• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Higgs Boson Discovered?!

a_unique_person said:
If we don't know what dark matter is, maybe it is one of the existing particles?
Click to expand...

No. We know enough about how it behaves, and what we can infer about how it behaves, to know that the vast majority can't be any known particle (machos and neutrinos can explain a small fraction).

Could gravity be explained with the existing set of particles, but we just don't know it yet?
Click to expand...

No. The standard model simply doesn't cover gravity in any way. There might be a way of adding it, but it can't be done with what we have so far.

Do we call Newtonian physics a failure because it doesn't include relativity, or was it just an iteration in our progress of advancing knowledge?
Click to expand...

We don't call the standard model a failure either. It's a useful tool that's helped enormously in advancing our understanding of the universe. However, we know that it simply doesn't work in many places where it's supposed to. Where Newtonian mechanics and GR need a bit of touching up around the edges when they struggle with extreme conditions, the holes in the SM are so big and so numerous that we're increasingly thinking it's just not possible to patch it up and are trying to come up with a total replacement instead.

Skeptic Ginger said:
Can anyone answer another lay person's question in lay language: I'm reading now that the "measurements seem to diverge slightly from what would be expected". Having only the vaguest clue why drag matters, I can't make sense of the Net explanations on just what differs and why it matters.
Click to expand...

Theories like the standard model don't just predict that a particle exists, they also make predictions about various properties, including how it will decay. If it turns out that this particle doesn't decay in the way the standard model predicts, that would likely be important evidence pointing to which alternative theory is likely to replace the SM, since almost all alternatives include the Higgs mechanism and predict something similar but not quite identical. Or it could even mean that it's not the Higgs particle at all and all the alternatives are completely wrong as well.

As an analogy, look at Pluto. People looked at the orbit of Uranus, realised out that it wasn't consistent with what we expected and figured out that there must be another planet even further from the Sun. They then promptly found Neptune with the right mass in the right place. People then looked at Neptune's orbit and realised that it wasn't quite consistent either and exactly the same could be done again. They looked where they expected and found Pluto right there waiting for them. Job done. Except that after a little more observation it was obvious that Pluto wasn't actually the planet they predicted at all, being orders of magnitude too small. In fact it turns out that the discrepancies were probably not real after all and finding Pluto there was a complete coincidence.

The point being that just because you find something where you expect to find something doesn't mean that it must be the thing you were actually looking for. The discovery of a new particle could be confirmation that we're at least thinking along the right lines, but if it turns out not to agree with predictions it could completely overthrow all of our best theories that expected it to be something else.
 
A Short Dialogue From the Days of Sail

“Captain Higgs! Ahoy!”
“Ahoy, Admiral! What would ye?”
“Bid your bosun put out the longboat, that the Catholic hands may go ashore for divine service.”
“Aye aye, Admiral, and wiv a right good will! For we all knows that wivout Higg’s bosun they cannot have ma-“
“Aw fer Christ’s sake, Capting, will ye not make that tired old joke again!”
 
MattusMaximus said:
Btw, does anyone know when we could expect to see the official, scientific journal article on this discovery published? I would very much like to read that article.
Click to expand...

Did you see this one? Not exactly what you are asking for, but cool nonetheless.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.7114

Origins of Mass

Frank Wilczek

(Submitted on 29 Jun 2012)

Newtonian mechanics posited mass as a primary quality of matter, incapable of further elucidation. We now see Newtonian mass as an emergent property. Most of the mass of standard matter, by far, arises dynamically, from back-reaction of the color gluon fields of quantum chromodynamics (QCD). The equations for massless particles support extra symmetries - specifically scale, chiral, and gauge symmetries. The consistency of the standard model relies on a high degree of underlying gauge and chiral symmetry, so the observed non-zero masses of many elementary particles ($W$ and $Z$ bosons, quarks, and leptons) requires spontaneous symmetry breaking. Superconductivity is a prototype for spontaneous symmetry breaking and for mass-generation, since photons acquire mass inside superconductors. A conceptually similar but more intricate form of all-pervasive (i.e. cosmic) superconductivity, in the context of the electroweak standard model, gives us a successful, economical account of $W$ and $Z$ boson masses. It also allows a phenomenologically successful, though profligate, accommodation of quark and lepton masses. The new cosmic superconductivity, when implemented in a straightforward, minimal way, suggests the existence of a remarkable new particle, the so-called Higgs particle. The mass of the Higgs particle itself is not explained in the theory, but appears as a free parameter. Earlier results suggested, and recent observations at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) may indicate, the actual existence of the Higgs particle, with mass $m_H \approx 125$ GeV. In addition to consolidating our understanding of the origin of mass, a Higgs particle with $m_H \approx 125$ GeV could provide an important clue to the future, as it is consistent with expectations from supersymmetry.


