivalent" (and quantitatively the same), which, if you think about it for long enough (or "too long" if you one of those people who think that all research should only be done for some practical purpose), is actually surprising.

    50. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a question from a /. newbie here:

      What exactly is meant by "rest mass"?
      I thought particles were by definition never ever at rest. (Especially since it's basically a distribution field, which in some way is by definition never "at rest".)

      And from that perspective, it looks like all mass could always be explained by the movement.

      But of course, since everybody talks about rest mass, I'm assuming that's nonsense.
      So I'm curious where did I go wrong...

    51. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the author of a mod is not remembered.

    52. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because mass is now expressed in electron volts /rolleyes

      Mass and energy are the same damn thing, ever heard of Einstein?

    53. Re:Found at 125 GeV by swalve · · Score: 1

      The only superficial difference is that the aether was "stuff" and spacetime isn't. Other than that, the concept is pretty much the same.

    54. Re:Found at 125 GeV by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      That sounds disturbingly like aether theory.

      Which wasn't as far fetched as some people act like it was, it just happened to be wrong. The main difference between aether theory and the Higgs field is that when we hypothesized the former and went looking for it, we found out it didn't work that way. When we looked for the Higgs particle, we found it. This is, ultimately, not at all disturbingly like all the fundamental forces and particles we've hypothesized over the years.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    55. Re:Found at 125 GeV by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      This is why a lot of people are rooting for a Higgs Boson that does not match what has been predicted.

      Indeed, because the elephant in the room is, we know our most successful theories still don't quite add up. There are incompatibilities, missing pieces, things that don't add up. We know we're still missing something, we just don't know what. We've got a bunch of alternate theories that try to unify the mess and fill in the holes, but no way to choose between them. We want something unexpected to show up and point the way forward, or at least cull the herd of theories somewhat.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    56. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      Electron volts per eye roll?

      Well, if you're rolling each eye at the speed of light, then...

    57. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Xtifr · · Score: 4, Informative

      Because, as Einstein's famous General Theory of Relativity explained, gravity is not just a force between two masses like you were taught at school, it's actually a curvature of the geometry of space-time.

      That's ... debatable. Modeling it as the curvature of the geometry of space-time has worked remarkably well--better than any other model anyone has come up with--but so far, nobody has been able to integrate that model with the Standard Model of QM. We still lack a solid model of quantum gravity. There are several as-yet-unproved models around, some of which are more consistent with the notion of curved space-time than others, but we don't know which is correct.

      Quantum gravity is technically outside the domain of both GR and the Standard Model, and we're going to need a modified something to explain everything. Even if that modified something turns out to be some intermediate effect that allows the Standard Model and GR to both be correct in their respective domains. Which is possible, but I think most physicists expect us to find that either the SM of QM or GR will eventually be shown to be no more than a reasonable approximation, much as Newtonian gravity was in its day. What sort of appoximation is a completely open question, though.

      Anyway, this latest discovery is a triumph for the Standard Model, not GR. Resolving the differences between SM & GR is a battle for another day. But it's important to remember that we're dealing with models here, and the actual universe is what it is, whether or not it perfectly fits our models. Well ... when I say important, I mean, possibly worth keeping in the back of your mind. Most physicists find it more useful to ignore the quandry, accepting that there eventually will be a resolution, and take both SM and GR at face value, since they've both proven correct in every test we've been able to devise. :)

    58. Re:Found at 125 GeV by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Funny

      Mass and energy are the same damn thing, ever heard of Einstein?

      Yeah, that's Doc Brown's dog, what does he have to do with this?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    59. Re:Found at 125 GeV by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > Higgs field is a quantum field, which fluctuates constantly. Particles spontaneously emerge and disappear all the time.

      So where do these particles go then?
      And where were they before they emerged?

    60. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because of electromagnetic interactions with the atoms on the surface of the mirror

      What does that mean, exactly? If it's "electromagnetic", why doesn't a magnet attract or repel light? What effect does a static electric field have on a nearby traveling photon?

    61. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Young+Master+Ploppy · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. You are of course, right - I just usually find it best to stick to one unfamiliar concept at a time. Saves my typing as much as anything else :)

      --
      http://instantbadger.blogspot.com
    62. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everywhere, and nowhere.

    63. Re:Found at 125 GeV by SebastianJB · · Score: 1

      "Rest mass" is the mass that a particle has when it is not moving. That is, it's the mass you would measure from an inertial reference frame moving at the same speed as the particle. The idea comes from Einstein's relativity: things appear to have greater masses when moving faster.

    64. Re:Found at 125 GeV by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      The "rest mass" is the quantity usually just called "mass" by physicists. It is used as opposite to the outdated concept of "relativistic mass" which confuses more than it clears. The "rest" mass is calculated from energy and momentum as sqrt((E/c^2)^2-(p/c)^2) and is a property of an object which is independent of its motion. The name "rest mass" comes from the fact that the "relativistic mass" equals it when the object is at rest (provided it can be at rest at all). The easiest is to forget about "relativistic mass" and "rest mass" and do like modern physicists do: Just speak of the mass.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    65. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Does somebody mind to explain why a particle that gives mass is... that heavy?

      See, this particle likes to give away mass but it has to keep some for itself.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    66. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Utter rubbish. The Higgs mass is determined to be roughly 111 times that of the proton. The particle is indeed very massive.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    67. Re:Found at 125 GeV by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      The maths gets really complex really quickly

      No. While it gets quite complicated, it still remains real. :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    68. Re:Found at 125 GeV by tyrione · · Score: 1

      Not as heavy as wanting to bang your Mom, eh? Marty?

    69. Re:Found at 125 GeV by RaceProUK · · Score: 2

      10^-25kg. 28 orders of magnitude less massive than the average human.

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    70. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      200,000 dead Japs beg to disagree

    71. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Think of it as a huge block of jello through which all massive objects move.

      Bad way to think of it. The Higgs field is not fixed in position in any way, which would violate special relativity not to mention Newtonian mechanics.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    72. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beware that there are 2 kinds of mass: (1) inertial mass and (2) gravitational mass. In principle, the Higgs particle helps explain the inertial mass, that is, the resistance of an object to a change in motion. Hence the (in my opinion somewhat poor) analogies of the Higgs field to a snow field or a bowl of syrup, where some particles are sticking into more deeply than others. It's only because of the equivalence principle that inertial and the gravitational mass are indeed "equivalent" (and quantitatively the same), which, if you think about it for long enough (or "too long" if you one of those people who think that all research should only be done for some practical purpose), is actually surprising.

      Small distinction - two types of acceleration rather than two types of mass.

    73. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... the SI unit is g, not kg
      kilogram is 1000 grams

      captcha: electron

    74. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Carewolf · · Score: 2

      Bending space is just a fancy mathematical way of reformulating the effect of a force. Similar to reformulating that the train is moving at 100 mph towards you or that you is moving at 100mph towards the train.

      That gravity bends space is nothing but a convenient mathematical construction, it doesn't actually mean anything other than affecting all other forces as well.

    75. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Carewolf · · Score: 5, Informative

      Where does a wave on the ocean go? The "particles" are manifestation of a particle(or force) field, which is like an ocean with waves on it. These waves are called particles when they collide and collapse with something else, but are otherwise waves when they move around on the ocean. There is always some waves on the ocean but not always high enough waves to break over the sea-barrier. The sea barrier in this case is 125GeV.

    76. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      Doc Brown also resorted to calling things "heavy" by Part III, in response to Marty's exclamation of "Great Scott!"

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    77. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is also more accurate to use the electron volt since it is based on discrete quanta that correlate directly with the level of physics. The kilogram is based on some arbitrary object, and is therefore too inaccurate to use for these experiments.

    78. Re:Found at 125 GeV by reasterling · · Score: 1

      I had always thought that the energy level that the particle was found at represented the amount of energy that had to be added to the particle just to detect it. In other words the larger the energy level the smaller (less massive) the particle was before the acceleration process. Basicly, by using Einstine's E=mc2 they add energy in the form of acceleration (usually by radio waves), until the particle has enough mass to interact with their detector. Detecting really massive particles is easy, it is the small ones that are hard and require a lot of extra energy to find.

      --
      "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice" -- God
    79. Re:Found at 125 GeV by mug+funky · · Score: 2

      do we have a standard eye with a known mass and charge?

    80. Re:Found at 125 GeV by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Particles are waves - that may sound strange and induce head spin, but that's why schodinger's cat is wanted dead AND alive :)
      Out on the net there are some places that explain it well. I think the video of Feynman's introductory class on quantum physics is probably better than most textbooks and doesn't assume much background.

    81. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Thankfully, the analogous problem with Jell-O(R) was solved 25 years ago.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    82. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

      There's more than one way a particle can get mass. The Higgs Mechanism gives the rest mass to the quarks, leptons, and electroweak bosons. The Higgs boson itself, and the neutrinos, get their mass from other mechanisms (which are not fully understood)

    83. Re:Found at 125 GeV by RaceProUK · · Score: 1

      Then you must get in contact with NIST as soon as possible, so they can correct their mistake: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_units#Units_and_prefixes.

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    84. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Theoretical physicist frequently use natural units, where everything is measured in powers of energy. That's why you won't see the "/c^2" when refering to mass in many plots or articles. For example mass is measured in energy units [E], length and time as inverse energy [E]^(-1), angular momentum has no units, electrical charge in 4D has no units, etc...

    85. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      "It's there to explain why some particles have rest masses...the Higgs mechanism is there to explain the rest."

      I see what you did there - punny!

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    86. Re:Found at 125 GeV by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      For theoretical physicists, c=1, so it's the same.

    87. Re:Found at 125 GeV by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      i'm not gonna stick my neck out here even if i have an einstein shrine i'm nowhere near understanding physics of that magni(mini-?)tude but wasn't that more like an explanation of how much energy a certain 'mass' contains? don't flame me for not using the right words, i am a layman of the lowest kind in this

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
    88. Re:Found at 125 GeV by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      You're thinking about atomic nuclei, which are slightly less massive than the individual neutrons and protons that comprise them.

      But an individual nucleon (a proton or neutron) really does get a significant fraction of its mass not from its constituent quarks but from the strong force. For example, a proton's mass is 938 MeV but its two up quarks and single down quark only sum to (at most) 12.4 MeV.

      I believe the binding of nuclei has a different sign than the binding of quarks into individual nucleons because quarks can't ever be physically separated. It's also much smaller; iron nickel has the most tightly bound nucleus, and its binding energy is only 8.8 MeV per nucleon. Though vastly larger than chemical energies, this is still less than one percent of its mass.

    89. Re:Found at 125 GeV by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      . For example, a proton's mass is 938 MeV but its two up quarks and single down quark only sum to (at most) 12.4 MeV.

      Wouldn't that mean that the binding force of the nucleons were negative? And wouldn't that mean that they should fly apart?

    90. Re:Found at 125 GeV by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      Just to pick a nit (as I am in no way qualified to comment on the rest), you need to remember the electrons when calculating atomic masses

    91. Re:Found at 125 GeV by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      The force between nucleons decays rapidly with distance, but they're residuals of the true strong force between quarks, in the same way that van der Waals forces are residuals of the much stronger attraction between atomic nuclei and their electron shells.

      The true strong force between quarks is more like a rubber band, which exerts a stronger force as you move them apart. This rubber band "breaks" when you put enough energy into separating them as it would take to create a new quark next to each one, and that's exactly what happens. They can't spontaneously fly apart without violating conservation of energy. Protons are stable (for at least the next ~10^30 years), and even though a free neutron decays into a proton within about 15 minutes, its quarks don't fly apart. Instead, one down quark beta decays into an up quark by emitting an electron and an electron anti-neutrino.

    92. Re:Found at 125 GeV by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      Oops! I think this is a more complete answer.

      The strong force between quarks in each nucleon isn't repulsive, it's just contrary to human intuition that's strongly influenced by gravity and electromagnetism. Electromagnetism can be repulsive, but it and gravity can both be approximated by inverse square laws that decay to zero at infinite range. The force between nucleons also decays rapidly with distance, but it's the residual of the true strong force between quarks, in the same way that van der Waals forces are residuals of the much stronger attraction between the atoms' protons and electrons.

