Slashdot Mirror
Interviews: Ask Physicist Giovanni Organtini About the Possible Higgs Boson Disc
Giovanni Organtini of Italy's National Institute of Nuclear Physics (well, Instituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare) has agreed to answer questions about the recent observations of a particle consistent with the Higgs Boson. Dr. Organtini is part of the CMS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider. He is careful to note that while the researchers "[believe] that this new particle, with a mass 125 times that of a proton, is the famous Higgs boson," they "need to study that new particle more deeply in the next months to be conclusive on that. Organtini likes free software (he's written Linux device drivers, too) and has his own physics-heavy YouTube channel, mostly in Italian. Please confine questions to one per post, but feel free to ask as many as you'd like.
In regards to the Higgs Boson, what's the stupidest thing you've seen in the press? Has anything in particular made you really laugh or groan? Has the reporting been overly irresponsible for this discovery process or just the same old press that you're used to?
My work here is dung.
"Interviews: Ask Physicist Giovanni Organtini About the Possible Higgs Boson Disc"
Is the Higgs Boson disc-shaped or is Timothy too lazy to use the preview button before posting ?
1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
What does the Higgs Boson taste like?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
How much do you hate people who say "disc" instead of "discovery" and lead halfwits everywhere to believe the Higgs particle is disc-shaped somehow?
Since you're a fan of free software, why don't we see more open data efforts in particle physics? I see headlines like this and they're kind of a turnoff. Aside from this super confusing applet I haven't been able to find torrents of the data available on these tests. Why is that? I mean, as a software developer there is a legitimate effort of folks writing open source software and then there's a legitimate effort of people using that software to accomplish many things and everyone deserves credit. So why are particle physicists so keen on being the collectors and (at least initially) the sole keepers of their data? It would seem to make sense to me that people should be rewarded based on their collection of data and how meticulous and well they do that while any group can consume and derive results from said data. I understand the process has gotten more open but why so slowly? Why not torrent your data to whoever wants it immediately after you get it?
My work here is dung.
While I know it is rather early to comment, what do you think the future applications of today's research into Higgs Boson will be?
Don't be afraid to be a little bit sky-high. I for one am already fantasising about space ships propelled by manipulation of the Higgs field on a local scale.
I'm only asking because, a century ago the electron was discovered and nobody was quite sure what to do with it. And it runs the world.
So there I was, scribbling down some notes off the PC screen by hand, when I reached for the keyboard and Ctrl-S'd.
What success or failure factors can/should/will be used to determine whether or not the new particle is actually the higgs, or something else unexpected?
The question on everybody's mind, of course, is ...
will it blend?
Support FSF: Stop thinking with your wallet, and think with your imagination. (cc/non-commercial)
So say hypothetically that with this discovery we quickly unify the four fundamental forces of our universe. Does the 'particle hunt' end there? Is there any reason there aren't more fundamental particles -- even ones that might not be predicted by the Standard Model but do exist? If your answer is "no one knows," what is your gut feeling and why?
My work here is dung.
What does it mean to say a particle that gives all other particles mass...has mass itself?
PS: I don't reply to ACs.
Despite the reference to the Higg's Boson as the "God Particle" in popular science journals and mainstream media, just how important is this discovery as far as weak interactions, gravity, etc., are concerned? Is this discovery going to change the face of quantum chromodynamics as we know it?
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Will the Higgs Boson Disc fly farther than my Master Frisbee disc?
Do you think this amazing scientific discovery of the Higgs Boson particle, with its implications for science and, specifically, gravity, will have any impact on how fast a man on the moon could throw a fastball?
Or would that only apply on Earth?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Dr. Joe Incandela of UC Santa Barbara and CMS director said recently of the CERN Higgs results:
"This is so far out on a limb, **I have no idea where it will be applied**, We're talking about something **we have no idea** what the implications are and **may not be directly applied for centuries**."
(source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/04/stephen-hawking-and-higgs-boson-bet_n_1650024.html)
My questions: Do you agree that the direct application of the findings are as nebulous and abstract as he describes?
