Slashdot Mirror
Years After Shutting Down, Tevatron Reveals Properties of Higgs Boson
sciencehabit writes: A U.S. atom smasher has made an important scientific contribution 3.5 years after it shut down. Scientists are reporting that the Tevatron collider in Batavia, Illinois, has provided new details about the nature of the famed Higgs boson — the particle that's key to physicists' explanation of how other fundamental particles get their mass and the piece in a theory called the standard model. The new result bolsters the case that the Higgs, which was discovered at a different atom smasher, exactly fits the standard model predictions.
In a way it would have been more interesting if the Higgs didn't fit our expectations.
Can BAC be used as a weapon?
we need more money to build a bigger one in the states now!! give us funding!!!!
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
My wife is a staff physicist at Fermi National Laboratory in Batavia, Illinois. They collected so many exabytes of data from the Tevatron before it was shut down and superseded by the LHC at Cern, that physicists will be spending many more years analyzing the data. Many PhD theses and major discoveries will likely come out of that mass of data. The work that is going on at Fermi now will likely be similarly important. I can only think of one other neutrino experiment that can duplicate (maybe) what they are doing at FermiLab now. For more really interesting information about what they are doing there, go to www.fnal.gov.
Isn't that still too high of an energy level for string theory to be pursued any longer?
The submitter funnily avoids naming the largest and most complex instrument ever built by man, the European Large Hadron Collider, by casually downplaying and referring to it as "a different atom smasher". Methinks the submitter is an envious American.
We should always remain skeptical of new theories such as this. That's how science works.
The purpose of existence is to make money.
Even after the surgical removal of 4 ribs and 2 vertebrae, even if John Holdren can suck his penis does not make the shuttering of the Tevatron right.
Ha ha
-1, and yet that unpleasant truth is the sad reality.
Quantum Eraser is simply filtering done with the coincidence detector. Since a coincident detector (a time based AND gate of photons), is a man made thing, it can be fully simulated. You could record all the photon detections and do the filtering on the data set afterwards in software.
So is the entanglement then occurring in the filtering software? No, its just filtering. The software could calculate both filtered, non-filtered and "all data minus the filtered set". In such a world the particle isn't tangled/untangled/non-existent, its just dull math of an easy to understand experiment.
And given that "time" variable disproves the idea that Bells prevents 'hidden variables' carried by the two photons. (They are clearly labelled by the time they were emitted, since you filter by that parameter!) It follows that Delayed Quantum Choice Eraser, is nothing but the initial state of the photon. Not time travel, not reverse causality, just 'it started with that state'.
You can't claim entanglement, so you can't claim time travel with a photon from the future entangled with one in the past, setting the wave function.
If the quantum effect is in the detector, then your Higgs Boson prediction could well be a detection prediction. i.e. a phantom particle that is a combination of detector effect overlayed on to the actual particle. Like a ghost '12' particle, from a 3 detector trying to detect a 4 particle, if you will.
Or like a phantom 2khz signal detected by a 10khz sampler of a 12khz frequency. It doesn't really exist, but you can detect it, measure it, predict it.
Einstein was right.
Who the f*ck knows,
People who actually read any of the freely available information on how such experiments work. Heck, if you live near a university with a decent physics program and ask nicely, they will let you use one of the actual setups of the basic experiments you're conflating, as they are often setup and used in undergrad lab courses now. But if you instead ramble and mess up things covered in a basic textbook or even Wikipedia, don't be surprised if they decide to not waste time.
Don't forget that Fermilab has a music video, Particle Business! https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
--- rapper/producer/bachelorette party stripper
But that is the problem right there.
How to learn something new if basic text books or Wikipedia is incorrect. Everyone has decided that the Standard model is mostly correct so every new finding must fit into the standard model further proving the standard model even though the standard model is incorrect.
If you go searching for a 2khz signal in a 12khz frequency and know for a fact that the 2khz signal is there, you are eventually are going to find it. It just takes 10khz samples to find it. It was there all the time and fits the grandparents model, even though his model is incorrect.
There is the same religion around the standard model. If you dream up another apostle around the standard model you are going to eventually find it. Trying to explain why the new found apostle is not possible even at 10khz samples, even if it fits somewhat into the standard model in most text books or even Wikipedia, nobody will have time for you even if just to listen. Well that is unless you can disprove the entire standard model. And then they still won't listen.
Disproving the entire standard model isn't going to happen. Even if the entire thing is wrong, some parts are provable with math like the 2khz signal in 12khz frequency. So the religion of the standard model continues and the added apostle gets accepted into the religion.