      The true strong force between quarks is more like a rubber band, which exerts a stronger force as you move them apart. This rubber band "breaks" when you put enough energy into separating them as it would take to create a new quark next to each one, and that's exactly what happens. They can't spontaneously fly apart without violating conservation of energy. Protons are stable (for at least the next ~10^30 years), and even though a free neutron decays into a proton within about 15 minutes, its quarks don't fly apart. Instead, one down quark beta decays into an up quark by emitting an electron and an electron anti-neutrino.

    93. Re:Found at 125 GeV by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      I get that. What I don't get is: If it takes energy to remove quarks from one another, why does nucleons have higher masses than the sum of the masses of the quarks? From E=mc^2, I would assume that the heavier state had the higher potential energy, so that a higher-mass state cannot be a bound state. Why is this not the case for quarks?

    94. Re:Found at 125 GeV by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      We usually regard two particles to be in a bound state if they remain "close" to each other, but that's only because we're used to forces that decay to zero at infinite range. Particles that are infinitely far from each other don't experience gravitational or electromagnetic attraction, so they're regarded as free particles. The strong force is completely different, because it gets weaker as quarks are brought together. Thus quarks are "more free" the closer they are to each other; this is called asymptotic freedom.

      The force between nucleons is more intuitive because the gluons that mediate the strong force between the (not literal) red, blue or green color charges of quarks are confined inside each nucleon. Our intuition is based on electromagnetism which is mediated by electrically neutral photons, but gluons aren't color neutral, so they interact with each other in strange ways. The residual strong force is mediated by composite particles that leak from each nucleon called pions which are color neutral. As a result, the binding energies of atomic nuclei are easy to explain, but those of individual nucleons are counter-intuitive in many ways.

      Please note that I'm not a particle physicist or an expert in quantum chromodynamics, so my interpretation and explanation should be taken with a huge grain of salt.

      Also, I noticed your conversation with dudpixel, and tried to explain that scientists aren't just assuming that nuclear decay rates are constant.

    95. Re:Found at 125 GeV by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      I see. That is interesting, and kind of mind-blowing. I thought forces with massive bosons had shorter reaches, decaying faster than the square of the distance, but that must be wrong.

    96. Re:Found at 125 GeV by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      You're probably referring to the weak interaction (responsible for nuclear decay) which is short range because it's mediated by massive W and Z bosons. That's true, but it's a totally different fundamental force.

    97. Re:Found at 125 GeV by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      Meant to add: The gluons which mediate the strong force are actually massless. Their contribution to each nucleon's mass is E/c^2 through the energy of their interactions with each other and the quarks.

    98. Re:Found at 125 GeV by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      Rewording slightly at Dumb Scientist to include: The residual strong force is mediated by massive pions, which are composed of gluons and a color-neutral quark-anti-quark pair. They mass ~135 MeV, which is less than 2/3's that of a proton's mass of 938 MeV, which seems like a clue that quark masses don't significantly affect the masses of hadrons like baryons (nucleons, etc.) and mesons (pions, etc.).

    99. Re:Found at 125 GeV by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      Well, only the beta decay, but yes, that must have been what I had heard about. And then extrapolated to the residual strong force, which is also short range, as you write.

      This has an analog in the electromagnetic force, where dipole-dipole interactions has much shorter range than ion-ion interactions. IIRC, they fall of proportional to the fourth power of the distance in stead of the second. I have no idea whether the phenomenons are truly analogous, though.

    100. Re:Found at 125 GeV by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      The analogy is useful, but note that ion-ion and dipole-dipole interactions are both mediated by massless, electrically-neutral photons. The strong force is mediated by massless, color-charged gluons, and the residual strong nuclear force is mediated by massive, color-neutral pions. Bigger difference.

    101. Re:Found at 125 GeV by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      The idea of (color-)charged force mediators is weird, I keep forgetting it.

      My brain really wants the dipole analogy to hold up, to the point where I keep wondering whether dipole-dipole interactions can be described with massive pseudo-particles.

    102. Re:Found at 125 GeV by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      Probably not, but I also find charged mediators baffling. For instance, I couldn't stop thinking about baryon masses, and quickly went down a rabbit hole. Asymptotic freedom implies that a proton would lose ~98% of its mass if its quarks could all be in the exact same spot. That's a lot of energy; what keeps the quarks apart?

      I clung to a familiar analogy: hydrogen atoms don't collapse because of Heisenberg uncertainty and Pauli exclusion. Quarks are fermions, but the down quark isn't subject to the exclusion principle because it can be distinguished from the up quarks. Undergraduates explore the structure of a hydrogen atom by solving the (comparatively simple) non-relativistic Schrodinger's equation for the two-body electromagnetic interaction. On the other hand, understanding the structure of a proton requires a full relativistic treatment which involves a three-body interaction including color charge, flavor, spin, and electric charge. Scary.

      This was an excellent excuse to open David Griffith's Intro to Elementary Particles for the first time, and skip to page 180 to read about baryon wave functions. Conclusion: I really need to take a class on elementary particle physics!

      But anyway, here's a null result which may be interesting. I wondered how much baryon masses depend on the electromagnetic repulsion of the two up(down) quarks in a proton(neutron). Qualitatively, it seems like up quarks should repel each other electromagnetically twice as much as down quarks, so protons should be bigger than neutrons. Bigger should mean more massive, because the strong interaction becomes stronger as the quarks are separated. Since protons are actually ~0.1% less massive than neutrons, it seems like electromagnetism doesn't play a significant role in determining baryon masses.

    103. Re:Found at 125 GeV by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      Correction: Pauli exclusion explains why atoms with more than one electron don't collect all those electrons in the ground state. It's not really relevant to hydrogen, so I'm removing the first instance of the word "hydrogen" from my previous comment.

  2. huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OMG - now what?

    1. Re:huh by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

      Now we just need to solve gravity, dark matter, dark energy, unify quantum chromodynamics with relativity, and a ton of other stuff.

      Party's not over, folks. :)

      I suspect dark matter will be easiest. Wouldn't be surprised at all if the LHC solves that one. All you need to see is what looks like a clear violation of conservation of energy/momentum at a consistant, high energy in your results, and you've got evidence that something heavy that interacts weakly or not at all with normal matter is flying off in the opposite direction. That something would probably be dark matter.

      The others... that's probably going to be a long, hard slog.

      --
      Rock Us, Dukakis.
    2. Re:huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now we just need to solve gravity, dark matter, dark energy, unify quantum chromodynamics with relativity, and a ton of other stuff.

      Relativity (special relativity, that is) is pretty damn central to our understanding of quantum field theory, and thus quantum chromodynamics. And gravity is already "solved" in the sense that it's described perfectly well by Einstein's equations (aka general relativity), outside of regimes that are practically impossible to probe experimentally. The unification of quantum chromodynamics with that understanding of gravity (i.e., general rel) would be the next thing. (Sorry to nitpick and all...)

    3. Re:huh by CheshireDragon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The LHC found the higgs at 125GeV. It can go up to 7 TeV. There are many more discoveries that this massive machine will find.

      --
      "That's right...I said it."
    4. Re:huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent. We're now a Level 2 Civilization! (~almost..)

      Has complete model of particle physics, including origin fields. Has yet to complete understanding of gravitational obedience, nor has discovered life processes outside of resident home planet.

      /only partially sarcasm

    5. Re:huh by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Well they found a new something, it walks like a higgs, it quacks like a higgs, but they have to look some more to see if it looks like a higgs; I'ts pretty improbable that its not a higgs, but they haven't met the burden of proof yet.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    6. Re:huh by Rei · · Score: 2

      We're not talking about "describing", but "unifying" and "simplifying". We can describe mass and energy without the Higgs field.

      --
      Rock Us, Dukakis.
    7. Re:huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but my point was that you were talking about it like you didn't actually have a clue what you were on about. "[U]nify quantum chromodynamics with relativity" indeed. You have any idea how we got to quantum field theory in the first place?

    8. Re:huh by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      we did NOT get quantum mechanics from either special nor general relativity; in fact the first quantum mechanical equations were the non-relativistic form. Adding relativity to them gave us model for thing known as "spin"

    9. Re:huh by Xtifr · · Score: 1

      Relativity (special relativity, that is) is pretty damn central to our understanding of quantum field theory

      Which is why I read his "relativity" as "General Relativity". It may have been technically ambiguous to leave out the word "general", but there was only one reasonable interpretation of his statement, and pretending to be confused is very much a case of the Mathematician's Answer*--correct, uninformative, and useless.

      Anyone who would potentially be confused by his "relativity" probably doesn't know enough about any form of relativity to actually be confused. :)

      * warning: link leads to TVTropes, which may eat your brain.

    10. Re:huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that the energy of one of the proton/antiproton beams is 7 TeV, that the c.m. energy is 14 TeV (when at full capacity) in a collision, and that that energy is needed to create all of the particles and their momenta created in the collision, not just the Higgs boson?

    11. Re:huh by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      640GeV should be enough for everyone.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    12. Re:huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No shit. My point is we got QUANTUM FIELD THEORY from quantum mechanics AND relativity. The relativistic quantum mechanical equations (Klein-Gordon, Dirac) don't really make sense as single-particle equations, and had to be reinterpreted as field equations. Quantum field theory is basically obtained from assuming the axioms of quantum mechanics and those of special relativity (plus a third, but you can look that up yourself).

      Given that quantum chromodynamics is a quantum field theoretical theory, it's quite absurd to talk about unifying QCD with relativity, which was my original point.

      Fucken armchair physicists...

    13. Re:huh by craklyn · · Score: 1

      In 2012, it's 8 TeV by the way. Hopefully 14 TeV in 2014.

      It's a little more complicated than looking at the total center-of-mass energy and saying we can discovery any particle up to the max. A single proton is made of multiple constituents, and a proton incoming with 3.5 TeV (or 4 or 7) of energy represents the total energy of that system. When two protons interact, it's actually two constituents which are interacting, and they will have some fraction of the proton's energy. So typically the probability of producing particles drops considerably as you look for more massive particles.

      That said, the central sentiment of your message is correct. There is a lot of potential signals that remain to be investigated. There could even be particles found with considerably less mass than the Higgs, but which have an unusual decay signature which we haven't been sensitive to yet.

  3. Massive by burisch_research · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is a weighty finding.

    --
    char*f="char*f=%c%s%c;main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}";main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}
    1. Re:Massive by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 3, Funny

      This is a weighty finding.

      It's massive.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    2. Re:Massive by jampola · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's what she said.

      Sorry, 6 beers in and I couldn't help myself :)

    3. Re:Massive by msclrhd · · Score: 2

      Why are things so heavy in the future? Has the Earth's gravity increased or something?

    4. Re:Massive by MonsterTrimble · · Score: 1

      6 beers in at 8 AM. Sir, I salute you!

      --
      I call it 'The Aristocrats'
    5. Re:Massive by jampola · · Score: 1

      On a school day no less!

    6. Re:Massive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It ain't a school day anywhere in the US, today!

    7. Re:Massive by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's what she said.

      You are oddly correct. Fabiola Gianotti is in charge of the ATLAS detector.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    8. Re:Massive by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      That's not a Higgs-Boson, that's yo mamma!

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    9. Re:Massive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, 6 beers in and I couldn't help myself

      That's what she said !

    10. Re:Massive by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Not in the US. Today is Independence Day. Schools, banks, all government offices and many businesses are closed here today. Fireworks have been going off for two weeks.

      It's almost ten o'clock here, When I finish watching The Patriot I think I'll walk down to Felbers. Hell, I think I'll drink one now in honor of the folks at the LHC and Fermilab.

    11. Re:Massive by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Why are things so heavy in the future? Has the Earth's gravity increased or something?

      Actually, the Earth's mass increases slightly every time it captures a meteor. Plus, its rotation is slowing, reducing its Centrifugal force, so even if its and your mass stayed the same, a precise enough scale would show a constant increase in weight.

    12. Re:Massive by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 2

      Actually, the Earth's mass increases slightly every time it captures a meteor. Plus, its rotation is slowing, [physlink.com] reducing its Centrifugal force, so even if its and your mass stayed the same, a precise enough scale would show a constant increase in weight.