Please discuss the implications of your answer and how they relate to the economic choices of how humans use their scientific resources.
Thank you Dave Raggett
If so they might be pissed that we took one out and we are screwed. Also possible we spent billions proving the existence of jarjar.
With every passing news item about particle physics, it seems everyone's pet theory mutates or breaks off into different sects. I read some Brian Greene in high school and have since become a little flustered with string theory ... or rather the many variations. The cynic in me fears that any new information on the Higgs Boson (or lack thereof) will result in more not less theories that should unify the four fundamental forces. Could you explain how information on the Higgs (one way or the other) would rule out certain symmetries or models that many people have been theorizing? Can I expect this to at least reduce our set of possible theories and not just provide N more mutations for each existing theory that strives to account for what we just found? Or should I just buckle up for everyone pushing their version through these results no matter what they show?
My work here is dung.
The initial call for questions included a factoid that I had somehow missed in all the other layman summaries: "He is careful to note that while the researchers '[believe] that this new particle, with a mass 125 times that of a proton, is the famous Higgs boson,' they 'need to study that new particle more deeply in the next months to be conclusive on that.' "
I'm totally not familiar with the details here. For some reason I was expecting that the boson would be a much smaller thing, in the same scale as quarks or even strings, and that other particles including the proton would owe their structures to this. If the Higgs "explains" mass, to me that implies it is responsible for mass. How would you explain the mass of other massive particles like the proton? Or is comparing it to a proton not really accurate?
[
What is next?
Prior to the possible discovery announcement, the LHC was often called one of the last big science experiments of our generation--- big science being a casualty of recession budgets. Do you think this discovery might persuade governments to invest more in big/expensive/multinational investigations?
Is not the Higgs boson like particle 133 times that of the proton, and a total mass of 125.3 GeV. Not 125 the mass of a proton?
Once this particle is examined, and let's assume it's the elusive Higgs, is there a continuing reason for large particle accellerators?
Basically, I'm asking in ignorance. If this confirms the standard model, what do you see for discoveries of this nature in the.future?
In regards to the discovery of the Higgs Boson, what is an example of a practical application of this discovery. I find that physics is best explained with real-world examples.
Using only Feynman diagrams, can you describe the best way to make fettuccine Alfredo?
Probably a stupid question but I'm sure others wonder, too: How can the discovered particle have 125 times the mass of a proton when it was discovered by smashing individual protons together? In other words, prior to a proton-proton collision that creates this Higgs-like particle, where was the particle?
Been reading a bit too much Nietzsche have we? Haha.
Don't start pretending that it is. Just type out a headline in a complete sentence. There is no shortage of words here -- you aren't tweeting or texting.
People on Slashdot are educated, and we don't need pointless abbreviations. Do your job, Timothy.
The Higgs boson is famously associated with how particles acquire a 'mass'. But mass is, in itself, an interesting property. As I understand it, the Higgs boson is only associated with inertial mass. If this is so, do you expect gravitational mass and inertial mass to be always the same? If so, would you speculate on the mechanism that ensures this is true?
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Did the ECAL conditions database play an important role in this discovery? ;-)
– R. Egeland
I think it has to do with the equivalence between mass and energy, at the fundamental, quantum level.
See, they increased the energy on two protons beyond 125 GeV (where 125 GeV is the energy-equivalent of 125 protons, give or take). In any one collision at that energy there exist a number of possible results, and one such result was a particle with a mass of 125 protons. Via observing how that particle interacted with the universe (for as long as they could observe it) they deduced it's nature and whether it matched up with any relevant hypotheses.
PS: I don't reply to ACs.
E = mc^2
The protons in the LHC are flying very fast, and have a great deal of E to go with the
proton-rest-mass. When two of them, both flying within a tiny, tiny fraction of the speed
of light collide while going opposite directions, substantially more energy than just the
mass of the protons involved is involved. Each proton flying around the LHC has about
3.5 TeV of energy (from our perspective); smashing two of them together yields a
maximum energy of about 7 TeV. That's why the LHC is such a big machine -- it takes
a lot of space and a lot of RF energy and a lot of very powerful magnets to accelerate
two counter-rotating proton beams to those energies.
