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.")

27 of 254 comments (clear)

  1. Cheap Chinese knock off? by hedwards · · Score: 4, Funny

    What is this Higgs Bosun?

    1. Re:Cheap Chinese knock off? by FBeans · · Score: 5, Informative

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boatswain A boatswain (pron.: /bosn/, formerly and dialectally also /botswen/), bo's'n, bos'n, or bosun is an unlicensed member of the deck department of a merchant ship. I believe they exist!

  2. That damn apostrophe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Thank's for all your hard work, editor's.

    1. Re:That damn apostrophe by jitterman · · Score: 3, Funny

      And fully left-justified!

      --
      For conscience is the wound, and there's naught to staunch it
  3. Just wait for the news media to pick this up. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You know we're going to see this headline:

    "Scientists prove that God exists."

    Scary.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    1. Re:Just wait for the news media to pick this up. by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd prefer to hear about a truce between ardent atheists and fundamentalists where the former stops trying to disprove the existence of a divine creator and the latter stops trying to ban the teaching of evolution.

    2. Re:Just wait for the news media to pick this up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I have never heard of an ardent atheist who puts any effort whatsoever into disproving the existence of a divine creator. The notion is nonsense in itself, as there is noting to prove or disprove and no way to go about doing either.

      Clearly you've been drinking the fabricated controversy cool-aid.

    3. Re:Just wait for the news media to pick this up. by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes, but what's the point of that? They're already believing in something that doesn't make any sort of rational sense, presenting them with further evidence isn't likely to do anything than cause your blood pressure to spike.

      But believing in the Big Bang is logical? 13+ billion years ago everything sprang forth from a singularity of infinite density (lots of rational sense to be found there). Where did it come from? What caused it to explode? If it was infinite, where's the rest of it? Because we live in what appears to be an expanding universe, we take a leap of faith and assume that it all spring forth from a single point. I'm fine with this as we really don't have a better explanation, and it seems to be a workable theory to for now. But it takes some faith to believe it, even if many people don't like to admit it.

      Personally, I believe in god. I know, that's a sure way to get modded as a troll on /. However I don't know if he/she exits for sure. I can accept that god may have been an alien, was even created by the mass consciousnesses from the belief of enough people, or even some sort of reality dysfunction that is left over from the big bang itself. Regardless, most religions tend to worship a god that tells us to be good to each other, so I don't really find this to be a bad thing. Generally it's power crazed nutjobs that pervert religions to commit acts of violence, which is a shame.

      I really don't see how it's so hard to find a way to reconcile ones religious beliefs with their scientific ones. Anyhow, my point is, is that there is nothing wrong with what anyone believes, so long as they aren't hurting anyone else. If you want to believe that the universe just popped into existence for no apparent reason, I'm not here to argue with you. But I would also appreciate the same respect for my impossible to prove beliefs too.

    4. Re: Just wait for the news media to pick this up. by SleazyRidr · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Two points:

      Firstly, a lot of people do use their belief in God to harm others, from opposing gay marriage to the twin tower attack, belief has caused a lot of harm.

      Secondly, 'belief' in the Big Bang is different from belief in God, in that if a scientist discovered something which would make the Big Bang an unlikely explanation we'd all say 'oh, ok' and start believing the new hypothesis. There are still people trying to argue that the Earth is only 6,000 years old...

      Interesting side note, my iPhone capitalized Big Bang for me, but not God...

    5. Re:Just wait for the news media to pick this up. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Regardless, most religions tend to worship a god that tells us to be good to each other,

      Can I join you on whatever planet you're posting from? Seems a lot better than mine in this respect. On THIS planet we have bad tempered narcissistic sky gods with a serious inferiority complex who are either diddling with family members or structuring wholesale genocide.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    6. Re:Just wait for the news media to pick this up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Where did it come from? What caused it to explode?

      While that would be nice to know, not knowing doesn't preclude it from existing, unless there is some unresolved contradiction.

      If it was infinite, where's the rest of it?

      Infinity does not work that way. Just because it may have been infinitely dense, does not mean it had infinite mass, e.g. something analogous to a Dirac delta function.

      Because we live in what appears to be an expanding universe, we take a leap of faith and assume that it all spring forth from a single point.

      That isn't a leap a faith, unless some one asserts they are 100% true of it. It is an inference. There is a rather big difference.

      There is really only one big assumption that requires faith behind science: that there exists a logical, invariant explanation behind what we observe. And that assumption is pretty much required of any belief structure, because otherwise it would be nonsensical to and useless to ascribe a reason or pattern to something that does not have any. Everything else is a matter of inferences from observations, and always subject to change due to new observations (even though many slashdotters may be to willing to treat such things pure deductive logic when they are not).

