Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Years After Shutting Down, Tevatron Reveals Properties of Higgs Boson

Posted by Soulskill on from the only-collides-particles-if-you-throw-a-rock-at-it dept.

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.

41 of 73 comments (clear)

  1. But we know the Standard Model is incomplete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In a way it would have been more interesting if the Higgs didn't fit our expectations.

    1. Re:But we know the Standard Model is incomplete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Scientific setbacks is what allow us to advance scientifically.

    2. Re:But we know the Standard Model is incomplete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      finding out our ideas are completely wrong isn't "interesting", it's a setback.

      Not when all our ideas lead to dead-ends in terms of new effects to exploit.

    3. Re:But we know the Standard Model is incomplete by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But we know we aren't right. We cannot correct our flawed models of the natural world until we find the flaws in them. We know that our models are wrong, but we don't know why. The whole point of building equipment like this is to find out where our models break down so that we can build better models. If we spend billions of dollars only to learn that we were right (up to the resolution of the instrument), then we wasted billions of dollars and need to build a better instrument.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    4. Re:But we know the Standard Model is incomplete by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 2

      The Universe is not an iGadget -- we don't need the new shiny to replace the old just to get new features. So get past your short sighted grasp of existence and learn to realize that by fully understanding something, we can set ourselves to better exploiting it instead of wasting energy looking for things that don't exist. And it's not like we are anywhere near having a complete understanding of the universe or it's composition. So anything we can lock down is a major step forward regardless of how "revolutionary" it may be on a superficial level.

    5. Re:But we know the Standard Model is incomplete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ....pretty sure being right allows us to advance more quickly

      Yeah, and so?

      Are you trying to be obtuse?

      The attitude of "We will not try anything until we are sure we have the right thing to study" would be a bigger blow to science than a thousand different people all trying the wrong thing.

      The idea of it being more interesting if it didn't match our model, would indicate that there is an even more complex system out there that can be interacted with. We could possibly do things like find a new dimension we could travel instead of it just being a theory, in the long term. It would generate more studies into the why and how, pushing progress even further than it is going now. Either that, or there is another computer glitch making things travel faster than light.

    6. Re:But we know the Standard Model is incomplete by Prof.Phreak · · Score: 1

      wasted billions of dollars and need to build a better instrument. ...and that wasn't the point?

      --

      "If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy

    7. Re:But we know the Standard Model is incomplete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      He'd say you were holding it wrong.

    8. Re:But we know the Standard Model is incomplete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're an engineer, not a scientist.

    9. Re:But we know the Standard Model is incomplete by Sique · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I would rather disagree. I remember an interview with one of the leading physicists of CERN before the LHC was started, and he said that in some way he hopes that the Standard Model would prove to be incomplete and the Hiiggs Boson either doesn't exists or has different properties than the Standard Model predicts, because it would open a lot of new research into alternative hypotheses around a potential Grand Unified Theory.

      So the results are disappointing in a way, as the most boring of all alternative explanations seems to be true.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    10. Re:But we know the Standard Model is incomplete by tomhath · · Score: 1

      If we spend billions of dollars only to learn that we were right (up to the resolution of the instrument), then we wasted billions of dollars

      Nonsense. We can't move forward unless the experiment supports the theory. Otherwise you're not following the scientific method.

    11. Re:But we know the Standard Model is incomplete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Given the fact that usually we develop a truckload of new technology, manufacturing and engineering processes and materials, and sometimes even math, in the process of building the "useless" machine, sort of.

      And you actually use these things for other experiments than the main one it was built for, after all. Often to extremely good results.

      It is money well spent. Better spent than the shitload of money the military likes to give to the defense contractors, for sure.

    12. Re:But we know the Standard Model is incomplete by jandersen · · Score: 3, Informative

      But we know we aren't right. We cannot correct our flawed models of the natural world until we find the flaws in them.