Everyone has decided that the Standard model is mostly correct
So the religion of the standard model continues and the added apostle gets accepted into the religion.
The Standard Model has so far withstood most attempts to prove it wrong, so it is tentatively accepted. There was no 'decision'. It's obvious that you disagree with it for your own 'reasons' - but rather than attempt to criticise it with logic and evidence, you declare that it is a religion. LOL.
Basically, you aren't brave enough to argue honestly, and would rather smear shit around. The Standard Model might well give way to a different paradigm (it doesn't incorporate gravity for example), but if it does, it will be based on evidence and broad consensus. And you'll still be wrong.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
How to learn something new if basic text books or Wikipedia is incorrect.
You got the basic physical setup and results of an experiment incorrect. Unless you did the experiments yourself, it doesn't matter if the mistake was yours or your source's, as your argument becomes baseless without real world observations.
. Everyone has decided that the Standard model is mostly correct so every new finding must fit into the standard model further proving the standard model even though the standard model is incorrect.
Funny, even the textbooks now state that the Standard model is wrong, and there are large numbers of physicists trying to find any and every new place it is wrong because it would help sort out proposed replacement theories. It is one thing to make arguments unaware of experiments, but another to base arguments on putting words into scientists mouths and assuming motivations in the face of voluminous material showing otherwise.
The submitter funnily avoids naming the largest and most complex instrument ever built by man, the European Large Hadron Collider, by casually downplaying and referring to it as "a different atom smasher". Methinks the submitter is an envious American.
And that's your big contribution to the discussion? That's all you had to offer?
Methinks you're an envious non-American. Methinks you're a fucking troll.
Cheers.
Basically, you don't have a reading comprehension. Where did I ever say that I was for or against the standard model??? Nowhere.
In all actually, religion, any religion makes me sick. Religion is for the weak minded. Religion is used by smart people to control the weak minded. Scientology comes to mind.
Religious people believe hook line and sinker that what is told to them has to be true.
Not everyone has a tevatron in their back yard so what comes out of it needs to be believed because they must be smart people there.
The standard model is the most complete. It doesn't by default make it correct. But as this entire thread has discussed, it is incomplete, or did you fail to read and comprehend that too?
If you have done even the basic amount of searching the net, you will find lots of places that it could be incorrect. The standard model has been tweeked to fit evidence that may or may not have been correct. Evidence that you would need a tevatron in your back yard to prove or disprove... Do you have one in your back yard? I didn't think so.
This is in by no way saying that the ENTIRE standard model is correct or incorrect.
So, by your admission, you have believed it hook, line and sinker the evidence until someone with a tevatron in their back yard proves differently. Doesn't that sound like some kind of religion?
I think you need to re-read the post. Nowhere do I smear shit around. And, there is nothing there to argue, I even say with the last paragraph that proving the Standard model wrong isn't possible, or did you even miss that?
My entire point is proving a new theory into the standard model "wrong" is not possible unless you have access to the same equipment that the person interjecting the new theory had access to. Walking into a university and asking to use their equipment isn't possible because they would have believed hook, line and sinker what the new results were.
I say again for them even to listen to a competing theory "correct" or "incorrect", you would need to disprove the entire standard model wrong, which isn't possible. Therefore nobody there would give you the time of day. Try it for yourself.
Therefor a "correct" or "incorrect" theory from anyone else that doesn't have a tevatron will never be heard.
No shit was smeared in this post. If you want to be brave enough to argue that people at an university will listen to you.... Beat my guest.
Not everyone has a tevatron in their back yard so what comes out of it needs to be believed because they must be smart people there.
Or, instead of taking it on faith, just read their papers...
until someone with a tevatron in their back yard proves differently
Or you can use the data from the Tevatron and other accelerators, most of which is freely available even in raw forms.
Walking into a university and asking to use their equipment isn't possible
I've let a couple non-university people come in and have access to equipment, with close supervision or doing stuff via instruction for stuff that is easy to break. All but one were high school students wanting to try out a science fair project though.
I say again for them even to listen to a competing theory "correct" or "incorrect", you would need to disprove the entire standard model wrong, which isn't possible.
Except this happens frequently. Alternative ideas to the Standard Model are a dime a dozen, and talks about alternatives are frequent.
You seem to either be basing your visions of how science and scientists work on assumptions because you haven't actually tried to do anything productive, or you lack such basic skills such as communication or basic science concepts so as to fail when trying.