      This does allow for some people to rationally believe in God and religious depending on their life experiences and knowledge. Rational does not necessarily lead to correct decisions if you are given limited or incorrect information. But there are potential problems when they refuse to question or look at things that could contradict the details of their belief, i.e. refusing to seek out new information. And it becomes a matter of faith when they transition from saying, "I think I am right based on what I've experienced, but I may be wrong," to, "It is absolutely impossible for me to be wrong." And saying, "I am absolutely certain I am correct, and that is based on what I've experienced," does not reverse that transition.

  4. Re:Faith by FBeans · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm not quite sure what that question is. I think the answer you may be looking for is: The Scientific Method!

  5. New Sci-Fi Macguffin by decipher_saint · · Score: 4, Funny

    Dear Lord... the creature's power comes from electricity | radiation | tachyons | nanobots | god particles!

    --
    crazy dynamite monkey
  6. Does this mean the Higgs Boson 'Thinks'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Or would that be putting Descartes before the force?

  7. Re:What is in the name? by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's just short for Goddamn particle, because it was so hard to find..

    --


    He tried to kill me with a forklift!
  8. Re:Consensus is not needed by femtobyte · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Consensus is very much part of the scientific method as it is actually practiced, even if not in an over-simplified theory of it. In practice, the people forming the consensus are smart, rational folks who rely on the "mathematical property of repeated observations" as much as possible. However, even with a few experiments reporting the same number --- how well do folks trust that there were not common systematic errors impacting all of them (it has certainly happened before)? That the results are not misinterpreted due to mistakes in the calculations, or missed effects? Forming a consensus within the scientific community that the reported numbers are *trustworthy* is a critical part of the actual existing scientific process: it's called peer review, and catches a lot of honest mistakes that a "just trust the numbers; don't bring your human experience/intuition/skepticism into it" approach would not.

  9. Re:Proof by femtobyte · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "generally accepted scientific fact" = consensus --- otherwise, what's the "generally accepted" part? There is no stronger scientific definition of "fact" that transcends a general consensus based on a multitude of apparently properly done confirming experiments.

  10. Re:Consensus is not needed by ggraham412 · · Score: 3, Informative

    The energy of the tevatron collider at Fermilab is much lower than at CERN, making it very difficult if not impossible to observe the Higgs or measure its properties there. The collider has been shut down for more than a year anyhow as they transition to other physics experiments. http://www.fnal.gov/pub/tevatron/

  11. Re:Consensus is not needed by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Informative

    That is one of the reasons that the LHC has multiple detectors built by competing teams.

  12. This is how... by craznar · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... physicists celebrate mass.

    --
    EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
  13. If by "news media" you mean mainstream media... by daveschroeder · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...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.

    1. Re:If by "news media" you mean mainstream media... by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      On the msn.com home page: Physicists: 'God particle' is real

  14. Re:Consensus proves nothing by FBeans · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    When the electron was discovered, it could have also, and naively been considered useless. However here we are commenting on the latest discovery of science, utilising that very knowledge. The point is, you don't know what will be usefull and what won't be useful. Besides it's fun, interesting and nearly always useful to learn how the universe works. The internet was made at CERN, you could say as a result of this research. So.....

  15. Re:Next: how does it give mass to other particles? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Informative

    How does the Higgs Boson giver mass to other particles?

    The theory behind the Higgs mechanism motivated the search for the Higgs particle in the first place. It's well worked out. Check Wikipedia.

    How is a Higgs Boson produced?

    Practical answer: if you put enough energy in a small enough space you'll get all kinds of particles. Some of those will be Higgs'.
    Sciency answer: the Higgs particle is just a manifestation of a perturbation in the Higgs field, just like every other fundamental particle is a perturbation in it's own quantum field in modern quantum field theory. To produce a Higgs you pump enough energy into the Higgs field in a particular location.

    Can we produce these particles at will?

    If at will you mean by smashing other particles together at high speed and occasionally getting a Higgs out, yes. If you mean specifically producing a Higgs on command, no.

    Can we affect gravity with them?

    No. The Higgs field doesn't have anything to do with gravity: http://profmattstrassler.com/2012/10/15/why-the-higgs-and-gravity-are-unrelated/

  16. Re:Now name it by Entropius · · Score: 3, Informative

    well, there are "fermions", after Fermi, and "bosons", after Bose, but those are the two classes of particles. There are "gluons", ending in -on, but from English "glue". Then there are the W and Z bosons, which are just letters, and the quarks...

  17. Global Higgsing by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Funny

    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!

  18. Re:Faith by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Every predomently atheist society has the same rules, even those rare cultures that have no concept of religion. You're trying to argue that religion and morality are the same thing, which they need not be. It's true to a certain extent, most religions codify those morals, but then again, so do most governments.