      That explains it!!! I am not a fat bastard gravity is just increasing. Someone get me a steak! :)

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    13. Re:Massive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are things so heavy in the future? Has the Earth's gravity increased or something? Actually, the Earth's mass increases slightly every time it captures a photon.

      FTFY.

    14. Re:Massive by tragedy · · Score: 1

      But since most of the rotational energy that the Earth is losing is being used to push the moon further away through tidal interactions then doesn't the increased distance of the moon mean that its gravity is pulling on you less when it's overhead so your average weight over an entire lunar orbit might be the same? Of course, some of that tidal energy turns into heat. On the other hand, heat has mass and therefore gravity. Some of it radiates away, however. The moon should be more efficient at radiating away inner heat than Earth, but I haven't got any idea which one gets more tidal heating. Trying to do accounting for the universe makes my head hurt.

    15. Re:Massive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My God, I hope you have a few more beers before you watch The Patriot...

    16. Re:Massive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that a hadron in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

  4. Careful Announcement by Quantum_Infinity · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am glad they are being careful with their announcement and not jumping on it to claim 'I have found the Higgs Boson. Take that Tevatron!'

    1. Re:Careful Announcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I don't think they give a flying fuck about the Tevatron. Seriously.

    2. Re:Careful Announcement by klmth · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's because they're not in competition as such. The results are complimentary. The Tevatron was able to isolate the same signal, just to a lower degree of precision (2.9 sigma as opposed to 5.0 sigma).

    3. Re:Careful Announcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And there are plenty of smart people in Batavia sitting atop the dormant tevatron (literally), in their little glass box linked to CERN, working on this. It looks like a mini NORAD in there.

      It's not a football game. It's a scientific pursuit.

    4. Re:Careful Announcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course they didn't literally say "take that, Tevatron!", they're not kids. But whether you like it or not, what happened today it's clearly a huge and historical victory for CERN and the european scientific community over the american. And it's July 4th...

    5. Re:Careful Announcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "complementary".

    6. Re:Careful Announcement by Jesus_666 · · Score: 2

      Well, you can have both at the same time but so far the NFL's Large Athlete Collider has failed to produce anything besides a few new Super Bowl commercials.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    7. Re:Careful Announcement by pla · · Score: 1

      Of course they didn't literally say "take that, Tevatron!", they're not kids.

      Not to mention - The Tevatron found it first! They didn't have enough of them to claim it to 5 sigma (Seriously Slashdot? 2012 and I can't use even basic HTML entities, never mind Unicode???). But they definitely found the same thing.

      So... Take that, brie-eating Europeans! ;)

    8. Re:Careful Announcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but the energy scale of the collisions has been slowly ramping up for years. They are close to observing brains in a superposition of existing and not existing at all. The mystery of the tau will soon be solved.

    9. Re:Careful Announcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Camembert-eating Europeans, you insensitive clod! Brie sucks.

    10. Re:Careful Announcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget the self-inflicted gunshot wounds.

    11. Re:Careful Announcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No they didn't what makes you think the tevatron saw it first?

    12. Re:Careful Announcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course they didn't literally say "take that, Tevatron!", they're not kids. Not to mention - The Tevatron found it first! They didn't have enough of them to claim it to 5 sigma (Seriously Slashdot? 2012 and I can't use even basic HTML entities, never mind Unicode???). But they definitely found the same thing. So... Take that, brie-eating Europeans! ;)

      The Tevatron results are months behind what the CERN scientists have found, unveiling the same evidence that LHC showed teams last year. But I do like brie.

    13. Re:Careful Announcement by lordholm · · Score: 2

      We Europeans strongly believe that people not eating brie cheese are really uncivilized. I think we are at least 8 sigmas sure of this... ;)

      --
      "Civis Europaeus sum!"
    14. Re:Careful Announcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tevatron is cleverly reporting the same results that LHC had a year ago, it will sink in as "Informative" with /. crowd.

    15. Re:Careful Announcement by epine · · Score: 1

      (Seriously Slashdot? 2012 and I can't use even basic HTML entities, never mind Unicode???).

      I've been substituting "(slashcode fuckup)" wherever Slashdot mangles basic character sets for a long while now, but it hasn't caught on. Maybe the problem is that I'm not spelling it out in backslash octal.

    16. Re:Careful Announcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically, the LHC confirmed the Tevatron's finding. In real science, it is not a discovery until it is confirmed by others.

      Thanks Europe, it was sweet of you to prove us right.

      -Illinoisian

  5. Dr. Higgs himself said it best... by klmth · · Score: 5, Informative

    In the press conference, Dr. Higgs summed the findings up nicely: "This is an achievement in experimental methodology." To detect this signal has required a momentous effort, and the good people at CERN have had the good fortune of reaching results quicker than anticipated.

    This isn't earth-shattering news or anything even unexpected, but it is still cause for celebration. Let us rejoice and then continue to push on towards new findings.

    1. Re:Dr. Higgs himself said it best... by toruonu · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well it's not that much good luck really. CMS showed the expected significance of a SM Higgs boson for the full 5 channel combination to be ~6 sigma for 125 GeV. So seeing 4.9 sigma is actually a downward fluctuation (or in other words unlucky) or it's not Higgs.

      Also, it's odd to see how much worse ATLAS was. They got 10% more statistics, yet see about the same significance as CMS. They also presented only 2 channels (true, the most sensitive ones) and didn't even attempt to fit the mass of the new particle (while CMS gave 125.3 +- 0.6 GeV, a precision of 0.5%!!!) nor did they look at the other supporting channels that could indicate if this is SM Higgs or some other particle. CMS as an example sees some tension in the 2tau final state where there is actually a downward fluctuation and almost exclusion of SM Higgs. CMS also showed first fits of couplings to fermions and bosons and that was very interesting result. ATLAS just claimed the 5 sigma and approximate mass. Really expected more of them...

    2. Re:Dr. Higgs himself said it best... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Let me guess, this isn't "earth-shattering" news simply because it didn't happen in the US? Whether you like it or not, this is the greatest scientific discovery in the last 20 years, and it happened in europe. And the best thing is that it's july 4th, haha!

    3. Re:Dr. Higgs himself said it best... by rbrausse · · Score: 1

      Also, it's odd to see how much worse ATLAS was.

      Atlas shrugged, though the evil spirit Cms won again :)

    4. Re:Dr. Higgs himself said it best... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jumping to conclussions much?.. this is recent news, and I'm sure all the details haven't been released.

    5. Re:Dr. Higgs himself said it best... by toruonu · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm in CMS and we pretty much released all the details now at the seminar. If ATLAS held back until publication, then either they didn't manage to get it approved or they cut corners and didn't feel presenting the results right now yet. In any case it's CMS that showed most thorough investigation here. Though I can understand delaying the lower priority channels until some time this/next week I don't understand why they didn't provide a mass fit at todays seminar which was to be a discovery seminar (or they didn't expect CMS to have 5 sigma).

    6. Re:Dr. Higgs himself said it best... by sgent · · Score: 1

      Greatest discovery in physics....

      I'd put the mapping of the Human Genome (2003), or creating new organs from stem cells (2008), or Synthetic Biology creating a cell with a fully artificial genome (2010) all up there as well. Don't forget faster than light neutrino's (confirmed a second time), or a vaccine for HIV. That's in the last 10 years, much less 20.

    7. Re:Dr. Higgs himself said it best... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Let me guess, this isn't "earth-shattering" news simply because it didn't happen in the US? Whether you like it or not, this is the greatest scientific discovery in the last 20 years, and it happened in europe. And the best thing is that it's july 4th, haha!

      I think they chose July 4th hoping a lot of Americans would be too busy to fill the online forums with dumb comments.

    8. Re:Dr. Higgs himself said it best... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Human Genome, stem cell research and HIV vaccine (which seems to have been kept under wraps otherwise it would have been touted with greater ferocity) are all advances in BIOLOGY. As for the faster than light neutrinos, this has been debunked. A cable was loose. But I gather from your comments about the HIV vaccine that you're behind with the news. Catch up at the back, please.

    9. Re:Dr. Higgs himself said it best... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The parent (and I quote) said "the greatest scientific discovery". Biology isn't science all of the sudden?

    10. Re:Dr. Higgs himself said it best... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of those were biological engineering. FTL neutrinos were a fail.

    11. Re:Dr. Higgs himself said it best... by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2

      ... (or they didn't expect CMS to have 5 sigma).

      Couldn't one of you CMS guys pick up the phone, dial extension #28527 and say "Yeah, we have 5 sigma." before the event?

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    12. Re:Dr. Higgs himself said it best... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They deliberately worked in isolation to 'blind' the results.

    13. Re:Dr. Higgs himself said it best... by AchilleTalon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Obviously you don't know anything about the scientific methodology required behind the scene to suggest such a odd thing. Both experiments are required to work in isolation in order to avoid bias in the results.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    14. Re:Dr. Higgs himself said it best... by oakgrove · · Score: 1
      The world is my country. Science is my religion.

      --Albert Einstein

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    15. Re:Dr. Higgs himself said it best... by oakgrove · · Score: 1

      Sorry that was Christiaan Huygens the Dutch physicist but the point still stands.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    16. Re:Dr. Higgs himself said it best... by Deadstick · · Score: 3, Funny

      This is an achievement in experimental methodology.

      In other words, this is Leonard making Sheldon's head explode.

    17. Re:Dr. Higgs himself said it best... by rossdee · · Score: 1

      This isn't Earth shattering news because its didn't shatter the Earth (or create a black hole, cause time to reverse, etc)

      Maybe when they get to the higher energy limits of the device they can destroy the planet

    18. Re:Dr. Higgs himself said it best... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There lies the fundamental error that has created the word "atheist":
      Science is *not* a religion. It is not a belief. Science is that which, if you don't believe in it, doesn't go away.
      Yet "atheists" still act like that's an abnormal state. It's like saying "I'm ill/sick with the disease of being sane/healthy".
      It's not much better than being a religitard.

      I don't say I'm anything. There is nothing to say, since being healthy is the normal state.

    19. Re:Dr. Higgs himself said it best... by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Let me guess, this isn't "earth-shattering" news simply because it didn't happen in the US? Whether you like it or not, this is the greatest scientific discovery in the last 20 years, and it happened in europe. And the best thing is that it's july 4th, haha!

      The parent said nothing to suggest that, but it's interesting you're so defensive that you read that into it. Is this a general feeling of inadequacy, or a manifestation of something more specific and personal?

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    20. Re:Dr. Higgs himself said it best... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Science is that which, if you don't believe in it, doesn't go away.

      No. Science is a method to gain knowledge about the world. Of course science can go away, as soon as nobody practices it any more.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    21. Re:Dr. Higgs himself said it best... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhm, well, the cat is out of the bag anyway, so where is your "isolation"? Or are they jailed in there without access to any form of information transfer?

  6. A good introducton to the Higgs mechanism by anandrajan · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's a good introduction to the Higgs boson and why it matters.

    --
    Anand Rangarajan anand@cise.ufl.edu
    1. Re:A good introducton to the Higgs mechanism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The picture at the top of that page is funny. The most powerful particle accelerator ever made with a little fire extinguisher hanging on the wall by an exit door. Yea, I'm sure it's to meet some fire regulation, but still.

    2. Re:A good introducton to the Higgs mechanism by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      im sure that some sort of builtin Halon dump type thing is rigged for the machine itself the bottle by the door is either Hysterical Raisins or to put STAFF out while they are fleeing the scene.

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    3. Re:A good introducton to the Higgs mechanism by boley1 · · Score: 2

      Here is another as a comic.
      https://vimeo.com/41038445

  7. God upstairs.... by nerdyalien · · Score: 2

    Phew.. that was close !!!

  8. Was the mass .1313131313... ? by Mal-2 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Glad to see we may not be a Type 13 planet after all...

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    1. Re:Was the mass .1313131313... ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dr. Longbore: "... the collider will reach the energy level required to determine the mass of the Higgs-Boson. Achieving this energy level will of course also destroy this planet by collapsing it into an ultra dense particle about the size of a pea, but you will die knowing the true mass of the final building block of nature ... You should thank me for letting you share in the joy of discovering the mass of the Higgs-Boson"

  9. Fake! by RockMFR · · Score: 3, Funny

    Obviously this is a grand conspiracy by the Europeans to distract us from what really matters today - blowing shit up! If they really wanted to celebrate the Fourth, they would have blown up CERN.