What kind of results will falsify the standard model Higgs - indicating that different theoretical approaches must be considered.
Anand Rangarajan anand@cise.ufl.edu
...don't you think he'll punish you for using your talents to suck resources away from survival and toward some unnecessary dalliance?
You sure have funny notions about God. What he'll actually be angry about is not spending the money and talent on anti-abortion, gay-healing, and other sex-control campaigns.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
There's a slightly fuzzy line between cutting edge science and "hard" science fiction. Do you find this generates noise which distracts from the science, or would you support increased collaboration between science and science fiction?
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
The likely Higgs discovery would seem to validate Quantum field theory.
Would this then be best described as an ether, only instead of matter traveling through the ether, matter is manifestations of the ether (fields) itself. Would this also than mean that the motion of matter is not a physical movement of a "particle" but instead the transfer of the "excitement" of a field from one spot of the field to another?
And what, if any, implications does this disocvery have for unifying gravity or other areas of physics?
... as for "where was the particle", it was created out of the vacuum. As long as the
various quantities are conserved (charge, mass+energy, momentum, &c), any
particle can be created from the vacuum. Thus a (sufficiently energetic) photon
can convert into a positron + an electron (net chare = 0) or vice versa, and two
flying protons can convert into muons, anti-muons, pions, anti-pions, kaons, anti-kaons,
and a whole zoo of other particles, photons, and cascading decay particles.
Could you describe the connections between the Higgs Boson and the Higgs Field.
Hi AC, thanks for the response. I'd suggest re-reading my question, however. It seems you think I am trying to 'say' that LRC was a bad science investment. I think ALL scientific data is valuable...even erroneous data can be very valuable.
First, I'm asking, not telling here. I'm quoting and asking a question. No bias. I want to know **if** this scientist thinks what you are saying I am saying.
I don't know! That's why I asked...the quotation from Dr. Incandela (awesome name) provided the basis for my question.
Also, you're just wrong about history when you say the following,
"All the technologies you enjoy (TVs, internet, cell phones, automobiles, AC, etc.) were based on research that likely seemed frivolous at the time"
absolutely incorrect:
television - was an application of an electron gun technology that was not derived at all from any 'finding' of a new particle....the tech and science for it was there for at least 50 years
internet - laughable...no discovery in particle physics initiated the ARPANET research whatsoever
cell phones - I am assuming you mean 'cellular' transmitters and receivers placed in a geographic grid of 'cells' that allows the handset to stay wirelessly connected to a transceiver? B/c they were working on that at FERMILAB weren't they???
AC, etc...
Just so you know what actual particle physics application science looks like: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2406297,00.asp
Thank you Dave Raggett
About the possibility for a Higgs Disc. Imagine, a frisbee that can fly not because of aerodynamics, but because it can manipulate its own mass!
As I understand it, a Higgs Boson compatible with the standard model could have been found at a range of different masses, and the search for it has involved searching the possible mass range until it was either discovered or not.
Assuming that this new discovery is indeed the Higgs Boson as predicted and compatible with the standard model, what is the significance of the particular mass that it has been found to have? Are there any macro-scale predictions that depend on its mass?
It is my understanding that the higgs mechanism requires some sort of spontaneous symmetry breaking for the proposed higgs field to yield scalar mass.
Is this somehow related to symmetry breaking in other fields in the Standard Model (e.g., Spin0/hypercharge)?
Also, might there be a whole spectrum of scalar properties like mass that might exist from symmetry breaking in other Standard Model fields that might be discovered that could explain currently un-unifyable parts of theoretical physics (e.g., matter/antimatter ratio, gravity, dark energy, etc), but still within the general framework of the Standard Model? Or is the Standard Model essentially doomed with respect to these currently un-unifyable observations?
Might it be possible to alter the laws of physics one day?
I've heard that the mass is right on the edge of what would make the vacuum state of the universe unstable. Are there hints to possible new physics here, or any interesting speculation as to a reason why? Do any GUT models predict this careful balancing?
