I do not understand the latter part of your question, but the first part is easy:
The mathematical procedure employed in the tests is exactly the same for all experiments that we do. They even had to be agreed upon among the two large LHC experiments (ATLAS and CMS) in discussions that took in excess of months to pin down all details.
Now, on the other hand, the data that is used is different (i.e. we get different views from different selections made to the data, some selecting b quarks, others W bosons, others, photons, etc), the teams of people are different, the software platform are different, the hardware in the experiments is different, the organizational structures are different, the collisions are different, etc, etc.
Since so much is different and independent, and that all results point in one direction (namely that the probability that the observation in data can be due to what we already know is smaller than 1 in 3 million) gives us a lot of confidence in the claim.
The Higgs field (and therefore its corresponding particle) has a fundamental role in electroweak symmetry breaking. That means that the way it relates to W and Z bosons cannot be too different from what is expected from the existing Standard Model (SM). Failure to fulfill that requirement would immediately point towards physics beyond the SM.
So, now we start the painstaking work of trying to characterize every single facet of this particle. The most immediate ones are: its mass, its spin and parity, and its relation with other particles. This is done with respect to the SM predictions and if anything deviates, then we have to see if some other model explains that deviation in a reasonable way (reasonable is defined according to Occam's Razor).
I think you answered your own question quite accurately: we're in the same situation as the electron, though this particle is much more massive, and therefore less abundant. But only the future will tell.
Science can be crowd-sourced to some extent. But the amount of data here is simply huge. As someone pointed out, we start with something like PB/s and get it down to PB/year. So, putting out a torrent is not really the way to go. Then there is the fact that the data does not remain the sole property of the "collectors". Eventually they are published. And you say "but I can't get the journal articles..." but you are wrong. High Energy Physics has had an Open Access philosophy even before Open Access was invented and all of the published LHC experiment journal articles can only be submitted to journals that will provide them free of cost. Finally, CERN is very involved in the preservation of data from previous experiments so that people (and here we mean everyone, not just the "collectors") can re-analyze it. Those data are highly distilled, benefitting from decades of expertise and calibration so that they can be used more widely. In fact, some data are even made available for the EPPOG physics masterclasses so that high school students get dirty with real data.
But come on, if you can't even get the applet going...
1 - Stupidest thing: Star Trek teleporters; I wish! (I am a big TNG Trekkie.) 2 - Made me laugh: the notion that this is the final word on the Higgs boson, while we are still at the stage that it is a neutral boson with a lot of mass (for the record, 125 GeV/c^2 ~ 133 times the proton mass, not 125...). 3 - Same old press... The reporting was in general (read, the median) quite good. But there are always exceptions (read, long tails).
It's actually a pretty simple answer: the particle that we now found is so massive that the energy needed to prick it out from its slumber is very large. Think of the the Higgs field as the surface of a lake. The Higgs particle would be the drops that detach from the surface when you throw a stone in. Regardless of the surface of the lake, the size of the stone that you need to throw in (collision energy) in order to get some splash (particles) depends on the density of the lake's contents (the field).
Bottom line: the Higgs lake is pretty dense such that only with huge stones can we get a splash out of it.
[...] those countries where roundabouts are common. Oh, wait, that would be NOWHERE. Even in the EU where everyone sings the praises of Roundabouts they are RARE.
Though I agree that roundabout-ifying the US is not feasible, your last statement is plainly WRONG: off the top of my counting, I see at least 12 in http://g.co/maps/cnqxz and http://g.co/maps/hd9jk .
The positive spin is that "this is exciting because now there are fewer places to look."
You call that spin? I call it scientific advance. Is there anything else you can do with science other than exclude hypothesis? Before the LHC, the Higgs boson could not exist below 114 (let me gloss over the units) nor between 150 to 170 or so.
The last results from the LHC excluded it from 140 to more than 500. That means that any theory predicting a Higgs boson in that range just went out the window.