    1. Re:Fake! by vlm · · Score: 1

      Obviously this is a grand conspiracy by the Europeans to distract us from what really matters today - blowing shit up! If they really wanted to celebrate the Fourth, they would have blown up CERN.

      Or Syria... be patient it'll be a shooting war soon enough. Gotta keep the military industrial complex profits up in a election year, after all.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:Fake! by Rei · · Score: 1

      They blew up chunks of the LHC once already, does that count?

      --
      Rock Us, Dukakis.
    3. Re:Fake! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They found the Higgs particle by blowing up hadrons.

    4. Re:Fake! by lordholm · · Score: 1

      It is always an election year in Europe :)

      --
      "Civis Europaeus sum!"
  10. Live announcement coverage by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

    This just a few minutes old...

    Live coverage of the announcement, courtesy of The Telegraph.

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  11. Should be turning up on eBay soon by Boss,+Pointy+Haired · · Score: 1

    Got to be a CERN insider in for a quick $$$

  12. Worth the waking hours by Pro-feet · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I made it in the auditorium after queueing through half the night, but it was totally worth it. The atmosphere was collegeial and almost rapturous, one of sharing a feeling that we have as a whole community worked for so long to prove some mathematical construction of almost 50 years ago to be really realized in nature.

    And let it now please NOT be a standard-model Higgs boson, but something a little more intriguing!

    1. Re:Worth the waking hours by vlm · · Score: 3, Informative

      Did you see this character there with you (assuming you're not Jester posting on /.):

      http://resonaances.blogspot.com/2012/07/h-day-live.html

      My favorite line from the onsite report "10:46 Standing ovations, screams and shouts, the audience throwing bras and underwear at the stage."

      Personally I like this image:

      http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Cmf9NdNvpWw/T_Pm8cpuljI/AAAAAAAAAww/LF-1GXkBNfM/s320/godparticle.jpg

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:Worth the waking hours by Pro-feet · · Score: 2

      I don't know this (French) person (though I have been told the name but I forgot).
      From the pictures and comments it is clear that:
      - he/she arrived before 4.10am, becuase when I arrived the queue was longer.
      - he/she was sitting quite a bit left and 1 or 2 rows behind me; I didn't watch my back much.
      - he/she doesn't know Joe or he/she wouldn't call him boring.
      - we must all have been wearing invisible underwear.
      - I have never made out with him/her.

  13. Great by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now the "god particle" is proved everyone has to believe in Jesus

    1. Re:Great by vlm · · Score: 1

      Now the "god particle" is proved everyone has to believe in Jesus

      I always preferred the TOS trek version where its discovered the gods are real and living... the greek gods, not judeochristian.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:Great by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      It's easier to build a good story using them. They are real characters, while the judeochristian God just doesn't have a personality to explore and tends to create massive plot holes via omnipotence.

    3. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. The Jesus particle has not yet been found.

    4. Re:Great by backwardsposter · · Score: 1

      We believe that he was built, and that he was well-programmed, but we don't believe he was our messiah.

    5. Re:Great by mcgrew · · Score: 0

      It's easier to build a good story using them. They are real characters, while the judeochristian God just doesn't have a personality to explore

      Doesn't have a personality to explore?? That's just ignorant.

        and tends to create massive plot holes via omnipotence.

      Yet the Greek gods were only in one episode, while the omnipotent Q was a recurring character, from TNG's first episode to the last episode.

      You want plot holes, read the book I'm halfway done writing.

    6. Re:Great by Xtifr · · Score: 1

      Yes, and since it's original nickname was "the Goddamn Particle", it's also proof that we're all damned to hell! :)

      (Both nicknames actually come from the fact that it was goddamn hard to find--as hard to find as physical proof of the gods. And now that we (may) have found it, the name "god particle" no longer technically applies.)

    7. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So, a Higgs boson walks into a Catholic Church, and the priest says, “Thank God you showed up, we can’t have mass without you!”

      And then the Higgs boson was unfortunately molested.

  14. I survived the discovery of Higgs Boson... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and all I got was this lousy T-shirt.

  15. From The Telegraph by jampola · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Based on the Cern results alone there appears to be less than one chance in a million that this is fake, which is roughly the same probability as flipping a coin heads-up 21 times in a row."

    1. Re:From The Telegraph by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so lets have everyone on the planet flip a coin, whoever flips heads, flips again, whoever flips heads, flips again, whoever flips heads, flips again, etc., after 21 trials of that, you'll have thousands of folks who flipped a coin heads-up 21 times in a row.

    2. Re:From The Telegraph by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought dice and fair coins are blind. They don't know or care what turned up the previous time.

  16. One can make a good argument by Stirling+Newberry · · Score: 1

    That this is the day the 20th century ended, as the discovery of the boson attached to the Higg's field is the last major prediction of 20th century physics. The stuff of mass and gravity itself lies open to exploration.

  17. Possibly something else by Twinbee · · Score: 5, Informative
    It's something, and probably the Higgs Boson, but we're not 100% sure. Here's a comment from a CMS worker:
    http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/w0tty/higgs_boson_confirmed_at_5sigma_standard/c599ijb

    Actually, we observed a new state at 125 GeV and it seems consistent with a Standard Model Higgs boson. We have NOT discovered the SM Higgs boson because we simply haven't confirmed that this new particle is the SM Higgs because we're only looking at mass itself. It could be something else with a mass of 125 GeV. To actually claim it is the SM Higgs, we need to confirm that it has spin 0, the right coupling ratios, etc. And that's what I'm working on right now. But it is very exciting because we have discovered new physics. Source: Working at CMS

    --
    Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    1. Re:Possibly something else by beaverdownunder · · Score: 1

      At least this is honest, when the popular press is stating emphatically in its headlines that we 'found the God particle'...

      The truth is, we found a dog in the street that may, or may not, belong to Mr Higgs. All we know at this point is it's just a dog.

    2. Re:Possibly something else by Saija · · Score: 0

      Totally offtopic: your OpalCalc is awesome! i like the simplicity it displays but it's powerful enough to replace a spreadsheet for calculations, like debts or similar things. Thank you and keep the excellent work you have done!!

      --
      Slashdot ya no es que lo era! ;)
    3. Re:Possibly something else by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      Thanks!

      It hasn't exactly been a money spinner so far, but I wanted the free version to be useful enough to replace other calcs. Working on v1.47!

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    4. Re:Possibly something else by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 2

      At least this is honest, when the popular press is stating emphatically in its headlines that we 'found the God particle'...

      The truth is, we found a dog in the street that may, or may not, belong to Mr Higgs. All we know at this point is it's just a dog.

      Admittedly, it's a brand new particle: that's always exciting. If it's not the Higgs, then it'd be something entirely new and exciting.

  18. Particle That Looks Like the Higgs Boson by Higgs+Bosun · · Score: 5, Funny

    So, they might be mistaken. They've probably just detected me and got confused.

    1. Re:Particle That Looks Like the Higgs Boson by gringer · · Score: 1

      I was going to say, "no, you're a Hick Bogan, not a Higgs Bosun", but then I looked at your username and decided to say it anyway.

      --
      Ask me about repetitive DNA
    2. Re:Particle That Looks Like the Higgs Boson by mfnickster · · Score: 1

      "How do you KNOW it's a Higgs Boson?"

      "It LOOKS like one!"

      --
      "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
    3. Re:Particle That Looks Like the Higgs Boson by HiggsBison · · Score: 1

      Well, we can assume that it wasn't a Higgs Bison. CERN doesn't have a herd. Fermilab still has the advantage there.

      --
      My other car is a 1984 Nark Avenger.
  19. Fermi Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now we've sorted out the Higgs, let's turn up the power until we solve the Fermi Paradox!

  20. Get 'em whilst they're hot ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stocks are limited so book early !

    http://www.ebuyer.com/390394-higgs-boson-higgs126

    'Tractor' Barry - who can't log in anymore 'cause Slashdot's dumbass system has not only reset (deleted ?) his password but also lost the password recovery email...

  21. It is the mass by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 5, Informative

    The mass of the Higgs boson is just the energy needed to make the Higgs field vibrate. The reason that the Higgs field gives particles mass is that, at its lowest energy level, the value of the Higgs field is not zero and this non-zero field then fills the universe and binds to particles giving them mass.

    Hence the mass of each type of particle depends on the zero energy value (vacuum expectation value) of the Higgs field and how strongly the particle couples to it while the mass of the Higgs boson depends on how the energy density of the Higgs field changes as the strength of the field varies.

    1. Re:It is the mass by Cow+Jones · · Score: 5, Funny

      [the Higgs field] ... then fills the universe and binds to particles giving them mass.

      I'm not a physicist, so please correct me if I misunderstood. Are you saying that this field surrounds us and penetrates us, and that it binds the galaxy together?

      --

      Ah, arrogance and stupidity, all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari
    2. Re:It is the mass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pretty much Cow.. now if we can only harness the force...er...um Gravity and use it to defeat the sith.. i mean evil doers....

    3. Re:It is the mass by Elldallan · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hey at least The Higgs Boson sounds better than Midichlorians.

    4. Re:It is the mass by cheesecake23 · · Score: 1, Funny

      [the Higgs field] ... then fills the universe and binds to particles giving them mass.

      I'm not a physicist, so please correct me if I misunderstood. Are you saying that this field surrounds us and penetrates us, and that it binds the galaxy together?

      (Score:6, Awesome)

    5. Re:It is the mass by iZC · · Score: 1

      And it has give way the a new greetings among physicist: "Higgs five!!

  22. Hacking Particles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein

    It is akin to the television show "Ghost Hunters". You might see something cool every now and then, but most of the time, not much at all. If you took away the background music, it would be a very boring show of countless "Did you hear or see that?" and "What the heck was that?" in the dark.

  23. Re:I found it last week. by erdos-bacon+sandwich · · Score: 5, Funny

    The legendary Higgs Boson is in my pants, and it feels great!

    Scientists also report the particle is much smaller than expected

  24. Patent applied for by Harold+Halloway · · Score: 5, Funny

    Already Apple have patented the new particle, on the basis that it gives the iPad mass so they must have invented it.

    1. Re:Patent applied for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Grand theft. I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple’s $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong. I’m going to destroy the Universe, because it’s a stolen product. I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this.”

  25. "Discovers"? by quenda · · Score: 0, Troll

    They "discover" it by looking exactly where is predicted? That is like me getting on an Air France jet, and "discovering" Paris.

    1. Re:"Discovers"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's more like you making a prediction about a far off unknown land and sailing there. The fact it was "predicted" meant it may not have been found.

    2. Re:"Discovers"? by ledow · · Score: 1

      This is more akin to predicting that, say, a particular town, on a particular planet, in a particular star system, looks like Paris - even though NOBODY human has ever been there before and we had no other information but some complicated (and mostly previously unobserved) science to help us.

      And then going there and it turning out to be the case (or at least substantially correct if not a perfect Paris replica).

    3. Re:"Discovers"? by beaverdownunder · · Score: 2

      That theory could _also_ say that the far-off land is the only land in that region when there are several other lands that are missed because we A) found the predicted far-off land and B) then assumed that the second prediction, that it was the only far-off land, was also true, and failed to look any further.

      This is the mistake I fear CERN is going to make.

    4. Re:"Discovers"? by radtea · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is the mistake I fear CERN is going to make.

      All particle physics experiments have two aspects: they are designed with some very specific target in mind, and once that target is found or excluded they are then run for as long as humanly possible searching for new stuff, both by going to higher energies and making more precise measurements on things already known (different decay channels, etc.)

      Sometimes--as in the case of the Kamiokande detector, which was originally aimed at proton decay--we repurpose the system for different particles entirely (solar neutrinos, say.)

      So your "fear" is that the LHC teams will behave completely differently from every particle physics team ever anywhere. Good luck with that.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  26. Higgs Mass predicted by the 4 Color Theorem 2009 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/0912.5189v1.pdf

    WOW!!!

  27. Operators are standing by. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So why not just announce when it's verified. Sounds like marketing to me. Must be on a pledge drive at CERN.