How do you feel about the fact that a large portion of the CMS was built by recycling military hardware? Do you see it as a sign that the world is finally moving towards peace and that large scientific projects like the LHC are helping it along that path; Or do you find it disappointing that it was the only option to acquire the necessary materials?
Particle physics data is not open because of the money, time and effort needed to analyse it. First data would never be released until first analysed by the collaboration - there is no way that you are going to get someone working on building and operating the detector without the reward of being among the first to analyse that data. We are physicists, not engineers.
Secondly analysing the data is a huge effort. You have to understand many varied and subtle detector effects related to how the detector was constructed. The not only requires a huge effort to pin the effects down but also a very detailed knowledge of the detector. It is highly unlikely that anyone who has not worked on the detector will be able to do this well or at least without considerable extra work.
Then there is the cost of storing and making available the petabytes of data an experiment like ATLAS generates each year. Who is going to pay for the network, disks, servers etc to make this all available not to mention the development of a simple event format and the processing needed to generate and fill it. Every pound/franc/dollar spent on this is one less to spend on the research itself.
Finally some experiments, like D0, have already made their data available after analysis which is the only time it is understood well enough to be converted to a simple format. The number of visitors to the website was in the single digits over a period of a year despite it being advertised to theorists.
Had the superconducting supercolider (SSC) been completed in the USA in the 1990s, would it have found this particle? Even with a 20 year technology advantage, LHC has taken some time to get there.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
The key to answering this is to look back 50-100 years. In 1912 the atom was a brand new discovery and quantum mechanics was still being figured out. At the time these were highly esoteric and abstract concepts. Applying that knowledge 50 years later was what made the transistor possible and hence gave rise to our modern IT infrastructure. But absolutely none of that was predictable when the discoveries were being made!
Particle detectors and physics of 50 years ago are now revolutionising medicine as doctor use them to see what is happening in the human body without cutting it open. So, while we cannot predict what use this discovery will be put to eventually, what we can say is that similar, equally abstract discoveries, in the past have helped to revolutionise our society. Our economy is built on using and applying basic science in ever more complex and wonderful ways. So if we want to keep this process running we had better keep fuelling it with new, fundamental science for it to learn and apply.
We would, but your mother declined. We are, unfortunately, out of candidates.
I heard they may want to check several other decay paths for energy resonances.
I also heard there could be a family of Higgs bosons, so we may look for others?
I'm curious what's going on such that the top is heavier than the Higgs rather than the other way around. All I've been able to find is people asking why the top was found first. *That* I understand--the Higgs signal is much much smaller. I remember something from long ago about the top's mass "leaking," if you will, to the the lighter particles, but that doesn't mesh with how I understand the Higgs mechanism. Anyway, I would expect the Higgs particle manifestation to be the most massive of those that participate in the Higgs field.
Credo sim. - I think I am.
http://blog.mysciencework.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/HiggsFig3-MassFactSoBWeightedMass.jpg
It seems the data ( from looking at the above) - shows where the graph lifts at 135GeV - could this be significant? What could this be?
If the Higgs is 125 times the mass of a proton and protons have Higgs particles and neutrons have Higgs particles and electrons have Higgs particles, then wouldn't the mass of these particles as a whole atom weigh more than the atom? What am I missing here? Someone please explain! I know I must be thinking it wrong but what's wrong with this logic?
We are told that the results are significant at the "5 sigma" level.
I assume this means that there is some error model with a distribution that actually has a standard deviation, and that models the process of detection all the way from the "collision facing" sensors to the appearance of numbers in some data log.
What are some of the main processes by which noise and spurious signals are generated?
Is the noise mostly in the instrumentation, or mainly "quantum chaos" and multiple near simultaneous events which provide confusing signals?
Are there more statisticians or physicists analyzing the results?
I would like to know if the confirmation of the existence of the Higgs boson changed anything we know about the Higgs field. Thank you.
TOP DSLR Cameras Reviews of the top DSLRs
I've never come across people shortening discovery to disc. I just assumed it was Timmay! being his usual moronic self.
