I'd guess something like 0,1% of the mass (that is due to interation with the Higgs) will start to run at the speed of light, and the remaining (that is due to other interations, that won't be possible anymore) will blow up everything behind. But then, I don't even know how to make the calculations that would verify that.
The problem is that, when talking to lay people, researchers aren't making it clear what mass means, not that you are not able to understand it.
The Higgs field is responsible for inertia. It's what stops everything from just running away at the speed of light. That's not a measurable property of a photon, since it does move at the speed of light.
About neutrinos, we know those have mass because they must be slower than light, and they must be slower than light because they change as they propagate. Particles that move at the speed of light can't propagate because time doesn't pass for them. That's the reasoning. Ok, nobody was ever able to measure the difference between the speed of a neutrino and the speed of light, but that is expected, our instruments just aren't that accurate. Another interesting thing about the neutrinos is that they don't get their mass from the Higgs field... So, yeah, back to square one.
You don't need to violate the conservation of momentum. You just need to increase the speed of the particle by the same proportion you decrease the mass. If the procedure absorbs energy, you can change the mass, while conserving everything else. (Ok, and I have no idea how relativity fits in there.)
Now, of course, the Standard Model doesn't allow one to do shield the Higgs field.
I dunno. Management, maybe. I mean, real management: know what your people is doing; hire good middle managers (and verify that they are good); trust your people.
I know, and have worked for, some employers who would initiate termination if the found out one of their employees was seriously considering moving to a competitor
Now you got to some sensible thing for the government to regulate (either directly or through unions). While asking for regulations on the evaluation method will make people laugh on you, that thing you cite as "normal" is a real problem.
The problem is that while you can measure "dollars of revenue" by looking at your bank account, there isn't any simple, or even correct methodology to measure "Lives saved/improved/etc".
Because of that, when you tell a non-profit that it must measure its output to improve its efficiency, in reallity what you are saying is that they should estimate their output by proxy, and optimize to that proxy. As a general rule, every proxy stops working if you keep optimizing after it for more than a couple of cycles.
They still didn't, because they still don't know what they want in a new accelerator. They'll need to gather more results from the LHC, create and test more theories, then they'll have new gaps to fill that may, or may not (but probably the former) demand a new accelerator.
But they are already constructing a new accelerator anyway. It's only that they use the same structure that holds the current LHC.
Microsoft has the cash to turn itself into a car company if it wants to
If that tought didn't make your spine cold for a few moments, you are either naive or brave. And it is not just the oppinion of some/. reader, there's even is an old joke about Microsoft's car, go google it. That joke was made by a normal person, not a computer geek. It spreaded worldwide, in a few weeks, and was repeated for several years.
Luckly, Microsoft can't just do anything they want. They have a brand to care about.
Forced ranking makes it easier to tell managers to rank people, then later ordering the bottom person gone for all teams above a certain number.
Too bad for that team entirely formed of stars, that solves every problem that thouches them (and yeah, they have plenty of enemies because of that). But it's great news for those 3 or 4 teams formed of people that had nowhere else to go because no other team wants to work with them. One, and only one person will be fired from each.
The same thing was found by 2 groups, studying the data of 2 different sets of colisions on 2 sensors by 2 completely defferent ways. The only thing they have in common is that they use the same machine to accelerate their hardrons.
What more confirmation are your expecting? Well, whatever it is, you won't get it because people won't just build another LHC.
They have 5 sigma confidence that they found a particle, with the expected mass. They have quite a good confidence it decais to the right particles, except for one decaiment mode, that doesn't give much confidence, but is still at the expected band.
To confirm it is the Higgs boson they'll have to setle that decaiment modes down, and study the particle's interactions that, honestly, I have no idea how it is done.
That's a reasoning. I never said it is better than any other.
I'd not miss SETI, but that is beause it is simply not effective. It can't point into a star and say "We have X certainty that there is no inteligent life there", and it already looked at a lot of places, and found nothing. In half of a century they gathered no result, and no reason to put any meaning on that lack of result.
Life likes to spread geometricaly. That's a feature that we see on nearly everything alive here, and "required" by evolution, in the sense that anything that doesn't spread geometricaly gets outcompeted. As evolution seems to be a universal rule, one can expect that feature to be universal.
Now, assume a technological civilization. It is sane to assume that this civilization will be able to spread through space in a short period. That's because we exist for a very short period, and we can already imagine ways for spreading through space (altough there are unsolved engineering problems). Now, any civilization that spread geometricaly through space in a pace of growth similar to our (here on Earth) will colonize the entire galaxy in 1 or 2 millions of years.
If there is somebody out there, it was an astounishing cohincidence that both of us appeared exactly at the same time. Now, remember that the Sun is about 2.5 billions of years younger than the median age of the stars of the Milky Way.
Yeah, but we already got it. How many more negative results do you want?
If a negative result from SETI meant that there is no inteligent life out there, I'd agree that we should look further. But it doesn't even mean that. There could be a technologicaly advanced civilization at Proxima Centauri, and SETI may not be able to find it.
Add to those low odds the very appealing view that our next generation of telescopes will be able to image planets at those nerby stars, and tell us what their atmosphere is composed of. That's a much better sensor for life than SETI, and it's already in construction.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, and it is still true. At least if you belive on their accounting.
Transparent.
I'd guess something like 0,1% of the mass (that is due to interation with the Higgs) will start to run at the speed of light, and the remaining (that is due to other interations, that won't be possible anymore) will blow up everything behind. But then, I don't even know how to make the calculations that would verify that.
