Slashdot Mirror
Growing Consensus: The Higgs Boson Exists
It's a long, slow road from tentative discovery, to various forms of peer review, to wide acceptance, never mind theory and experimental design, but recent years' work to pin down the Higgs Boson seem to be bearing fruit in the form of cautious announcements. FBeans writes with excerpts from both the New York Times ("Physicists announced Thursday they believe they have discovered the subatomic particle predicted nearly a half-century ago, which will go a long way toward explaining what gives electrons and all matter in the universe size and shape.") and from The Independent ("Cern says that confirming what type of boson the particle is could take years and that the scientists would need to return to the Large Hadron Collider — the world's largest 'atom smasher' — to carry out further tests. This will measure at what rate the particle decays and compare it with the results of predictions, as theorised by Edinburgh professor Peter Higgs 50 years ago.")
What is this Higgs Bosun?
The name of the particle is the Higgs Boson. The article title is incorrectly using the possessive form.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
- Evelyn Beatrice Hall
G'day skippa!
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Thank's for all your hard work, editor's.
You know we're going to see this headline:
"Scientists prove that God exists."
Scary.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Bigg Bosoms
so, what do you call the belief on way or the other as to if the boson exists or does not? :)
Consensus (ie. human agreement) isn't part of the scientific method. All you need is that your experiment be repeatable by others and that your measured results be statistically significant within all the relevant bounds of experimental error.
If other teams witness the same results as you then you might be tempted to call that "consensus", but you'd be wrong. Human opinion and agreement doesn't enter into it. The desired level of agreement is a mathematical property of the observations, not the agreement of humans.
If I understand this correctly, the Higgs is what gives particles their mass. Is there anyway we could influence them somehow to reduce the mass of a particle?
Have they measured it yet?
Some headlines read: Physicists found GOD particle'
Physicists say they have found a Higgs boson - this is the actual story headline and a story.
Quote:
They made the statement following study of the data gathered last year from the world's largest atom-smasher, which lies beneath the Swiss-French border outside Geneva. The European Organization for Nuclear Research, or CERN, said that what they found last year was, indeed, a version of what is popularly referred to as the "God particle."
I thought about the significance of saying that and as an atheist, it doesn't mean anything for me, it just means some silly nick name. God-particle, glue-particle, whatever-particle.
I realised though that it is not how many people see it! There are millions of people who are quite religious and to them this really is something different, the religious zealots are selling the idea that scientists have discovered god!
This is a huge marketing propaganda campaign, the religious leaders will be able to point at this and tell their followers: you see, even scientists believe in god!
This is a very counter-productive, a terrible thing to do for the scientists to go along with this. They are truly doing a disservice to the entire thinking segment of the population by feeding into this propaganda. Is this the way for them to justify all the spending, to sell to the millions of religious fanatics that they "discovered god" (because that's all that the religious fanatics will hear: scientists discovered god).
This was the wrong way to go.
You can't handle the truth.
The Higg's give Fermions (Matter Particles) their "REST MASS" only. The relativistic mass of particles is something different.
Dear Lord... the creature's power comes from electricity | radiation | tachyons | nanobots | god particles!
crazy dynamite monkey
Or would that be putting Descartes before the force?
How does the Higgs Boson giver mass to other particles?
And some other interesting questions:
How is a Higgs Boson produced?
Can we produce these particles at will?
Can we affect gravity with them?
Flying cars, invisibility, peace in the Middle East, FTL travel, consensus on the original lyrics to "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida"?
What?
Also, can the Large Hadron Collider be used to find small and medium Hadrons?
[ Seriously CERN, think about multipurpose usefulness once in a while. ]
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
No doubt this "consensus" is based on just as much evidence as the "consensus" around global warming. Gotta wonder how long until these scientists start requesting **billions** more dollars to look for another invisible magic fairy particle. Can we really trust people who's living requires endless taxpayer handouts?
Ron Paul 2016
Consensus =! fact . In fact, there is no option in the scientific method for consensus to mean anything.