For instance, what if the effect we attribute to a particle is responsible when hundreds of particles interact in aggregate? Maybe this is all being handled, but one particle to rule them all seems like it is an idea out of fantasy.
We understand different things at different levels. And when we do not have some fundamental understanding, we build what we call effective theories. It may very well be that the Higgs boson is composed of other particles. Even if it is, this entity has a role in interactions, which is not diminished whether it is composite or fundamental.
Take the atom. It was indivisible for a long long time. Then we figured out there was a nucleus, 99.9% empty space and electrons. Then the nucleus turned out to have protons and neutrons. And then it turned out that protons and neutrons are made of quarks and gluons.
At each level, we can have a working tool that explains to a good level of accuracy what is happening at that level. Take the example of gravity: Newton's laws work for 99% of what we do. There is no need to go for Special or General Relativity until you really consider gravity in scales which are not human: galaxies, etc.
So, no one is looking for a particle to rule them all. And no one is claiming that we have finally reached a final understanding of matter. Or energy. In fact, finding the Higgs boson predicted by the Standard Model would fill in a piece in the puzzle, but not finish all puzzles.
So what's the news here? If you exclude it from range X, doesn't that still leave ranges Y and Z and the potential for not finding it at all? What's new?
Well, consider the problem of where can planets be with respect to their star and still sustain life as we know it. It's narrow: too close, too hot; too far, too cold. The fact that there is a range left can gives you big insights into what the physical world has to look like just because the Higgs cannot be in a given range (or we would have seen it).
More generally, this is the only thing science can actually do: reject hypothesis. We are always left with some possibilities. But we progress by discarding possibilities that are not realized in Nature.
You are bang on. A Higgs boson in our detectors (disclaimer: I am one of the people searching for that darn thing in one of the LHC experiments) is borne out starting by saving the "right" combination of particles detected in a given collision. Then we see if the particles detected (leptons, photons, etc) in each event resemble what the Standard Model theory predicts. In most cases we need to accumulate a lot of collisions until we can say that there is something.
It's a rare beast. Patience is needed and some people in the LHC experiments have been waiting to find it for almost 20 years now.
Greetings from the LHC! At this point in time, with the amount of data that we have, the answer is: "perhaps, perhaps not". There is not enough evidence to cut it either way.
At CERN, the http protocol was born, the Grid Tier0 is hosted, open access publishing was organized, the LHC is operating, other mind-boggling experiments take place every day, and there are free tours.
Yep, but you usually output about 100-200 gr of feces (that's the figure I remember from my Physiology class, can't find a citation; The best I found on-line is here). Since we usually eat a lot more than that, the mass should be leaving the body by other means. We don't lose much heavy molecules through the urine and perspiration. The latter contains mostly water and salts, while the former also contains some waste molecules, but not in a meaningful amount (weight-wise). That leaves only one other venue - CO2 in our respiration.
Bingo: water. Not just feces and urine should account for a lot of what comes out, most folks forget that most things we eat also have a lot of water.
Also your conclusion is wrong, since breathing puts out a lot of water (as does keeping our skin nice-looking; "hydrating" creams acts by sucking water from the lower skins layers to the top).
I think the amount of carbon we emit in the form of CO2 has got to be puny. But let's see:
Now, 6 l/min = 8640 l/day or (340 to) 430 liter of CO2 exhaled per day. That's (630 to) 790 gram of CO2 output per day. That is actually in line with an estimation of 1 kg.
But the O2 was not actually coming from us; it is taken from the air and given back with the C attached to it. The carbon atom is 27.3% of the CO2 atomic mass, so we are actually putting out (172 to) 216 gram of carbon per day.
So let's peg that as 200 gram/day of matter output through CO2 rejection. Now, to put this into perspective, we need to somehow estimate how much mass a person inputs per day. The problem is that this varies wildly. I think we can agree on 2 kg/day of water from drinking fluids. On top of this we have food; I just looked up a couple of snacks (150 g) and instant meals (350 g) and I think that a 3 meal day with a couple of snacks could easily get to 1.4 kg/day of food.