      Well, we know on principle that all scietific theories are flawed; that's why it is cience, not religion. The problem is that we have two theories that have, so far, checked out in every detail, but which appear to be fundamentally incompatible. And, even worse, we have not been able to find any discrepancy between the two, that is small enough to guide our intuition; all the data that point to something being wrong, are somehow wildly off.

    13. Re:But we know the Standard Model is incomplete by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      We know the theory has flaws. If we don't find the flaws, we can't fix the theory. We are NOT in the situation where we think our theory perfectly describes the physical world and are just looking for proof - we know it breaks down. We just don't know why.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    14. Re:But we know the Standard Model is incomplete by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 2

      > pretty sure being right allows us to advance more quickly

      Definitely not. The exact opposite is much closer to the truth.

    15. Re:But we know the Standard Model is incomplete by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 4, Informative

      > the Hiiggs Boson either doesn't exists or has different properties than the Standard Model predicts

      Well he got his wish, in a way.

      The SM doesn't predict any particular mass for the Higgs. It doesn't predict masses at all, except in the way that it defines relative masses, sort of. So if the mass of particle A is 1 then B has to be at least 2 for the theory to work, but it doesn't say that A has to be 1, and if it's 0.5 then B can be 1. A number of new theories do predict masses directly, or have relative masses like the SM, but require those relative masses to be different.

      Right now the entire field is basically up in the air over how to continue development, whether that be supersymmetry or multiple dimensions. They both require different Higgs mass, one around (going completely on memory here) 114 GeV and the other a little less than 140.

      Atlas and CMS both put the mass around 125, which means both are wrong. This is a good thing, because both systems stink.

    16. Re:But we know the Standard Model is incomplete by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      finding out our ideas are completely wrong isn't "interesting", it's a setback.

      considering it's a complex set of ideas that potentially describe how the entire universe and everything in it works, isn't "incomplete" or "unfinished" is about the best we can shoot for at this point

      I'll just leave this Asimov quote here:

      The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny ...'

    17. Re:But we know the Standard Model is incomplete by Maritz · · Score: 1

      wasted billions of dollars and need to build a better instrument. ...and that wasn't the point?

      It's perfectly clear you've made your mind up that that is the point; so why would anyone waste their time attempting to convince you otherwise? That time would be better spent educating someone who hasn't decided they already know everything worth knowing.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    18. Re:But we know the Standard Model is incomplete by Cytotoxic · · Score: 1

      > pretty sure being right allows us to advance more quickly

      Definitely not. The exact opposite is much closer to the truth.

      The reason why something like this might be true is related to the Confirmation Bias logical fallacy. Quick classic example:

      Take the series of numbers: 2,4,6,8

      Figure out what the rules for the series are. If you give me a guess, I'll tell you if it is in the series or not.

      So you guess 10.
      I say yes.
      Then you guess 12.
      I say yes.
      Yippie, you think. I've figured it out. I'll make one more guess to be sure: How about 14?
      Yes.

      Ok, you say, the rule is all the numbers are even.

      Nope. The rule is the numbers are positive integers. Because you never tested a number that didn't fit your rule, you never found out where your rule was wrong. Therefore you never made any progress in updating your rules.

      So, in the case of the Higgs we found out that our rule is right about the information we've learned about the Higgs so far. In which case we can't make our rule any better. If we had instead found out that some of our predictions were wrong, they'd be hard at work updating their model and coming up with ways to test that new model. That's why progress is faster if you find out that you are wrong. The important bit was finding out how you were wrong, and that you were asking the right questions so that the results point you in the right direction.

    19. Re:But we know the Standard Model is incomplete by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Finding out the truth is never a setback in science. It is always an accomplishment. While it may sometimes feel like a setback to find out you were wrong, the real setback would have been heading down the wrong path longer than necessary. Think of the lost opportunity cost in potential discoveries that could have been made sooner with a more accurate picture of the world.