Currently, the existence of the Higgs Boson is hypothetical, until the discovery can be replicated numerous times and become a theory, which is a generally accepted scientific fact. One test showing the Higgs Boson particle does not turn it into theory, it merely means that other scientists now have a framework to prove the hypothesis.
sudo make me a sandwich
O Mighty Higg.
Bow down and worship The Higg. We don't know what it is yet, but bow down and worship it.
... physicists celebrate mass.
EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
I did not really see that number stated in the various articles. I read that the US Tevatron saw a 'hint" of Higgs with three possible events.
The other thing I read in Physics Today is there are six classes and over thirty ways the Higgs can decay. Some ways are easier to see with current detectors than others. The July 4 announccment was based on at least two decay modes. The more modes the more confidence.
Any one seen a Higgs Boson weapon in any games yet?
... that the boson belonged to Mr. Higg all this time (subject typo)
Is this how we do science now? I get it when it's anti-science, we form a consensus and deny everything we don't like. But this?
There is no aphostrophe in "Higgs Boson".
It's named after a dude, whose name is Higgs. Nothing possessive here.
...no, no -- that's not how it's going to be "picked up".
Let's take a look:
NBC News: Particle confirmed as Higgs boson
Associated Press: Physicists say they have found a Higgs boson
Reuters: Strong signs Higgs boson has been found: CERN
Wall Street Journal: New Data Boosts Case for Higgs Boson Find
FOX News: Physicists say they have found long-sought Higgs boson
Washington Post: A closer look at the Higgs boson particle that helps explain what gives matter size and shape
Chicago Tribune: Strong signs Higgs boson has been found: CERN
Sky News: Higgs Boson: Experts Sure Of 'God Particle'
New York Daily News: Physicists say they have discovered crucial subatomic particle known as Higgs boson
Boston Globe: Physicists say they have found a Higgs boson
BBC (UK): LHC cements Higgs boson identification
BusinessWeek: Case for Higgs Boson Strengthened by New CERN Analysis
The Daily Mail (UK): Scientists say they HAVE found the 'God particle' - but admit they still aren't sure what type of Higgs boson it is
The Independent (UK): Have they found the Higgs boson at last? Cern physicists say they're confident of 'God particle' breakthrough
Telegraph (UK): Higgs boson: scientists confident they have discovered the 'God particle'
News Limited (AU): Higgs boson, the God particle, discovered by CERN
US News and World Report: Physicists Observe Higgs Boson, the Elusive 'God Particle'
None of these articles make any links to "God" other than a few -- mostly UK, not US -- sources referring to it as the so-called "God particle", but even those explain exactly what this particle is theorized to be, not anything supernatural, "proving God exists", or having anything whatever to do with God.
Bitching about spelling and grammar like Bosun and Higg's with the apostrophe.
This post is still far better written then anything from the Huffington Post, a company of barely literate Gen Y'rs trying to write the "news" on their iPhones in between Tweets and popping Ritalin and Red Bull.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Belief doesn't come into it. The Higgs' existence (or not) is determined through very careful experimental observation and measurement.
Belief is something that primitive people used to hold in high esteem before the dawn of science. They used to read tea leaves and chicken entrails too.
Unfortunately there are still a lot of primitive people around, unable to face hard facts and precise logic, and unwilling to seek a cure for their extremely severe mental delusion. Not sure what humanity will do about them as we move ever further into a scientific world.
All these government scientists know they can keep getting grant money toeing the standard modelist line.
And besides, even if the Higgs Field does exist, it doesn't prove the theory is correct, so why should we be spending millions of dollars to change textbooks when there is nothing we can do with this knowledge anyway.
Also known as the god damn particle for its ability to create zombies https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luNueXoAw3I
All other elementary particles have names ending in -on and are derived from Greek. None of them honor their inventor.
So what should this new boson be called?
It links to an AP story with the headline "Physicists say they have found a Higgs boson", which says...
The Higgs is merely a liberal myth to get funding from big government by Photoshoping particle path photos using smelly hippie open-source software to claim they almost detected it.