That's a total of around 3.4 kg/day of mass coming in and 0.2 kg/day of mass going out through CO2 in breathing. That's around 6% of our mass loss.
So, please tell your nephew - supposing he has a good diet with plenty of fluids - that >90% of what he ingests goes out as urine, perspiration, water loss in respiration and feces.
ps - I have not counted nails, hair and skin cells, which are always growing (the former) and being renewed (the latter). pps - I found a study that puts feces at 300 g/day and a post that puts water loss at 2.8 kg/day. Add to that the 200 g/day of carbon out through CO2 and you get a good match to the supposed 3.4 kg/day total input.
A few weeks ago, my brother asked me a question: If we eat, how come we don't gain weight? Granted, the food is used to make energy, but energy is only the bonds between atoms/molecules. To make energy the body just breaks those bonds. So his question was what actually happens to the atoms/molecules so that we don't gain weight (assuming a balanced diet).
Hmm... I thought any balanced diet included going to the toilet.
Doing matter-antimatter collisions directly is useful though, as you don't have to wade through the other types of events to get the ones of interest.
Though that is true, some of these collisions, like electron-positron are limited as to their outcomes, since there are restrictions on the possible quantum combinations that can be produced from such collisions.
This is why hadronic machines are discovery machines (more possibilities but more mess) and leptonic machines precision machines (fewer possibilities fewer useless stuff).
Slashdot Mirror
I do not understand the latter part of your question, but the first part is easy:
The mathematical procedure employed in the tests is exactly the same for all experiments that we do. They even had to be agreed upon among the two large LHC experiments (ATLAS and CMS) in discussions that took in excess of months to pin down all details.
Now, on the other hand, the data that is used is different (i.e. we get different views from different selections made to the data, some selecting b quarks, others W bosons, others, photons, etc), the teams of people are different, the software platform are different, the hardware in the experiments is different, the organizational structures are different, the collisions are different, etc, etc.
Since so much is different and independent, and that all results point in one direction (namely that the probability that the observation in data can be due to what we already know is smaller than 1 in 3 million) gives us a lot of confidence in the claim.
The Higgs field (and therefore its corresponding particle) has a fundamental role in electroweak symmetry breaking. That means that the way it relates to W and Z bosons cannot be too different from what is expected from the existing Standard Model (SM). Failure to fulfill that requirement would immediately point towards physics beyond the SM.
So, now we start the painstaking work of trying to characterize every single facet of this particle. The most immediate ones are: its mass, its spin and parity, and its relation with other particles. This is done with respect to the SM predictions and if anything deviates, then we have to see if some other model explains that deviation in a reasonable way (reasonable is defined according to Occam's Razor).
I think you answered your own question quite accurately: we're in the same situation as the electron, though this particle is much more massive, and therefore less abundant.
But only the future will tell.
Science can be crowd-sourced to some extent. But the amount of data here is simply huge. As someone pointed out, we start with something like PB/s and get it down to PB/year. So, putting out a torrent is not really the way to go. Then there is the fact that the data does not remain the sole property of the "collectors". Eventually they are published. And you say "but I can't get the journal articles..." but you are wrong. High Energy Physics has had an Open Access philosophy even before Open Access was invented and all of the published LHC experiment journal articles can only be submitted to journals that will provide them free of cost. Finally, CERN is very involved in the preservation of data from previous experiments so that people (and here we mean everyone, not just the "collectors") can re-analyze it. Those data are highly distilled, benefitting from decades of expertise and calibration so that they can be used more widely. In fact, some data are even made available for the EPPOG physics masterclasses so that high school students get dirty with real data.
But come on, if you can't even get the applet going...
That's more than one question...
1 - Stupidest thing: Star Trek teleporters; I wish! (I am a big TNG Trekkie.)
2 - Made me laugh: the notion that this is the final word on the Higgs boson, while we are still at the stage that it is a neutral boson with a lot of mass (for the record, 125 GeV/c^2 ~ 133 times the proton mass, not 125...).