If Linux wasn't there, they'd have to write it (using another name, of course).
Or do you think Linux has any ready substitude for high throughtput computing?
The problem is that, when talking to lay people, researchers aren't making it clear what mass means, not that you are not able to understand it.
The Higgs field is responsible for inertia. It's what stops everything from just running away at the speed of light. That's not a measurable property of a photon, since it does move at the speed of light.
About neutrinos, we know those have mass because they must be slower than light, and they must be slower than light because they change as they propagate. Particles that move at the speed of light can't propagate because time doesn't pass for them. That's the reasoning. Ok, nobody was ever able to measure the difference between the speed of a neutrino and the speed of light, but that is expected, our instruments just aren't that accurate. Another interesting thing about the neutrinos is that they don't get their mass from the Higgs field... So, yeah, back to square one.
IANAP, by the way.
It explodes... People call that decayment.
You don't need to violate the conservation of momentum. You just need to increase the speed of the particle by the same proportion you decrease the mass. If the procedure absorbs energy, you can change the mass, while conserving everything else. (Ok, and I have no idea how relativity fits in there.)
Now, of course, the Standard Model doesn't allow one to do shield the Higgs field.
I dunno. Management, maybe. I mean, real management: know what your people is doing; hire good middle managers (and verify that they are good); trust your people.
As a second tought, no, that'll never workk.
Now you got to some sensible thing for the government to regulate (either directly or through unions). While asking for regulations on the evaluation method will make people laugh on you, that thing you cite as "normal" is a real problem.
Funny that you are saying that from the US. Sometime check the labor protection laws of Brazil.
Funny, Google's IPO did quite well, while basicaly saying the same thing.
Of course, they used a more diplomatic language.... But the contents were quite similar.
The problem is that while you can measure "dollars of revenue" by looking at your bank account, there isn't any simple, or even correct methodology to measure "Lives saved/improved/etc".
Because of that, when you tell a non-profit that it must measure its output to improve its efficiency, in reallity what you are saying is that they should estimate their output by proxy, and optimize to that proxy. As a general rule, every proxy stops working if you keep optimizing after it for more than a couple of cycles.
Welcome out of the world of exact sciences.
They still didn't, because they still don't know what they want in a new accelerator. They'll need to gather more results from the LHC, create and test more theories, then they'll have new gaps to fill that may, or may not (but probably the former) demand a new accelerator.
But they are already constructing a new accelerator anyway. It's only that they use the same structure that holds the current LHC.
If that tought didn't make your spine cold for a few moments, you are either naive or brave. And it is not just the oppinion of some /. reader, there's even is an old joke about Microsoft's car, go google it. That joke was made by a normal person, not a computer geek. It spreaded worldwide, in a few weeks, and was repeated for several years.
Luckly, Microsoft can't just do anything they want. They have a brand to care about.
Too bad for that team entirely formed of stars, that solves every problem that thouches them (and yeah, they have plenty of enemies because of that). But it's great news for those 3 or 4 teams formed of people that had nowhere else to go because no other team wants to work with them. One, and only one person will be fired from each.
The same thing was found by 2 groups, studying the data of 2 different sets of colisions on 2 sensors by 2 completely defferent ways. The only thing they have in common is that they use the same machine to accelerate their hardrons.
What more confirmation are your expecting? Well, whatever it is, you won't get it because people won't just build another LHC.
They have 5 sigma confidence that they found a particle, with the expected mass. They have quite a good confidence it decais to the right particles, except for one decaiment mode, that doesn't give much confidence, but is still at the expected band.
To confirm it is the Higgs boson they'll have to setle that decaiment modes down, and study the particle's interactions that, honestly, I have no idea how it is done.
That's why they waited until they have 5 sigma confidence. They had 3 sigma last year.
Not just any random element. They'll turn into elements that are not atomic.
That's a reasoning. I never said it is better than any other.
I'd not miss SETI, but that is beause it is simply not effective. It can't point into a star and say "We have X certainty that there is no inteligent life there", and it already looked at a lot of places, and found nothing. In half of a century they gathered no result, and no reason to put any meaning on that lack of result.
Either the crowd changed a lot, or the information available to that crowd changed a lot.
I was a big fan of SETI a numbe of years ago. Today, I wouldn't miss it.
If SETI detected something, would they tell us?
Not the GP, but I can give you one reasoning.
Life likes to spread geometricaly. That's a feature that we see on nearly everything alive here, and "required" by evolution, in the sense that anything that doesn't spread geometricaly gets outcompeted. As evolution seems to be a universal rule, one can expect that feature to be universal.
Now, assume a technological civilization. It is sane to assume that this civilization will be able to spread through space in a short period. That's because we exist for a very short period, and we can already imagine ways for spreading through space (altough there are unsolved engineering problems). Now, any civilization that spread geometricaly through space in a pace of growth similar to our (here on Earth) will colonize the entire galaxy in 1 or 2 millions of years.
If there is somebody out there, it was an astounishing cohincidence that both of us appeared exactly at the same time. Now, remember that the Sun is about 2.5 billions of years younger than the median age of the stars of the Milky Way.
Yeah, but we already got it. How many more negative results do you want?
If a negative result from SETI meant that there is no inteligent life out there, I'd agree that we should look further. But it doesn't even mean that. There could be a technologicaly advanced civilization at Proxima Centauri, and SETI may not be able to find it.
Add to those low odds the very appealing view that our next generation of telescopes will be able to image planets at those nerby stars, and tell us what their atmosphere is composed of. That's a much better sensor for life than SETI, and it's already in construction.