Next those commie atheist Sharia liberal hippies will tell you that subatomic particles work the same way inside poor people that they do inside wealthy job creators!
Equality of physics? What's next, free sunshine?
And those damned neutrinos CANNOT go through us Republicans. We have guns! Neutrinos only pass through surrendering cowards!
Table-ized A.I.
Anything that needs a "growing consensus" makes me "suspicious".
Discovering that which the maths already shows exists is hardly a great discovery. Or perhaps some of you are dumb enough to think maths (in a fundamental sense) can be wrong.
There are far more interesting areas to explore. Radioactive decay is currently described as RANDOM- a complete nonsense according to the laws of physics. Finding the true causes of radioactive decay would be a vastly more interesting scientific achievement.
As for that 'random' comment- most of you are so scientifically illiterate, you don't even know what the problem is with current theory. Godel and Turing revolutionized the tool we use to do scientific research- maths. The concept of the 'Turing Complete Computer' disallows true randomness in science. Scientific concepts MUST be mathematically robust- which means that must be capable of emulation on a Turing Complete Computer. Any scientific theory based on true randomness (rather than so-called hidden variables) is actually a belief in 'magic'.
As kids we 'learn' that radioactive decay is not effected by external effects like pressure and temperature. Of course, such high-school nonsense is clearly disproved, when 'temperatures' are high enough to rip atoms apart and 'pressures' great enough to send atoms colliding into one another. We also learn that radioactive decay is truly random- a lie that can be told because the theories of Godel and Turing are not widely taught.
Most physicists have such a poor understanding of the principles of mathematics that they happily accept the idea of true randomness. This is shameful, given that 60 seconds of thought would allow the understanding that true randomness would completely undermine the concept of 'fixed' physical laws. Even without the work of Turing, it is obvious that true randomness and science are diametric opposites. Turing merely formalised this fact beyond all dispute.
Radioactive decay will either be due to a pseudo-random function within the nucleus (unlikely) or weak interactions between the nucleus and particles we have yet to discover. It should be remembered (although most of you will not understand this) that the ONLY particles we easily discover are those that have significant interaction with the particles from which we (and our tools) are constructed. There could be literally an infinity of other particles in existence that either have ZERO or extremely weak interactions with the particles we are aware off. There is NO concept in science, nor could there be, that states two particles have to interact with one another.
The Higgs Boson was strongly defined in the current mathematical model that forms our current understanding of particle physics, so finding it is the height of non-remarkable science. Not finding it ever would be remarkable.
The cause of radioactive decay, on the other hand, is breakthrough science. Sadly, it is also breakthrough nuclear bomb science. Here's a fact. In the early days of nuclear science, the 'neutron' was considered a 'state secret' and its existence was missing from public science books of the time. Manipulating radioactive decay is the way you create new generations of nuclear weapons. Public disclosure of nuclear science that could be applied to building nuclear weapons is no newer than the 1950s (think about this). We are supposed to believe there have been no breakthroughs in the last 50+ years. Yeah, right.
There is good reason things like the Higgs Boson get such publicity. It is a neat distraction from much more fundamental and useful nuclear science. THINK! Even today, you are told that Iran cannot build a nuke, because it lacks the scientific knowledge. That is a statement that even today, the science used to build nukes in the 50s is NOT in the public domain. Yet Team Obama falls over itself to tell you that knowledge of the Higgs Boson is 'useful'. Interesting logical contradiction.
Who knows where Man would be today, if nuclear science were not wholly subverted for the use of the military. The scientific breakthroughs used to build the nukes of the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s and today are state secrets, and cannot therefore contribute to Human society (or greater scientific understanding).
A bo's'n is a warrant officer in the deck department of Navy ships as well, supervising all sorts of deck activities such as mooring, anchoring, taking on fuel, and standing various watches.
... because it is just more religion disguised as science. The big bang = the biggest crock of horse$hit ever contrived.
The new religions that spring up would have these things in common with the current religions:
1) A belief in one God, or in many Gods, or both at once.
2) A belief in the creation of the world (and of us) by a divine authority.
