Ask Slashdot: What Are the Implications of Finding the Higgs Boson?

PhunkySchtuff writes "OK, so we're all hearing the news that they've found the Higgs boson. What are some of the more practical implications that are likely to come out of this discovery? I realize it's hard to predict this stuff — who would have thought that shining a bright light on a rod of ruby crystal would have lead to digital music on CDs and being able to measure the distance to the moon to an accuracy of centimeters? If the Higgs boson is the particle that gives other particles mass, would our being able to manipulate the Higgs lead to being able to do things with mass such as we can do with electromagnetism? Will we be able to shield or block the Higgs from interacting with other particles, leading to a reduction in mass (and therefore weight?) Are there other things that this discovery will lead to in the short to medium term?"

Comments

Probably

[Squiddie]

We will find a way to blow stuff up with it. It's humanity's specialty, after all.

Re:Probably

[idontgno]

know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.

-- Albert Einstein (1947)

Re:Probably

[nahdude812]

That's a little (maybe a lot) like saying, "We now know that theory allows for us to create artificial gravity or to block the effects of gravity, so why don't we just build the device that lets us do so without all that annoying intermediary research?" Or maybe like those aborigines on islands in the middle of the Pacific ocean who saw airplanes fly overhead and drop supplies during World War 2. It's like if they decided to go ahead and build an airplane without first understanding aerodynamics, internal combustion engines, or even metal working. Actually, they did, they built some airplanes out of mud and sticks. They were probably more successful in their attempts than we would be trying to create $AWESOME_TOOL exploiting Higgs.

We either need an understanding of how the universe works, or we need a serendipitous accidental discovery, before we can exploit the laws of nature for our advantage. Only studious exploration of the universe guarantees a result; serendipitous discovery by its nature has no guarantees.

Re:Probably

[Altrag]

If the difference is between $4 and $5/gal, then yeah -- milk wouldn't be part of the national defense strategy.

When the price difference is between $4 and $50,000/gal.. then it might be time to think about making it a priority.

Breaking a leg, unplanned pregnancies, contracting a disease or other bouts of bad luck should not bankrupt a person for the rest of their lives. But hey that's just my opinion. Its just too bad that the people rich enough to afford private health care are the same people deciding that universal health care isn't worthwhile.

We should make everyone in that so-called 1% spend a year getting by on $2000/mo allowance so that they get some idea of who they're fucking over (not that most of them would care, but I'm sure there's at least a few who are good at heart and just plain don't understand the "other side.")

Re:Probably

[__aaeihw9960]

$2000/mo? How about we shoot for the actual poor folks, and not just the ones who can't afford new shoes every month? Try $500-$800/mo. That would give them a better view of it. Teach them how to decide who in the family gets to eat a full meal today, or how to decide between food and medicine. Try poverty, not just lower-middle class.

Or, if you don't want to be that extreme, how about a seasonal salary like farm folks? Give them a balance of negative $100,000 in March, and then teach them how to pray that it's not too hot/wet/dry/anything, so that the crop can help them pay back what they owe with enough left over after taxes and interest to eat for another year.

Re:Probably

[lgw]

Current levels of debt are, outside of a global war, unprecedented in nations that survived economically afterwards. The US isn't as bad as some, but US national debt is approaching $140,000 per taxpayer. All of the money of the top 1% would make only a small dent in that. Do you expect your grandkids to make good on your spending? Do you think it's OK to spend more because revenues should be higher, if only the rich paid their fair share? Do you personally spend based on what you actually earn, or what you believe you deserve to earn?

Once it becomes obvious that your don't plan to repay what your borrow, people stop lending you money, and economies fail catastrophically once that happens. You can either reduce speding to what you actually earn in some graceful way (painful though it may be to those who get checks form the government), or keep ignoring the problem until the day when the checks just don't come any more (or they come in some now-meaningless currency). The latter is a far more painful way to go.

Re:Probably

[lgw]

How often does just "one-standard-deviation" happen?

In a normal distribution? 13.6% of the time (in the bad direction)! By definition.

And how long before those with more than one standard deviation of bad luck greatly outnumber those that are lucky enough to have none, or a whole lotta good luck?

We should all expect bad events to happen in our lives with some frequency, and be able to handle those from our savings, and be able to regenerate those savings in a reasonable amount of time. That's what it means to live within your means - you have to spend less than you make, so you have a reserve for the unforseen. You should not need help form society for an ordinary dose of bad luck.

Now there will always be some hit with worse than we could expect a responsible person to handle on his own, but if that's more than a couple % of society that needs assissance, then we've lost track of what "responsible" means!

Very little changes

[dittbub]

I don't think anything changes except that the model they've discovered years ago is in fact real.

No

[geekoid]

To manipulate it's properties would would be something like LHC.
Plus, one you return it the higher state of symmetry, how do you generate a field to prevent symmetry from breaking?
returning it to symmetry would mean the particle becomes zero mass. If it's zero mass would it even interact with other particle in the way needed to hold 'large' objects together?

Ob Faraday

[Hatta]

Of what use is a newborn child?

Re:Text book sales.....

[Baloroth]

now that its been discovered, all textbooks will have to be re-written and sold to students.

So, business as usual, then?

Our children will find out

[MetricT]

Thermodynamics began in 1650, but the first air conditioner wasn't invented until 1820.

Maxwell's work on electrodynamics was published in 1861, but radio wasn't invented until 30 years later.

Quantum mechanics was first formulated in modern form in the 1920's, but the integrated circuit wasn't built until 1956.

Today, Higgs is a scientific curiosity, and a validation of the Standard Model. While I suspect it will take longer than 20 years for practical applications of Higgs to emerge, the science and engineering required to build the accelerator are already leading to breakthroughs in material science, computation, and engineering today. Today's accelerator is tomorrow's medical proton beam to cure cancer. And maybe, just maybe, the grandkids will get warp drive out of it.

Or, we could go bomb some more brown people and give more tax cuts to billionaires. Which seems like a better long-term investment?

Re:That's an easy one

[rickb928]

Typical ignorant misconception.

All this science explains 'what'. It barely scratches the surface of 'how'. And is nowhere near explainng either 'who' or 'why'.

For all of you who rail at the clever rhetorical device of 'God is God and gets to do what He wants', consider the equally clever rhetorical device of 'it just happened'.

Faith is the belief in what is unseen. Science need not operate on the basis of faith. It is impelled to see, and correctly. It wasn't that long ago that science was being advanced by theists who saw no contradiction in explaining the physical universe despite believing it was all made by God. Some of us still do that. The accusation by others that that is not consistent, or not possible, is stupid.