  28. Higgs boson does not explain mass in general by Framboise · · Score: 1

    Let us remind that while the Higgs boson to some extent "explains" the mass of the heavy particle sector (quarks, thus protons and neutrons), the Higgs boson sheds no light on the mass of neutrinos, nor on the mass of the expected dark matter particles.
    Also the particular value of the Higgs mass remains a natural constant escaping explanation.

       

    1. Re:Higgs boson does not explain mass in general by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the mass in protons and neutrons comes from the binding energy so has nothing to do with the Higgs.

      The Higgs can easily be responsible for the masses of the neutrinos in some models though there still needs to be an explanation for why they are light which is why other mechanisms are prefered.

      Depending on the dark matter particle the higgs field can be responsible for it's mass. In supersymmetry the dark matter would almost certainly have some mass due to the higgs.

  29. Let's just hope that the US Patent office... by DusterBar · · Score: 0

    Let's just hope that the US Patent Office does not issue a patent on this "new" boson.

    It would be a sure way to claim patent enfringement on any physical thing.

    1. Re:Let's just hope that the US Patent office... by Dot.Com.CEO · · Score: 1

      Wow a critique of the patent system in a completely unrelated subject, how absolutely fucking original.

      --
      Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
  30. Re:I found it last week. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's also not a Hadron.

  31. Higgs Boson Mass predicted in 2009 using math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A paper from 2009 predicted the Higgs Boson Mass at 125.992 126 GeV using the Four Color Theorem.

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/0912.5189v1.pdf

    IMPRESSIVE!!!

    1. Re:Higgs Boson Mass predicted in 2009 using math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      From 2009 paper "Higgs Boson Mass predicted by the Four Color Theorem" http://arxiv.org/pdf/0912.5189v1.pdf

      "Using all the specications of our mathematical model, we show how to calculate the values of the Weinberg and Cabibbo angles on the particle frame. Finally, we present our prediction of the Higgs H0 boson mass MH0 = 125.992 126 GeV ,as a direct consequence of the proof of the four color theorem."

      From 2012 CERN Press Release http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2012/PR17.12E.html

      "We observe in our data clear signs of a new particle, at the level of 5 sigma, in the mass region around 126 GeV. The outstanding performance of the LHC and ATLAS and the huge efforts of many people have brought us to this exciting stage,” said ATLAS experiment spokesperson Fabiola Gianotti, “but a little more time is needed to prepare these results for publication."

  32. Win / Win by Flipstylee · · Score: 1

    If we can't confirm it as a Higgs Boson, (1) we have many new toys to play with, investors, landlords, etc. are happy, science got done.
    If we can however confirm, see (1) . What a great day.

  33. 4.9 BITCHES! by acidfast7 · · Score: 1

    n/m

  34. Re:4.9 BITCHES! by acidfast7 · · Score: 2

    4.9 "SIGMA" BITCHES! hey ./, now that the second-largest methodologically driven task has been completed (to 4.9 sigma) ... can you get this crappy system here fixed (the first-largest methodologically driven task.)

  35. What better way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... to give comic sans some love...

    http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/4/3136652/cern-scientists-comic-sans-higgs-boson

  36. Inventions not discoveries by k(wi)r(kipedia) · · Score: 1

    I'd put the mapping of the Human Genome (2003), or creating new organs from stem cells (2008), or Synthetic Biology creating a cell with a fully artificial genome (2010) all up there as well. Don't forget faster than light neutrino's (confirmed a second time), or a vaccine for HIV. That's in the last 10 years, much less 20.

    Except for the supposedly FTL neutrinos, I wouldn't exactly call these things discoveries. "Creating" organs and cells and vaccines would qualify as inventions. You don't find these things in nature. The mapping of the human genome is best described not as a single discovery but as the foundation or springboard for discovery. From examining the information, a researcher might make a discovery about, say, the origin of certain genetic disorders. As it is, the data from the Human Genome Project is simply a data dump no different from the TB's that the CERN computer spit out (otherwise the discovery of the Higgs would have been mechanically announced months ago and not just now after careful vetting by physicists).

  37. No, not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The field is everywhere, not just around us but also inside us. Everywhere and anywhere. Comparable to electromagnetic fields, except you can't shield them.

    What holds the galaxy (-ies) together is something else, that's gravity. Also a field, extending to fill the universe.

    The Higgs particle (or field, can't talk about one without thinking about the other) gives the universe mass (well, it's one of the things that do that) so perhaps some clever brainiacs might be able to think something up connecting the Higgs and gravity in such a way that it unites all the forces. That would be a garuanteed ticket to Stockholm and a place in history as the greatest discovery (or theory, if you like) since the discovery of fire itself.

    1. Re:No, not really by gringer · · Score: 4, Informative

      Just in case you, or someone else, didn't get the reference:

      The Force

      --
      Ask me about repetitive DNA
    2. Re:No, not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ---- reference ---->
              head

    3. Re:No, not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Just in case you, or someone else, didn't get the reference:

      The Force

      How is explaining a Star Wars reference on slashdot considered informative? That's like explaining what a bullet is on a gun forum.

      Now, explain how to dress, how to coordinate an outfit or what breasts feel like... that would be informative

      Your audience, know it.

    4. Re:No, not really by RaceProUK · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The Higgs field gives particles mass, and gravity acts on mass. Therefore, the Higgs field, while not binding the universe together, is vital for gravity to do so.

      it's probably over-simplified (there's no quantum weirdness described), but I think it sums up the link well enough.

      A thought occurs - if the Higgs is confirmed, and we find a way to cancel its effect out, hello anti-grav and inertia-free travel!

      Maybe we've found the Force after all... :)

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    5. Re:No, not really by jd2112 · · Score: 4, Funny

      My the Higgs Bison be with you.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    6. Re:No, not really by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

      My the Higgs Bison be with you.

      No thanks. They are large, bad tempered animals. Much like politicians.

      And they smell just about the same.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    7. Re:No, not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would say rather then Force, we would find Mass Effect ;)

    8. Re:No, not really by morcego · · Score: 1

      I'm not holding my breath for antigrav. The problem with gravity is that you can't have negatives.
      However, even if we don't see "inertia-free", I can easily imagine some kind of "inertia dampening thingy"(tm). That would be pretty cool.

      --
      morcego
    9. Re:No, not really by WillDraven · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't you kind of, you know, explode like a bunch of photons if you were made mass-less?

      I could see anti-grav and reduced inertia by modifying the field maybe, but not totally free of inertia.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    10. Re:No, not really by toriver · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ah, do not so readily compare the two. Bison give us milk, meat, and hides. Politicians - not so much.

    11. Re:No, not really by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 4, Funny

      I for one would love a politician leather coat. Do I get to select the politician it is made from?

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    12. Re:No, not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you, Australia.

    13. Re:No, not really by JimboFBX · · Score: 2, Funny

      You know when you grab a woman's breast... and it's... and you feel it and it feels like a bag of sand when you touch it...

    14. Re:No, not really by thasmudyan · · Score: 1

      Even if the impossibility of negative gravity and/or gravity dampening does hold up, there is still a million cool things we could do if we could manipulate positive gravity directly without having to expend the usual amount of energy - especially things for space flight such as true artificial gravity*, efficient nuclear fusion, cheap launch technologies, fast propulsion systems and even FTL drives. Not that this technology is even remotely within our reach, but if we discovered some kind of catalyst for manipulating the Higgs field directly that would really open up the universe for us, science fiction-style. Should we ever be able to make something like this work, this would be the biggest thing since mastering electricity.

      * though on second thought that would probably require the capability of negating gravity or at least the option to put it in a tightly confined loop to be really useful for making spaceships habitable.

    15. Re:No, not really by morcego · · Score: 1

      Oh, I agree with you 100%. And, I mean, "within our reach" is always good, regardless of the time frame. 100 years is much sooner than "never" or "no idea".
      But really, we are talking such large scales here that, even if we can, say, improve launching efficiency by 1%, it is still a great result. And, about FTL, we don't even have to go that far. The inertia effects on the organism of anyone breaking the sound barrier (jets etc) is nothing minor. There is a lot of room for improvement there also.
      Not to mention the potential for better understanding gravity itself. I mean, gravity is still one of the great mysteries of physics. Of all the natural forces, it is one of the least understood ones, if that. Heck, I will be happy if we end up with an unified model for gravity. That alone would advance so many fields it is scary.

      --
      morcego
    16. Re:No, not really by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      Don't say it too loud, or George Lucas will re-release SW with a s/midichlorians/Higgs bosons/g edit.

    17. Re:No, not really by NoSleepDemon · · Score: 1

      I hope not, because things would most assuredly end terribly.

    18. Re:No, not really by isorox · · Score: 2

      I for one would love a politician leather coat. Do I get to select the politician it is made from?

      Far too slippery for my taste

    19. Re:No, not really by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      There is indeed a way to cancel out gravity. You just put a massive object on the other side. Alternatively, if you only want to cancel the effects of gravity rather than gravity itself then simply putting something under your object will do. A table for example.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    20. Re:No, not really by RaceProUK · · Score: 1

      Except that's not cancelling gravity - it's still acting on those objects.

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    21. Re:No, not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that's most likely your limiting factor. We know that you can't zero out inertia on a mass because if you could, the math says you'd basically break relativity completely, and be able to build perpetual motion machines and free energy generators, and all sort of crazy stuff that appear to be utterly impossible.

      186,000 miles per second, people. It's not just a good idea, it's the law.

    22. Re:No, not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because not everyone on Slashdot likes or has seen Star Wars. I, for one, don't care for it.

    23. Re:No, not really by meekg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, that's what we take from the Bison.
      What the Bison gives us is shit - just like said politicians.

    24. Re:No, not really by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      rolls eyes

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    25. Re:No, not really by semi-extrinsic · · Score: 2

      Hate to rain on your parade, but one of the problems with FTL drives (in particular an Alcubierre drive) is that if you take such a spaceship out of FTL anywhere near a planet, you kill everything on that planet. (I think this was on /. a few months ago.) You would have to use conventional space drives to get a good, far distance away (say a year of travel) before either engaging or disengaging FTL. It doesn't completely negate the point of FTL, but it makes it a lot less attractive.

      --
      for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
    26. Re:No, not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My the Higgs Bison be with you.

      I think Sagat was more of badass than Bison

    27. Re:No, not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but they do give pork...

    28. Re:No, not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the Higgs only gives mass to certain kinds of particles, which make up only a tiny fraction of the mass in a real world object like a human or a bowling ball. The vast majority of observable "mass" is already explained through QCD without invoking the Higgs.

    29. Re:No, not really by dudpixel · · Score: 1

      bad idea, they might be declared a protected species.

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
    30. Re:No, not really by holmstar · · Score: 1

      Not only that, if you cancelled out some inertia, wouldn't that cause the frequency of the vibrations of molecules/atoms to increase? The energy making up the temperature of an object needs to be conserved. A higher frequency vibration might cause something to act as though it's hotter than it really is. Maybe it would lower boiling points, etc. That would be very bad for living things, so inertia cancellation for spacecraft/aircraft, etc might be infeasible. It has interesting applications for industry though and might make it possible to achieve fusion at lower temperatures.

    31. Re:No, not really by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Bison give us milk, meat, and hides. Politicians - not so much.

      What about baby Bush every time something important came up - pork, runs and hides.

    32. Re:No, not really by JimboFBX · · Score: 1

      some 'tard mod clearly didn't get the 40 year old virgin quote

    33. Re:No, not really by thasmudyan · · Score: 1

      Designing a functional FTL drive with the knowledge of today is the equivalent of a prehistorical human observing a lightning strike and then speculating about electrical household appliances. Yes, we have made some observations, we can even grasp some of the phenomena intuitively and mathematically, we do have some idea of the power behind the thing, but actually accessing it and doing things with it is so far off it's not even funny from today's perspective.

      So yeah, if you told a cave dweller that some day everything on earth will be powered by vast amounts of electricity, he'd have to assume this would involve incinerating the planet too.

      There is no parade to rain in on, but I do think it's premature to argue categorical impossibilities like the one you're citing - not only from a logical perspective but also historically people like you have almost always been proven wrong. People like me also get proven wrong all the time, the only difference is that sooner or later something almost like the thing we envisioned does come along. Let me put it this way: tech/sci optimists are always on the advance, whereas naysayers have to retreat constantly.