3 - Same old press... The reporting was in general (read, the median) quite good. But there are always exceptions (read, long tails).
It's actually a pretty simple answer: the particle that we now found is so massive that the energy needed to prick it out from its slumber is very large.
Think of the the Higgs field as the surface of a lake. The Higgs particle would be the drops that detach from the surface when you throw a stone in. Regardless of the surface of the lake, the size of the stone that you need to throw in (collision energy) in order to get some splash (particles) depends on the density of the lake's contents (the field).
Bottom line: the Higgs lake is pretty dense such that only with huge stones can we get a splash out of it.
"22 gigawatts of electricity per hour"
Power is energy per unit time. Did they mean "22 gigawatts of electricity every hour for X hours"?
Can't Reuters get these things right?
[...] those countries where roundabouts are common. Oh, wait, that would be NOWHERE. Even in the EU where everyone sings the praises of Roundabouts they are RARE.
Though I agree that roundabout-ifying the US is not feasible, your last statement is plainly WRONG: off the top of my counting, I see at least 12 in http://g.co/maps/cnqxz and http://g.co/maps/hd9jk .
The positive spin is that "this is exciting because now there are fewer places to look."
You call that spin? I call it scientific advance. Is there anything else you can do with science other than exclude hypothesis? Before the LHC, the Higgs boson could not exist below 114 (let me gloss over the units) nor between 150 to 170 or so.
The last results from the LHC excluded it from 140 to more than 500. That means that any theory predicting a Higgs boson in that range just went out the window.
Let's see what comes up on the 13th.
the energies are much too low right now to have discovered the Higgs boson.
Please make that: "the amount of data is much too low [...]". The energies are fine.
Who questioned God? Why is even God being brought to this discussion?
For instance, what if the effect we attribute to a particle is responsible when hundreds of particles interact in aggregate? Maybe this is all being handled, but one particle to rule them all seems like it is an idea out of fantasy.
We understand different things at different levels. And when we do not have some fundamental understanding, we build what we call effective theories. It may very well be that the Higgs boson is composed of other particles. Even if it is, this entity has a role in interactions, which is not diminished whether it is composite or fundamental.
Take the atom. It was indivisible for a long long time. Then we figured out there was a nucleus, 99.9% empty space and electrons. Then the nucleus turned out to have protons and neutrons. And then it turned out that protons and neutrons are made of quarks and gluons.
At each level, we can have a working tool that explains to a good level of accuracy what is happening at that level. Take the example of gravity: Newton's laws work for 99% of what we do. There is no need to go for Special or General Relativity until you really consider gravity in scales which are not human: galaxies, etc.
So, no one is looking for a particle to rule them all. And no one is claiming that we have finally reached a final understanding of matter. Or energy.
In fact, finding the Higgs boson predicted by the Standard Model would fill in a piece in the puzzle, but not finish all puzzles.
So what's the news here? If you exclude it from range X, doesn't that still leave ranges Y and Z and the potential for not finding it at all? What's new?
Well, consider the problem of where can planets be with respect to their star and still sustain life as we know it. It's narrow: too close, too hot; too far, too cold.
The fact that there is a range left can gives you big insights into what the physical world has to look like just because the Higgs cannot be in a given range (or we would have seen it).
More generally, this is the only thing science can actually do: reject hypothesis. We are always left with some possibilities. But we progress by discarding possibilities that are not realized in Nature.
Page where the Dec 13th talk material will appear:
http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=164890
You are bang on.
A Higgs boson in our detectors (disclaimer: I am one of the people searching for that darn thing in one of the LHC experiments) is borne out starting by saving the "right" combination of particles detected in a given collision. Then we see if the particles detected (leptons, photons, etc) in each event resemble what the Standard Model theory predicts. In most cases we need to accumulate a lot of collisions until we can say that there is something.
It's a rare beast. Patience is needed and some people in the LHC experiments have been waiting to find it for almost 20 years now.