3) A belief in the necessity of submitting to the divine authority.
4) A belief in the value of making sacrifices to the divine authority.
5) A belief that the church (or whatever it is called) can tell you what the divine authority wants you to do
6) A belief that the divine authority listens to you when you talk to it (even though it doesn't talk back).
7) A code of morality including all the basics (don't kill, don't steal, etc., unless you are doing it to an infidel).
The worlds great religions are alot more alike than different. The names and such vary, but the themes are pretty consistent.
Hmmm, "being replicated at Fermilab" starts out at score +1.
I point out that the Fermilab collider is shut down, and post a link to that effect, and then "being replicated at Fermilab" gets modded up +4.
Great job, moderators!
The Higgs (...) boson gives fermions and several bosons (including itself) their intrinsic mass.
The Higgs boson does not give itself or anything else mass.
Interaction with the Higgs field gives fundamental particles, including the Higgs boson, their intrinsic mass. A Higgs boson is just an excitation of the Higgs field that is interesting to us only because it evinces the existence of the field.
There aren't Higgs bosons all over the universe giving everything mass; it takes a hell of a lot of effort to bring a Higgs boson into a brief existence, which is why we need these huge high-energy colliders. In fact it takes so much energy to make a Higgs boson that the Higgs boson has a much higher mass than many of the fundamental particles (mass is just energy, rest mass is just total energy minus kinetic energy), so it wouldn't make any sense for really heavy Higgs bosons to give really light particles their mass.
The Higgs boson isn't even responsible for all or even most intrinsic mass. Most of the mass of ordinary matter is found in the binding energies holding fundamental particles together into the compound particles that most ordinary matter is made up out of. Every time a particle interacts with a field, it loses some of its kinetic energy and gains rest mass. Rest mass comes from interactions between what would otherwise be massless particles moving at light speed. Mass is just energy; when kinetic energy is "lost" in an interaction, and not just transferred to something else, it is converted to rest-mass. Most of the mass of the matter we're familiar with is accounted for by the three known electronuclear interactions (the electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear forces).
What the Higgs field explains is why, after we have accounted for interactions with all known fields, many of the fundamental particles, all by themselves not apparently interacting with anything, still exhibit rest mass and move slower than light. If they weren't interacting with any fields at all, everything should be massless and moving at lightspeed. The Higgs field is the proposed field which massive fundamental particles are interacting with, which slows them down and gives them mass.
(Rather, it's the field with which the truly fundamental particles interact, causing them to manifest as the massive "fundamental" particles we are familiar with. Our familiar fundamental particles aren't "made of" these other particles, like an atom is made of protons and neutrons, so much as in the absence of a Higgs field there would be fundamental particles with completely different properties in the universe, and the presence of a Higgs field forces the ones we end up seeing as massive to behave differently from their constant interaction with it, appearing as the massive fundamental particles with the properties we are familiar with).
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
evolution exists due to consensus not by facts...
This is clear proof that god exists
until (succeed) try { again(); }
"which will go a long way toward explaining what gives electrons and all matter in the universe size and shape"
Size and shape eh? Great reporting.
So.. it only took 300 years, to prove all the alchemists right ..but in order to do so, we needed to make it look "scientific an all, eh?" So we now call "The Ether" the "Higgs-Boson" ....
Like.. er.. wow...
The peanut gallery wants to be on record as being adamantly opposed to the idea of the Higgs Boson. (Just as I was on record when the whole physics world went nuts over faster-than-light neutrinos, and I was one of the few voices of reason.) As I have posted multiple times on slashdot, mass and gravity are quantum path phenomena. Why physicists can't see this is, frankly, baffling to me. It's exceedingly obvious that mass and gravity are quantum phenomena. Anybody that understands basic QM knows the idea of path integrals and the MWI. Mass and gravity are simply the result of more universes (and hence, more space) in one direction than another, causing an apparent force. So, basically, Einstein was right. Mass and gravity are due to the existence of additional space. That is my two cents. (Now, please commence the modding down.)
I still don't believe their claims, nor do I find it useful or productive science.