      The Alcubierre drive is just one approach to warp drives that we cobbled together with our extremely limited understanding today. If we knew a lot more about the nature of gravity and spacetime (and let's face it: to manipulate it in this fashion we'd have to) I'm sure we'll come up with tons of new ideas.

    34. Re:No, not really by zevans · · Score: 1

      Yeah. I want my antigrav jetpack complete with Bergenholm! (You'd still need surprisingly large jets to beat aero drag I suspect.)

      You've assumed there that inertial mass and gravitational mass are the same thing... and now I've run out of talent. Does the Higgs theory say anything about the equivalence principle? If you could suppress the Higgs field do you get antigrav or inertia-free or both? (Or neither - if you get vacuum collapse)

      Or is inertia just a another consequence of the same curvature that generates the perception of gravity, when you factor in the timelike dimension?

      --
      "... and more and more now there are all kinds of electronic goodies available" -- Pink Floyd 1972
    35. Re:No, not really by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      some 'tard mod clearly didn't get the 40 year old virgin quote

      I think the 'tard is more likely to be the one who has an in depth knowledge of The 40 Year Old Virgin, truly one of the unfunniest comedies I have ever seen half way through.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    36. Re:No, not really by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I'm not holding my breath for antigrav. The problem with gravity is that you can't have negatives.

      When you beg a question, it fucking stays begged.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    37. Re:No, not really by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      There is no parade to rain in on, but I do think it's premature to argue categorical impossibilities like the one you're citing - not only from a logical perspective but also historically people like you have almost always been proven wrong. People like me also get proven wrong all the time, the only difference is that sooner or later something almost like the thing we envisioned does come along. Let me put it this way: tech/sci optimists are always on the advance, whereas naysayers have to retreat constantly.

      Taking that to its logical conclusion, you are implying that, in time, absolutely anything that you can think of will (bar a few differences in detail) become reality.

      I think that is taking "the glass is half full" optimism into the realm of "not only is it half full, but it will inevitably make itself full one day". Things like entropy would suggest otherwise.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    38. Re:No, not really by thasmudyan · · Score: 1

      Wow, that's a gross misrepresentation of my position. If this is what you took away from my post, there is really nothing more to say.

    39. Re:No, not really by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      rolls eyes

      Quite. There should be a -1 "humourless bastard" mod option.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    40. Re:No, not really by ai4px · · Score: 1

      Nonsense.... we don't need the Force, we only the The Spice for intergalactic travel.

    41. Re:No, not really by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      +1 vi reference

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    42. Re:No, not really by Tamerlin · · Score: 1

      Politician is just a layman's term for "homo retardus" which has a symbiotic relationship to its voters, also known as "homo lobotomus."

    43. Re:No, not really by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      That's not a gun. It's an ornamental projectile launcher.

    44. Re:No, not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not with the right snake oil.

    45. Re:No, not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you didn't get that reference, I think I'm within my rights to demand you turn in your geek badge and get the hell off /. permanently.

    46. Re:No, not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just in case you, or someone else, didn't get the reference:

      The Force

      How is explaining a Star Wars reference on slashdot considered informative? That's like explaining what a bullet is on a gun forum.

      Now, explain how to dress, how to coordinate an outfit or what breasts feel like... that would be informative

      Your audience, know it.

      ...it depends on whose breasts they are...

    47. Re:No, not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wouldn't anti-gravity and inertia free cancel out any travel?

    48. Re:No, not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's like explaining what a bullet is on a gun forum.

      Ironically, even on gun forums people sometimes incorrectly use the word "bullet" when referring to a loaded cartridge.

    49. Re:No, not really by RaceProUK · · Score: 1

      No, as inertia is resistance to changes in movement. With no inertia, there's no resistance, so movement changes can be achieved with minimal force.

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    50. Re:No, not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lovely!
      Then shit does not stick to it.
      It puts the lotion on....

  38. New McDonalds Ad by roger_pasky · · Score: 1

    Mac-Light: It won't get you fat, it is Higgs Boson free.

  39. Rest mass versus relativistic mass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    Photons are massless in rest. Which they normally aren't as they're zipping about with the speed of light. Then they exhibit relativistic mass (mass because of the energy they carry, as E=mc^2, remember?). This mass interacts with gravity, allowing light to bend around stars and light to be trapped inside black holes.

    But, this mass has nothing to do with the mass that originates in the Higgs field. Complicated? Yes, but that's physics... :-)

    1. Re:Rest mass versus relativistic mass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Photons cannot be at rest, This is the fundamental result of special relativity.

    2. Re:Rest mass versus relativistic mass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't light bend around stars due to the gravatatioinal field curving space? sorry posting as ac

    3. Re:Rest mass versus relativistic mass by thrich81 · · Score: 1

      Light "bends" around stars because space-time itself is "bent" around the star by the star's gravitation. Light in free space (outside of transparent objects, etc) travels along a geodesic of space-time, which is (usually) the shortest way to get from one place to another. It would be difficult to say that a photon's relativistic mass is interacting with gravity because if that were the case then you would expect that photons of different energy would take different paths in a gravitational field, which they don't.
      It is misleading to say that "Photons are massless in rest", because they can't exist at rest.

    4. Re:Rest mass versus relativistic mass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Photons are massless in rest. Which they normally aren't as they're zipping about with the speed of light. Then they exhibit relativistic mass (mass because of the energy they carry, as E=mc^2, remember?)

      But if m = 0 then E=0c^2 = 0

    5. Re:Rest mass versus relativistic mass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The correct formula is E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2. For a particle at rest (i.e. p=0) this reduces to E^2=(mc^2)^2, or E=mc^2. For a photon, we have E=pc, and thus from (pc)^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 we can conclude that m=0.

    6. Re:Rest mass versus relativistic mass by Rising+Ape · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The E in E =mc^2 refers to the rest energy, which is indeed zero for a photon. There's also a component related to motion, and it can be shown from relativity that the total energy is given by E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4. For a photon of course, this means that E=pc.

      Relativistic mass is a rather useless concept, since it doesn't behave as we'd intuitively think that mass would, and is in any case equivalent to the total energy mentioned above. Best to stick to rest mass, which has the useful feature of being independent of frame of reference.

    7. Re:Rest mass versus relativistic mass by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 2

      One thing to beware of is the naive assumption that p=mv. That is true for objects with a rest mass, but for photons p=hbar*k, where hbar is the reduced Planck constant and k is the wave vector of the photon. Confusing this leads to incorrect conclusions.

      --
      Not a sentence!
  40. So... Now what? by pla · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Don't take this the wrong way, consider me very excited to hear we've finally discovered the Higgs boson.

    But honestly? I would have preferred we didn't find it. However deep we look, the universe appears to fit the standard model flawlessly, just a matter of adding more decimal places to our store of knowledge. So, we found it, the standard model prevails yet again - Where does that leave gravity and QCD? What do we look for now?

    Or perhaps more to the point, does finding the Higgs, that everyone fully expected to find roughly where they found it, really answer anything? At the risk of sounding like I would ascribe some sense of agency to the question (I do not mean to - consider me an agnostic in the strictest epistemological sense), this just barely answers the "what"; Yet with billions of dollars and millions of man-hours and the highest tech known to Man, we haven't even come close to answering the "why". We have a handful of nice tidy self-contained islands that make up the fabric of the universe, with no better idea of why they exist or how they interact (in the mechanism sense, not the phenomenal sense) than we did a decade and many billions of dollars ago.

    1. Re:So... Now what? by Pro-feet · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The existence of the scalar Higgs field as the explanation of electroweak symmetry breaking, implies the existence of the hierarchy problem:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_problem

      So except for measuring all the particles' properties, which especially in case of the self-coupling will take many years, we will have to find an answer to the hierarchy problem. Hopefully that can come in the form of new physics, which is likely to also influence the Higgs boson properties like production and decay rates.

    2. Re:So... Now what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      because you have to keep looking until you hit the elephants then it's turtles all the way down!

    3. Re:So... Now what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, so you wanted the Easy Way out? :)

      Particle accelerators are just microscopes. Similarly, just because you can see bacteria, does not mean you understand what they are and how they function, never mind the entire thing with the "meaning of life". LHC is just a microscope, a not very powerful one either (on a cosmic scale). But it allows us to see a little bit more and allows us to put more of the blocks in order.

      Experiments are not there to prove theories. They are there to show us reality and hence to *help us* narrow down our quest for the correct Unified Field Theory or Theory of Everything.

      LHC has a *long way* to probe!

    4. Re:So... Now what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does there have to be a "why"? Can you phrase the question in terms of a testable hypothesis?

    5. Re:So... Now what? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      they are at 4.9 sigma confidence, they need 5.0 to be an official discovery.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    6. Re:So... Now what? by Rinikusu · · Score: 1

      "...is the search for fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall. "

      -Indiana Jones, "The Last Crusade"

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    7. Re:So... Now what? by Gravitron+5000 · · Score: 1

      So except for measuring all the particles' properties, which especially in case of the self-coupling will take many years, we will have to find an answer to the hierarchy problem.

      Self-coupling should take 15 minutes, tops. You must be doing something wrong.

    8. Re:So... Now what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Science is simple not interrested in your question because experiments can only prove or disprove questions like "how" or "what" but not "why".

  41. Re:I found it last week. by erikkemperman · · Score: 1

    Ha, I see what you did there, you clever dikc

    --
    Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
  42. Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Thanks, you're right that I didn't get the reference. In retrospect it is obvious...

    In my defence I'd like to offer that on a regular day about 67% of my brain activity goes to suppressing the memory of JarJar "MeesaSuckSoBadly" Bincks.

  43. Spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read somewhere that Mr Higgs actually said with respects to the particle named after him as "That God damned particle". But media being media, spun it differently.

  44. Obligatory TBBT reference by Andrewkov · · Score: 2

    Dr. Sheldon Cooper will be happy to hear about this.

    1. Re:Obligatory TBBT reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. We will NOT be doing obligatory TBBT on /. I don't ever want to hear this mentioned again.

    2. Re:Obligatory TBBT reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no he wont be, he naturally already knows this has known it since he was 5 years old to be exact

  45. Next up: Dark Matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Although less hyped by the media, making dark matter in a lab setting could be even more exciting. With Higgs, they had a pretty good idea of what they were looking for, what it does, and where they could find it; dark matter is much more mysterious. This page gives a summary of how dark matter might be found, and it claims that: "If these particles have masses at the TeV scale, they will surely be discovered at the LHC."

    http://www.uslhc.us/LHC_Science/Questions_for_the_Universe/Dark_Matter

  46. Big fleas have little fleas... by clickety6 · · Score: 2

    A Higgs Boson is a quantum of the Higgs Field which gives everything mass.
    The Higgs Boson has a probable mass of around 126 GeV.
    So what gives the Higgs Boson mass?

    --
    ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
    1. Re:Big fleas have little fleas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's Higgs Boson's all the way down!

    2. Re:Big fleas have little fleas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Higgs itself! The other Higgses actually (the vacuum Higgs field) prevent the physical Higgs moving too fast.

    3. Re:Big fleas have little fleas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what gives the Higgs Boson mass?

      It is the Higgs "field". For more check out:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RIg1Vh7uPyw
      or
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9Uh5mTxRQcg
      & https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ASRpIym_jFM

      Also interesting: http://vimeo.com/41038445
      Interesting article: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/04/us-science-higgs-idUSBRE86008K20120704

  47. hitch.. by hansley · · Score: 0

    can we hitchhike on this collapsed probability field ?

    --
    What am i, but stardust
  48. Re:Yo mama by mcgrew · · Score: 0

    I got a lot more knowledge reading the comments in this thread than from any of the MSM reports I read.

    My question is, how will this affect the ongoing war between Dr. Cooper and Dr. Winkle?

  49. Higgs bosom by PPH · · Score: 3, Funny

    I've been trying to get a peek at Cindy Higgs' bosom since high school.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  50. explanatory update please? by slashmydots · · Score: 2

    For those of us that only took high school particle physics then got IT degrees (aka most of us) can someone post what a neutron, proton, and electron are actually made out of with this "standard model" and how the Higgs boson comes into play to give them mass? Oh and photons and neutrinos too since I think they have a tiny tiny tiny bit of mass so they must have a higgs boson inside them too or something but somehow express a different mass than "larger" particles. I dunno. Someone explain it, lol. I think that'd help explain this a lot better than some of the posts above which are still a bit over our heads.