Greetings from the LHC!
At this point in time, with the amount of data that we have, the answer is: "perhaps, perhaps not". There is not enough evidence to cut it either way.
At CERN, the http protocol was born, the Grid Tier0 is hosted, open access publishing was organized, the LHC is operating, other mind-boggling experiments take place every day, and there are free tours.
What are you waiting for?
...to the thesis which is the basis for the paper that is cited by the newspaper that mentions...
Yep, but you usually output about 100-200 gr of feces (that's the figure I remember from my Physiology class, can't find a citation; The best I found on-line is here). Since we usually eat a lot more than that, the mass should be leaving the body by other means. We don't lose much heavy molecules through the urine and perspiration. The latter contains mostly water and salts, while the former also contains some waste molecules, but not in a meaningful amount (weight-wise). That leaves only one other venue - CO2 in our respiration.
Bingo: water.
Not just feces and urine should account for a lot of what comes out, most folks forget that most things we eat also have a lot of water.
Also your conclusion is wrong, since breathing puts out a lot of water (as does keeping our skin nice-looking; "hydrating" creams acts by sucking water from the lower skins layers to the top).
I think the amount of carbon we emit in the form of CO2 has got to be puny. But let's see:
Normal breathing uses 6 l/min of air and when it comes out it goes from 0.04% CO2 to (4 to) 5% CO2.
Now, 6 l/min = 8640 l/day or (340 to) 430 liter of CO2 exhaled per day. That's (630 to) 790 gram of CO2 output per day. That is actually in line with an estimation of 1 kg.
But the O2 was not actually coming from us; it is taken from the air and given back with the C attached to it. The carbon atom is 27.3% of the CO2 atomic mass, so we are actually putting out (172 to) 216 gram of carbon per day.
So let's peg that as 200 gram/day of matter output through CO2 rejection. Now, to put this into perspective, we need to somehow estimate how much mass a person inputs per day. The problem is that this varies wildly. I think we can agree on 2 kg/day of water from drinking fluids. On top of this we have food; I just looked up a couple of snacks (150 g) and instant meals (350 g) and I think that a 3 meal day with a couple of snacks could easily get to 1.4 kg/day of food.
That's a total of around 3.4 kg/day of mass coming in and 0.2 kg/day of mass going out through CO2 in breathing. That's around 6% of our mass loss.
So, please tell your nephew - supposing he has a good diet with plenty of fluids - that >90% of what he ingests goes out as urine, perspiration, water loss in respiration and feces.
ps - I have not counted nails, hair and skin cells, which are always growing (the former) and being renewed (the latter).
pps - I found a study that puts feces at 300 g/day and a post that puts water loss at 2.8 kg/day. Add to that the 200 g/day of carbon out through CO2 and you get a good match to the supposed 3.4 kg/day total input.
A few weeks ago, my brother asked me a question: If we eat, how come we don't gain weight? Granted, the food is used to make energy, but energy is only the bonds between atoms/molecules. To make energy the body just breaks those bonds. So his question was what actually happens to the atoms/molecules so that we don't gain weight (assuming a balanced diet).
Hmm... I thought any balanced diet included going to the toilet.
Of course a Nobel Prize (NP) is not just a Prize (P)...
But a physicist that works at CERN:
http://consult.cern.ch/xwho/people/387836
This gentleman seems to hail from the Swiss ETH Zurich.
"Hire Nobel, get Nobel."
(Should I patent that?)
Doing matter-antimatter collisions directly is useful though, as you don't have to wade through the other types of events to get the ones of interest.
Though that is true, some of these collisions, like electron-positron are limited as to their outcomes, since there are restrictions on the possible quantum combinations that can be produced from such collisions.
This is why hadronic machines are discovery machines (more possibilities but more mess) and leptonic machines precision machines (fewer possibilities fewer useless stuff).
ssshhhh...
If you start telling people there is a sea of antimatter inside all matter, they'll panic and annihilate!