It gripped her hand gently. 'Regret is for humans,' it said.
Assuming that this new particle is in fact the Standard Model Higgs boson, what more can we expect to discover with CMS? Is there any new physics you expect to be within the reach of CMS? Or this is pretty much the end?
I know this question is unanswerable, but your best guess would make me happy. I'm actually very worried by the prospects of running out of (falsifiable) theories to test...
entropy happens
What interactions would Higgs particles/antiparticles have on normal observable matter?
Are Higgs antiparticles possible/ would a negative Higgs field constitute "anti-gravity"?
This is an IT worker question, not a particle physicist question, so hopefully it's an easy one. How does the Higgs boson come into play when photons, which have a tiny amount of mass, are spontaneously created when a substance like metal gets hot. Is it a direct energy to mass conversion?
The Higgs Boson has a mass on about the same order of magnitude as some of the heavier isotope nuclei. Is that a coincidence?
and how can we stop them?
Supersymmetry seems to have taken a beating, thus its particle candidates may be out of the picture now; what is the next energy level beyond the LHC's, where we have a reasonable expectation of finding new particles?
Subject says it all, is it correct to say that the particle is no longer an intrinsic property of the particles but rather something which is the result of an interaction with the rest of the world (.i.e the Higgs field). That would be quite satisfactory because all other properties have either very "simple" ratio, like charge or spin, or can only take one of a very small set of values (color,...). The mass looks (looked ?) very weird there, it is the one that looks like a random number.
Assuming that the Higgs is confirmed, does this imply an anti-Higgs? Such a particle might lead to some very interesting engineering if it exists. Your thoughts?
I think it has to do with the equivalence between mass and energy, at the fundamental, quantum level.
Correct. To answer the original question, think about mass-energy equivalence (E=mc2). What the LHC did was smash protons together with enough energy to cause a Higgs boson to be created. The mass of the protons aren't really as important as the energy involved in the smashing. Think about it - what has a bigger impact, a semi-truck rear ending another semi-truck at 5mph or a Mazda Miata rear ending another Mazda Miata at 100mph? The point is that they needed to create enough energy to cause a Higgs to be created, which it turns out just so happens to take 125GeV.
See, they increased the energy on two protons beyond 125 GeV (where 125 GeV is the energy-equivalent of 125 protons, give or take).
I'm a bit confused by this part. A proton is made of two up quarks and a down quark. Using Wikipedia's top-end estimates of the mass of those three, that means a proton should have a mass of at most 11.9MeV which would make 125 protons weigh 1.4875GeV... nowhere near 125GeV. I'm not a physicist so I trust Mr. Organtini, but I can't figure out where this figure is coming from.
prior to a proton-proton collision that creates this Higgs-like particle, where was the particle?
To over-simplify, it didn't exist. It was created by the release of energy (which, as we all know, can be converted to matter). Things get slightly goofy at the quantum level and particles can just appear and disappear all the time.
...if it is demonstrably incorrect? As far as I can tell, the observation of the Higgs Boson at best simply confirms a model that is fundamentally incomplete, in that the model's parameters have to be set via experimental observation. If the Standard Model has to be tuned to this extent, why do you think the Standard Model is a good guide to truth?
... the answers to the dumbest questions are sometimes the most interesting :) I understand that the Higgs is responsible for giving mass to all the other particles, then it must be *everywhere*. Why is it so difficult to detect? Why does it take such a staggeringly powerful supercollider to find what ought to be as common as the electron or proton?
Also, I can't help but to visualize particles as something like billiard balls while I'm aware they're only mathematical abstractions from our point of view and that experiments like the double-slit experiment refute the billiard-ball model... is there a way to visualize the Higgs to make the answer to my previous question easier to understand?
So with the very dangerously little I actually know about physics, I was wondering. If the Higgs field interacts with the Higgs Boson giving particles mass, couldn't one then theoretically interfere with the Higgs field and allow for travel nearing the speed of light?