    1. Re:explanatory update please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Ok, this is going to be pretty rough, but here it goes:

      The Standard Model describes all the "point particles" which can't be subdivided. Each of these particles has a few constant parameters like electric charge, color charge, mass, and spin. Electrons are one of them (-1e charge, 0.51MeV mass, spin 1/2) as are neutrinos (0 charge, some...mass, spin 1/2) and quarks (+2/3 or -1/3 charge, a few different masses, spin 1/2). Quarks come together in groups of 2 or 3 to build particles like protons and neutrons (and a whole bunch more). These are what you'd consider matter (Fermions). There are also particles that serve as "force carriers" - all the fundamental forces like electromagnetism and the nuclear forces can be thought of as exchanges of these other particles. They have integer spin, and we call them Bosons. The photon for instance represents the electric field (it's massless), the W and Z bosons represent the weak nuclear force (they have mass), and Gluons represent the strong nuclear force (they have color charge, like quarks).

      The problem is that gravity isn't really mentioned anywhere in here, and unlike all the other particle parameters, "mass" seems pretty arbitrary. It's not a nice round number, so there has to be something else there behind the scenes. The solution to this is that we think there's another "field", which we call the Higgs field, and another force-carrying particle called the Higgs Boson. In the same way that particles with charge can interchange photons to "feel" the electric field, particles with mass can exchange Higgs bosons to "feel" the Higgs field. Particles that interact that way essentially tie up a bunch of energy in that reaction, and that extra bottled up energy is what we experience as mass. So the degree to which particles couple to the higgs field (you could think of it as their "mass charge" parameter) determines how much mass they have. And people way smarter than you and me have found equations that do, in fact, predict the right masses for various particles when you crunch the numbers.

      The problem with finding bosons is that they're really just intermediary particles - photons are obvious enough only because they travel at the speed of light. Bosons with mass go much slower, and wind up decaying or interacting before we can directly observe them. So this find by the LHC is *indirect* evidence of the Higgs, based on how much energy they're missing from various collision interactions. But it matches the predictions to a very high degree so far, so they're calling it good.

    2. Re:explanatory update please? by thrich81 · · Score: 2

      I'll give you a partial try. I think that is is too much to ask to say what these particles are "actually made of" -- that requires too much of the vagaries of human language. What the physicists do now is produce mathematical models which match the observations. That said, the Standard Model represents particles such as electrons and photons as excitations of a field. A one dimensional model is a jump rope. The jump rope is the field -- if you wiggle (excite) the jump rope you make bumps in it. These excitation bumps can move back and forth -- these are the free particles of the field moving around. They can move, be created and be destroyed, all upon the background of the "field", the jump rope. So now create a four dimensional field in space-time called an "electron field". In its lowest energy state there are no electrons -- in an excited state it expresses excitations which are perceived as electrons. Of course there are quantum and relativistic complications to all these "field" descriptions. There is a field for each fundamental particle, but the actual existence of the "field" is hard to say -- I'll only say that it is shorthand for the math equations which describe the particles. By the way, the electrons, photons and neutrinos are fundamental in the Standard Model in the sense that they are excitations of a field and cannot be further broken down. Protons and neutrons are not fundamental -- they are composites of quarks which in turn are fundamental. Supposedly without a Higgs field with which the fundamental particles can interact they would all be mass-less. I don't know enough of the mechanism by which an electron (excitation of an electron field) interacts with the Higgs field to make the electron massive. This is all Standard Model stuff, Strings, Superstrings, etc are beyond that.

    3. Re:explanatory update please? by cgaertner · · Score: 3, Informative

      Quarks come together in groups of 2 or 3 to build particles like protons and neutrons (and a whole bunch more). These are what you'd consider matter (Fermions).

      You probably meant hadrons (particles made of quarks), not fermions (particles with half-integer spin, in contrast to bosons with integer spin). In particular, there are both fermionic and bosonic hadrons.

      There are also particles that serve as "force carriers" - all the fundamental forces like electromagnetism and the nuclear forces can be thought of as exchanges of these other particles. They have integer spin, and we call them Bosons.

      All force carriers are bosons, but not all bosons are force carriers. Force carriers are also called gauge bosons, as they are bosonic excitations of gauge fields.

      The problem with finding bosons is that they're really just intermediary particles - photons are obvious enough only because they travel at the speed of light. Bosons with mass go much slower, and wind up decaying or interacting before we can directly observe them. So this find by the LHC is *indirect* evidence of the Higgs, based on how much energy they're missing from various collision interactions. But it matches the predictions to a very high degree so far, so they're calling it good.

      The problem isn't the bosonic nature of the particle, but rather its mass and strength of interaction with other particles, which affect the energy needed for its production, its lifetime and the possible channels of decay.

    4. Re:explanatory update please? by shiftless · · Score: 1

      I think that is is too much to ask to say what these particles are "actually made of" -- that requires too much of the vagaries of human language.

      “If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." -- Albert Einstein

    5. Re:explanatory update please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And people way smarter than you and me have found equations that do, in fact, predict the right masses for various particles when you crunch the numbers.

      Are you sure? I have looked into this before, and as far as I could find out we have yet to find any logical explanations and equations for the masses for the various particles. I recall that one guy managed to calculate the masses with quite a good precision, but without logical explanation for the equations.

  51. Re:I found it last week. by suso · · Score: 1

    I think we're so used to seeing the word Hadron now that the mispelling effect (whatever you call it) doesn't work on it anymore.

  52. Wrong way round by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As the energy is (obviously) non-zero, and c^2 is a constant, the photon has to have mass.

    The mass comes from the energy, so you have to write it as: m = E / c^2

    Then again, if the (kinetic?) energy is E = mv^2, you get: m = mv^2 / c^2 v^2 / c^2, with v = c so: c^2 / c^2 = 1.

    And I don't know what that means, but probably that my freshman physics teacher was more interested in drinking in class than teaching the students.

  53. Re:Higgs Mass predicted by the 4 Color Theorem 200 by mattr · · Score: 1

    Or as Resonaance says, Physics Works, Bitches!!

  54. Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

    you can in fact have "negative" gravity depending on your reference point its just like in electricity if you have electrons going away from a point you can have positive voltage (i may have this backwards).

    --
    Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    1. Re:Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence by morcego · · Score: 2

      Actually, no. Electricity is something from point A to point B. Gravity is an interaction between A and B. So you an't change the point of reference and get a negative result.

      Gravity is really weird.

      --
      morcego
    2. Re:Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Except for one little problem: We _already_ have experimental evidence (The Hutchison Effect) that demonstrates that we still don't have a clue what _causes_ gravity.

    3. Re:Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence by morcego · · Score: 1

      Oh, I agree with you about that. We really have no clue what causes gravity. However, gravity is a concept, and unless the concept is changed, it can't be negative.

      --
      morcego
    4. Re:Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence by Tough+Love · · Score: 2
      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    5. Re:Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 0

      We _already_ have experimental evidence (The Hutchison Effect) that demonstrates that we still don't have a clue what _causes_ gravity.

      No, the Hutchinson Effect demonstrates that we still don't have a clue what causes (or inhibits) critical thinking.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    6. Re:Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence by semi-extrinsic · · Score: 4, Informative

      Bullshit. The so-called "Hutchison Effect" is a hoax, pure and utter fakery. Protip: anyone who claims to have discovered something weird, and then names it after themselves, is most likely a hoax.

      And we have a very good idea of what causes gravity, or rather, what gravity _is_. Gravity is the tendency of spacetime to curve in the presence of objects with mass (and/or energy). This curving of spacetime causes other objects to travel not in straight (relative to our local Minkowski space) line paths, but in curves, when they are close to the first object (and vice versa). Since you can't see the external dimension that spacetime is embedded in where it curves (google "de Sitter-space" if you are interested), you see gravity as a force between massive objects.

      --
      for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
    7. Re:Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose your answer is "God", you rush limbaugh wannabe?

    8. Re:Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > Protip: anyone who claims to have discovered something weird, and then names it after themselves, is most likely a hoax.
      You mean just like the Casmir Effect or The Aspden Effect ?

      Protip: only hipsters use 'Protip'

      > And we have a very good idea of what causes gravity, or rather, what gravity _is_.
      And you still haven't explained _what_ _causes_ gravity.

    9. Re:Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence by mug+funky · · Score: 2

      Protip: anyone who claims to have discovered something weird, and then names it after themselves, is most likely a hoax.

      so what about this Higgs thing?

    10. Re:Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence by Pseudonym · · Score: 3, Informative

      Peter Higgs didn't name the mechanism. He only theorised about the family of "Lorentz-covariant field theories in which spontaneous breakdown of symmetry under an internal Lie group occurs".

      (Yes, that's a direct quote from his second paper.)

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    11. Re:Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence by semi-extrinsic · · Score: 1
      Casimir never called it the Casimir effect himself, he published papers using titles such as "The Influence of Retardation on the London-van der Waals Forces" and "On the attraction between two perfectly conducting plates".

      Regarding the "Aspden Effect", I can't tell for sure if Aspden called it that himself, but my bullshit detector works just fine. This effect is not accepted by mainstream science (even though Aspden has published interesting works on other topics) and has not been reproduced. If anyone (e.g. you) really believe in this effect, it's a simple matter of reproducing the experiment in you back yard, and then you'd get pretty famous. The return-on-investment would be significant as well.

      And you still haven't explained _what_ _causes_ gravity.

      I don't think you yourself understand what you mean by this question. If I replace gravity with electromagnetism in your question, what is the answer then? Or do you believe we don't know what causes electromagnetism either?

      --
      for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
    12. Re:Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      >> And you still haven't explained _what_ _causes_ gravity.
      > I don't think you yourself understand what you mean by this question. If I replace gravity with electromagnetism in your question, what is the answer then? Or do you believe we don't know what causes electromagnetism either?

      It is a real simple question. I am NOT asking about the EMF, NOR the EFFECT of gravity. I AM asking about _gravity_. Specifically, what causes it?

    13. Re:Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence by zevans · · Score: 1

      you can in fact have "negative" gravity depending on your reference point its just like in electricity if you have electrons going away from a point you can have positive voltage (i may have this backwards).

      You could reverse the time dimension.

      --
      "... and more and more now there are all kinds of electronic goodies available" -- Pink Floyd 1972
    14. Re:Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence by semi-extrinsic · · Score: 2

      Given our present knowledge of the universe, gravity is just an experimental fact, like special relativity. What causes the speed of light to be finite? You can then invoke the (either strong or weak) anthropic principle, and say that if gravity wasn't there, you would not exist and could not ask the question.

      On a more speculative note, it is possible that one day some ultimate theory of everything, unifying all physics in one theory, explains what causes gravity. It is not necessary for a theory of everything to explain what causes gravity, though, it just has to be a consistent theory of all the fundamental forces which matches all experimental results. Some have e.g. tried to explain gravity as a direct consequence of entropy, but this is widely disputed. In the end, no theory can be made without some experimental inputs in one end. One would of course like to have as few of these as possible, but it could well be that the fact that gravity exists has to be an experimental input.

      However, the current theory we have of gravity is sufficient to explain all phenomena that can be experimentally observed on scales you and I can experiment with. Any experimental setup concerning phenomena on the scale of centimeters to kilometers that contradicts our current theory of gravity is pure hocum.

      --
      for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
    15. Re:Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence by morcego · · Score: 1

      And we have a very good idea of what causes gravity, or rather, what gravity _is_. Gravity is the tendency of spacetime to curve in the presence of objects with mass (and/or energy). This curving of spacetime causes other objects to travel not in straight (relative to our local Minkowski space) line paths, but in curves, when they are close to the first object (and vice versa). Since you can't see the external dimension that spacetime is embedded in where it curves (google "de Sitter-space" if you are interested), you see gravity as a force between massive objects.

      Actually, spacetime curving is one of the possible theories that explain gravity, not the only one or even the most accepted. It is only the most famous. There is even one theory that doesn't describe gravity as an attraction force. I'm sorry I can't be more specific, but it had been about 12 years since I last studied this topic, when I was still working in the field.