    20. Re:But we know the Standard Model is incomplete by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      This is a false dichotomy. It implies that an experiment can only either support *the* theory or not. There can be several competing theories that can all be tested by the same set of experiments. There were many experiments performed at the LHC. Even the experiments specifically gathering evidence for the Higgs boson tested various hypotheses about what energy level ranges the Higgs boson could be found in.

  2. Re:QUCK!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    naw, sorry, we had to spend that 50B on a mobile social app that lets you listen
    to the sounds of your friends farts

  3. Yea FermiLab! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
     

    1. Re:Yea FermiLab! by Maritz · · Score: 2

      You sound like a crank. That was a such a pile of bollocks I have no idea where to start. The arrogance of ignorance at work.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  4. they nailed down its mass: 125 giga-electron volts by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Isn't that still too high of an energy level for string theory to be pursued any longer?

  5. Re:QUCK!!! by ganjadude · · Score: 1

    i guess i forgot the /s tag

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  6. Re:QUCK!!! by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    np, I saw it. :)

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  7. Re:QUCK!!! by ganjadude · · Score: 1

    so it was I who missed the /s tag on yours!

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  8. A different atom smasher by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:A different atom smasher by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, he's being clever and helpful: he doesn't want American birds to know where the LHC is so they can't go there and drop bread on it.

    2. Re: A different atom smasher by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The submitter merely quoted text from the article. They didn't change anything to slight the LHC.

    3. Re:A different atom smasher by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      While EU countries contributed the bulk of the resources, personnel, and location of course, the US also contributed over half a billion dollars of the estimated $6.4 billion (€4.6 billion) total cost, technical and scientific contributions, and more than a few personnel. It was and still is a massive international effort, with scientists and engineers from 100 different countries contributing.

      As a US citizen, I was actually quite proud of *humanity* for creating such an amazing device, all for the purpose of advancing our scientific understanding. What's there to be envious of? I think it's fantastic. No one but you seems intent on turning it into an international pissing match.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    4. Re:A different atom smasher by MatthiasF · · Score: 1

      Two short paragraphs later, the writer explains both in more detail. I doubt it was an issue of envy, but sticking to standard writing conventions (start broad, dive into details, wrap up).

      And it's called the Large Hadron Collider, not the "European Large Hadron Collider". A lot of countries outside of Europe helped build it.

    5. Re:A different atom smasher by Rob+Riggs · · Score: 3, Informative

      We spent as much on LHC as we spend on 1/5 of a submarine. In other words, the LHC costs about 2.5 attack submarines; or half an aircraft carrier. Wouldn't you really rather have another one of those than then next Tevatron?

      --
      the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
    6. Re: A different atom smasher by avatar+avatar · · Score: 2

      What would happen? The poor would eventually be poor again, and go cut down the repopulated rainforest to compensate. Money doesn't really solve a problem unless it's used to prevent a problem, and that's where knowledge becomes quite handy.

    7. Re:A different atom smasher by mestar · · Score: 1

      "We spent as much on LHC as we spend on 1/5 of a submarine. In other words, the LHC costs about 2.5 attack submarines;"

      ...as long as we define 2.5 as being the same as 1/5.

    8. Re:A different atom smasher by Rob+Riggs · · Score: 1

      "We spent as much on LHC as we spend on 1/5 of a submarine. In other words, the LHC costs about 2.5 attack submarines;"

      ...as long as we define 2.5 as being the same as 1/5.

      ...or "we" (the U.S.) paid for a relatively small fraction of the total cost of the LHC.

      --
      the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
  9. Re:Skepticism is needed to test reality in Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Skepticism in the face of evidence is called 'denialism'. The Standard Model is hardly a "new theory". Science works by testing hypotheses and gathering evidence.
    To say the physicists are being pre-mature about their conclusion is to show your ignorance.

  10. Fermilab Music Video! by funky49 · · Score: 1

    Don't forget that Fermilab has a music video, Particle Business! https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    --
    --- rapper/producer/bachelorette party stripper
    1. Re:Fermilab Music Video! by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Here is Cern's https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  11. Re:But you never do! by Maritz · · Score: 1

    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.