How do you think the discovery of the Higgs Boson would impact the Grand Unified Theory, M-Theory, and String Theory? Could we indeed be living on a brane? Also, what implications might this discovery have on Nick Bostrom's Simulation Theory?
One press report discussed the idea that the Higgs field might have the same transient existence that the aether did in Electro-Magnetic theory. Do you think there is a field that will interact with the Higgs field to produce an energy transmission function similar to that described by Maxwell's equations?
"There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
hi fatphil, thanks for the response.
I would like to address your 'question' but I was hoping you could restate it for me.
Please start from my original post that posed the question for the scientist, then the first AC reply, then my reply to him, then yours, etc. so I can see your logic.
Also, quotations help. Thanks I'll try to respond for you b/c I really think you are missing the point of my question.
Thank you Dave Raggett
This FAQ from FermiLab on the Higgs may be of some use to many here to answer some of the more basic questions that seem to be emerging from this discussion. http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2012/03/06/frequently-asked-questions-about-the-higgs-boson/
The energy equivalence of a single proton is (google) about 1 GeV (938MeV = 0.938 GeV ~ 1 GeV).
ref: http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mpc2mev
Full Disclosure: Calculating particle masses based off the component quarks would leave me confused, too.
PS: I don't reply to ACs.
if it is the most wanted boson in the universe, what are the practical implications. Will any new revolutionary technology come from it or is it just one step closer to solving the unsolvable ?
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
Please pardon my deep lack of understanding. If any of these questions are worthy please provide your ideas on them.
First, I read the following "Just as the electromagnetic field is higher near heavily charged particles, the Higgs field should be higher near heavy particles. For instance, near a Z boson—an object that accelerators should be able to produce in great abundance in the near future—the Higgs field is changed. The Z boson is unstable. When it decays into lighter particles, the disturbance in the Higgs field must take on another form. It might become a travelling disturbance in the Higgs field itself—a packet of energy propagating outward-a Higgs boson. The Higgs particle is to the pervasive mass-generating Higgs field what the photon is to electromagnetic fields." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_the_Higgs_field
So...
- What would the Higgs field intensity be like near some very dense matter like neutronium? Or near a black hole? How would high HF intensity be detectable?
- Imagine a spinning dense vortex made of Higgs bosons, like a whirlpool in the Higgs field. The bosons appear and die quickly but still are interacting with each other. Would there form a depression as in a whirlpool where the field intensity drops drastically or is this just a bad metaphor?
- Are there any things you could imagine that would cause the prevailing Higgs field intensity to drop or rise?
- Can you please explain wave propagation in the Higgs field and how such waves might conceivably be detected? For example what would be the analogue of an antenna to capture EM waves?
- Would an incoming wavefront of very near lightspeed higgs bosons (which have not yet decayed due to their relativistically slowed clocks) cause nearby particles to change mass briefly, and if so would such fluctuations in their mass cause a gravity wave signal to be emitted?
- Could a particle that interacts strongly with the Higgs field being pushed to high speeds create a disturbance similar to wake, transverse waves, sonic boom or a swept out tunnel in the Higgs Field condensate that could affect the inertial mass of other particles nearby or closely following it?
- Imagine as a thought experiment a spaceship that can project a very high energy density ahead to melt the QCD vacuum in front of it and tunnel through the Higgs field condensate which would then reform behind the passing ship. Would the ship be able to to accelerate more quickly and would it still be limited by c?
If the boson is the fundamental mass particle, how does a proton have less mass then one?
Well, fatphil... :/ this is quite a turn of events...it saddens me that you are incapable of communicating yourself sufficiently to ask me your question about my question...
however, this phrase did make me laugh: "simply a key-hole analysis"....that is another way of telling me that you're just reacting and your analysis is not thought out
you also mention a 'straw man' fallacy...nice job!
that IS a type of fallacy! in order for you to claim I have made it, you need to show how my original question to the scientist (and the quotation from dr. Incandela director of CMS) is an example of that
Thank you Dave Raggett
Does the Higgs particle exist in nature or does it just exist in the LHC for a fraction of a fraction of a second?