      Gravity is a very fascinating and "mysterious" (quotes intentional, meaning we understand so little about it compared to other basic forces).

      --
      morcego
    16. Re:Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence by morcego · · Score: 1

      you can in fact have "negative" gravity depending on your reference point its just like in electricity if you have electrons going away from a point you can have positive voltage (i may have this backwards).

      You could reverse the time dimension.

      Which still wouldn't give you negative gravity, unless you treat gravity from a pure Newtonian view. And these days no one will accept a pure Newtonian view of gravity as valid.

      --
      morcego
    17. Re:Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence by morcego · · Score: 1

      Given our present knowledge of the universe, gravity is just an experimental fact, like special relativity.

      Thank you. That is EXACTLY it.

      What causes the speed of light to be finite?

      Actually, I read a pretty neat theory about this once. This takes on the assumption that light either is a particle, or behaves like one in some situations (not a wave), which is acceptable anyway. Any particle approaching the speed of light will exponentially accumulate mass, so it would be impossible for it to exceed the speed of light (infinite mass). I'm sorry I can't be more specific, but it's been over 10 years since I was in the field. The only thing I really remember is that the math was very elegant. The Higgs Boson would be a great find to work on this theory.

      --
      morcego
    18. Re:Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Electricity is an interaction between A and B. A relays charge state to B, interaction. The way electricity is taught through metaphor is technically incorrect.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    19. Re:Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aren't most discoveries named after the person(s) who discovered it?

      aka de Sitter-space?

      BTW.. not defending Hutchinson Effect, just wanted to comment on your Protip.

    20. Re:Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Gravity is the tendency of spacetime to curve in the presence of objects with mass (and/or energy).

      No, that is the way we understand it through metaphor based on our very limited perception. Not really a correct description of reality and I would say it even causes us to limit our minds in trying to determine the real cause.The real cause may not even be intellectually quantifiable. Much like we describe light as waves and particles, while our description of the behavior is provable it doesn't mean it is actually a technically correct description. Understanding is limited and based on a small number of behaviors or states of being, where we derive explanation for other things using "it is like." We live and breath metaphor, but lets not start confusing it for truth in every case.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    21. Re:Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence by semi-extrinsic · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I follow your explanation of a finite c. If c is infinite, there's no problem with particles assuming infinite mass in that limit.

      --
      for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
    22. Re:Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence by morcego · · Score: 1

      c is finite because the is the speed limit (LIM) when a particle assumes infinite mass. The speed limit is the consequence in this theory.

      --
      morcego
    23. Re:Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      isn't the term, "tendency," inappropriate here?

    24. Re:Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      And we have a very good idea of what causes gravity, or rather, what gravity _is_. Gravity is the tendency of spacetime to curve in the presence of objects with mass (and/or energy). This curving of spacetime causes other objects to travel not in straight (relative to our local Minkowski space) line paths, but in curves, when they are close to the first object (and vice versa).

      I understand gravity as the curve of spacetime as well as any laymen that has read up on the subject. An object traveling in a straight line curves when it comes upon curved spacetime. But what causes a stationary object to move then. The thought analogy of the curved space being like the surface of a trampoline and the depression made by a heavy object is curved space. Other objects fall toward the heavy one due to our real gravity of the earth so the analogy fails to fully explain how gravity pulls things together.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    25. Re:Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence by semi-extrinsic · · Score: 1

      The problem is not the model per se, but the fact that your experiences are all with a real-world trampoline, which is imperfect, and where objects experience (static) friction. For objects in space, or even in air if the velocity is small, there is no friction. If you took a frictionless, perfect, infinite trampoline, and placed two stationary marbles 1 meter apart, they would "attract" each other. This is because if you move an infinitesimal length away from the base of the marble in the direction of the other marble, the trampoline cloth would be ever so slightly lower than at the base of the marble.

      To say this another way: in real life, if you zoom in 100 000x on the trampoline at the base of the marble, it is flat, because the trampoline is imperfect. However, for an infinite, perfect trampoline, it would slope down towards the other marble.

      --
      for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
    26. Re:Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does the word "Turboencabulator" sound so apropos....

    27. Re:Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence by Ravon+Rodriguez · · Score: 1

      Also, magnets... How do they work?

      --
      Jesus loves me, he loves me a bunch, because he always puts Jiffy in my lunch.
  55. Poor Harold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you had friends and a girlfriend you would kill at parties... /sarcasm

  56. Gov't funded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What investors? The European governments that fund CERN?

    I suppose you could be talking about what commercial companies, and their investors, will eventually be able to do based upon this basic research funded by [European] taxpayers.

  57. 5 sigma by Woogiemonger · · Score: 1

    Just to put in perspective of what 5 sigma certainty means, it's like someone claiming a coin is loaded, so it will land on the same side every time, and then testing this by flipping it 20 times. Taking into account the chance that the coin was not loaded, as in you just by chance flipped the coin on the same side every time, you now have 5-sigma certainty that the coin is truly loaded as described.

    1. Re:5 sigma by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Actually, you need to flip it 25 times. 20 trials isn't enough to get 5 sigma certainty that the coin is not fair.

  58. Goddamn upstairs by Xtifr · · Score: 2

    Technically, it was known as the "Goddamn particle". Someone, unfortunately, dropped the "damn" part, and the whole "god particle" nonsense exploded from there.

    (No, I'm not joking, though I may be oversimplifying a little.)

  59. Not much Mass from Higgs by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    Therefore, the Higgs field, while not binding the universe together, is vital for gravity to do so.

    Not really - most of the mass in matter comes from the binding energy of the quarks in protons and neutrons, less than 0.1% comes from the Higgs. Turning off the Higgs field (which would require enormous energies) would have very little impact on the total mass of objects.

    1. Re:Not much Mass from Higgs by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      But the binding energy is not independent of the masses. For example, look at the binding energy of the electron in the atom. It is flat out proportional to the electron mass. A zero-mass electron could not be bound at all. I don't know about the nucleus, but I'd be surprised if the quark mass didn't enter in the binding energy.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  60. Happy investors from government-funded project by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

    What investors? The European governments that fund CERN?

    I would presume the investors that are happy are the ones that invested money in the firms that supplied stuff for CERN to do the research with.

    I suppose you could be talking about what commercial companies, and their investors, will eventually be able to do based upon this basic research funded by [European] taxpayers.

    That's another, less immediate, set of investor-beneficiaries.

  61. turning matter into energy by Zargg · · Score: 1

    Given e=mc^2, if we have the Higgs that gives things mass, could we theoretically manipulate it to turn matter into pure energy or vice versa?

    1. Re:turning matter into energy by slashmydots · · Score: 1

      Well even I know that when matter and antimatter collide, the result is mass literally disappearing and turning into pure energy so I would think yes. There was also some old, obscure theory about how photons start off as other particles but sacrifice mass to gain the energy to accelerate remaining mass to the speed of light. I don't know how true that one turned out to be.

  62. Higgs Boson by alexo · · Score: 1

    10:56 Higgs says: "I'm glad it happened in my lifetime".
    10:57 Boson says: "Me too".

  63. Heavy boson yet long range? by DCFusor · · Score: 2

    Riddle me this - photons and the supposed gravitons have infinite range due to zero (rest) mass. Strong and weak forces, heavy bosons, short range, right? I'll accept a counter-example that shows how I can manipulate the strong or weak forces from a distance larger than a nucleus or thereabouts. Not just fire some other non-boson particle into there (which then is that close or closer). So how does the Higgs work over all of space, guys? This is ridiculous as the SM being right to N decimals, and relativity also being right to N (N being however many we can measure). Yet, the huge gaping, embarrassing, festering (yet almost always not spoken of) wound in all physics is that - they can't both be right, yet in their own domains, they are. C'mon, even politicians do better - and this is from one of your own, I'm a scientist. Relativity says - can't have a big bang, all that concentration of stuff would be a black hole instead. Are we inside one? Does anyone have a frigging clue, or are all we scientists just singing choir behind a preacher who hasn't a clue or a self-consistent model. I know what I'd like to think here, but....

    --
    Why guess when you can know? Measure!
    1. Re:Heavy boson yet long range? by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      Riddle me this - photons and the supposed gravitons have infinite range due to zero (rest) mass. Strong and weak forces, heavy bosons, short range, right? I'll accept a counter-example that shows how I can manipulate the strong or weak forces from a distance larger than a nucleus or thereabouts. Not just fire some other non-boson particle into there (which then is that close or closer). So how does the Higgs work over all of space, guys?

      It's not a force-carrying boson, as the photon, W bosons, Z boson, and various mesons are, so the "zero mass, goes as 1/r^2, non-zero mass, drops off faster than that" doesn't apply.

      This is ridiculous as the SM being right to N decimals, and relativity also being right to N (N being however many we can measure).

      Presumably by "relativity" you mean "general relativity", given that the standard model is a relativistic model.

      Yet, the huge gaping, embarrassing, festering (yet almost always not spoken of) wound in all physics is that - they can't both be right, yet in their own domains, they are.

      Actually, I have the impression that most physicists realize that gravity and the SM aren't some Neat Unified Theory, and some of them are trying to unify them.

  64. A duck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it looks like a Higgs Boson and quacks like a Higgs Boson, it's a duck.

  65. For Sale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One Large Hadron Collider for sale. Slightly used. Good view.
    Close to good schools.
    Had recent repairs to plumbing.
    As is, best offer accepted.

  66. SSC and what might have been by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone remember the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) and what might have been?

  67. Alright!!! by whopub · · Score: 0

    Uh, yeah! Alriiight! We got it! We found the little prick! Illusive son of a bitch! We nailed it! Fuck, yeah!! We found this... the... little... thing. Damn right! Who da man? Who da man?! We da men! Ahah!! It's done! Bag it!! Can you believe we found the thing? Oh, man. I can't... I... oh... This is really great. The whole thing... the little... I mean, c'mon!! It's there! Look, it's... right there. We... What the fuck is this thing? No, really, what the... fuck is this... thing... we just f... found? Ah, gotta patent the fuck outta the fucker, anyway!

  68. Re:I found it last week. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell it to Microsoft that changed HADRON to AlwaysON

  69. Does this mean the Chi Cubs can win the pennant?? by gpronger · · Score: 1

    Quoting from the original post: "The premise is fairly crazy, but many things in physics are constructed that way... The difference here is that... previous 'crazy' ideas gave consequences that were clearly testable and attestable to the new nature of the theory, in an objective manner, and involved the behavior of inanimate objects (i.e., not humans). However, in this case, the consequences seem quite contrived... Exactly in line with their argument, I could say that Nature abhors the Chicago Cubs, such that the theory which describes the evolution of our universe prescribed Steve Bartman to interfere on October 14, 2003, extending the 'bad luck' of the Cubbies."

    http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/10/21/0159233/the-lhc-the-higgs-boson-and-the-chicago-cubs

    So, this means yes and we should all head to Las Vegas to make a killing on what has to be a huge long-shot?

    Or, does it mean that "nature" abhors the Cubs more??

  70. Not really. by Benfea · · Score: 1

    If the Higgs field is "disturbingly like" the luminiferous aether theory, then so are electromagnetic fields. :p

  71. One Ring by Shamanin · · Score: 1

    Then LHC (the ring) along with HB can truly be the one ring that binds us and in the darkness finds us!

    Oh no, here we go again...

    --
    come on fhqwhgads
  72. Dirac vs. Schrodinger by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    For example, look at the binding energy of the electron in the atom. It is flat out proportional to the electron mass. A zero-mass electron could not be bound at all.

    I understand exactly why you say this but there is one thing which you've forgotten about. If you have a zero mass electron then it is relativistic which means that you cannot use the Schrodinger equation which is what gives the energy vs. mass relationship you are quoting. Instead you have to use the Dirac equation to calculate the bound states. These will look different but they will exist. The quarks in a proton are in this situation. Their masses are a lot less than the energy of the field which binds them so they are relativistic.

    1. Re:Dirac vs. Schrodinger by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      OK, I've now looked up the exact eigenenergies of the Dirac hydrogen problem. And that also is proportional to the electron mass. Only the factor differs (and depends on j in addition to n). And for completeness, I've also checked the lamb shift, and that again is proportional to the electron mass.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.