(I haven't read the whole thread yet, so apologies if this has already been linked.)
 
Last edited:
Bill Thompson said:
Maybe I should read this whole discussion.

What good does the discovery of the Higgs Boson do us?
Click to expand...
Bill, that's interesting. How can we know what the effect of a discovery will be until it has been made and, if possible, exploited?

Or do you mean that discovering new things if of no use, in and of itself, and that people should therefore not seek new information?
 
Bill Thompson said:
Maybe I should read this whole discussion.

What good does the discovery of the Higgs Boson do us?
Click to expand...
What discovery? All I see is a bump on a graph. And as for five sigma, the skeptic within me drily observes that there are lies, damn lies, and then there's statistics.
 
Farsight said:
What discovery? All I see is a bump on a graph. And as for five sigma, the skeptic within me drily observes that there are lies, damn lies, and then there's statistics.
Click to expand...

That's not really being sceptical. Not in a scientific sense any way. A scientific sceptic would point to an alternative cause of a 5 sigma bump or at least suggest where the analysis might have gone wrong to produce such a bump. Simply repeating a famous sceptical quote does not make you a sceptic.
 
Yes, that's being skeptical. So is pointing to CERN physicist Gian Giudice's Zeptospace Odyssey where he tells us that the Higgs mechanism is responsible of only 1% of the mass of matter. Doesn't square too well with all the mystery of mass hype, does it? Wise up Tubby. When a church needs a miracle, a church gets a miracle.
 
Farsight said:
Yes, that's being skeptical. So is pointing to CERN physicist Gian Giudice's Zeptospace Odyssey where he tells us that the Higgs mechanism is responsible of only 1% of the mass of matter. Doesn't square too well with all the mystery of mass hype, does it? Wise up Tubby. When a church needs a miracle, a church gets a miracle.
Click to expand...

As usual, not only are you rude and arrogant but that passage does not say what you think, the fact that the Higgs sector gauge boson does not account for the effects of QCD does not mean that it does not account for what the Higgs boson is supposed to account for.

So besides your vague thinking you are creating a false dichotomy that Giudice did not. In fact Giudice does not say anything like what you are pretending.

The hype about the mystery of mass does not come from Tubbythin, and you again make your arguments look worse through your rudeness, strawmen and fallacies.

You are the one who seems to engage in magical and religious thinking of confirmation bias and false impression management.
 
Farsight said:
Yes, that's being skeptical. So is pointing to CERN physicist Gian Giudice's Zeptospace Odyssey where he tells us that the Higgs mechanism is responsible of only 1% of the mass of matter.
Click to expand...
Providing a hyperlink to a book definitely does not constitute scepticism.

Doesn't square too well with all the mystery of mass hype, does it?
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? Whether the importance of the Higgs boson has been over-hyped in the media or not does not tell us anything whatsoever about whether the signals observed correspond to the Higgs boson or not. That should be obvious to scientists, lay(wo)men, children and internet cranks alike.

Wise up Tubby. When a church needs a miracle, a church gets a miracle.
Click to expand...
The LHC didn't need a miracle and it didn't get one. Your ability to repeat popular phrases is of no interest to me or, I'd imagine, anybody else in science.
As I said in my previous post, simply repeating a famous sceptical quote does not make you a sceptic. What on Earth made you think repeating a second notable quote would change this? Handy piece of advice: don't bother printing a third. I suggest you either back up your claims with evidence or retract them.
 
I'm backing up what I say. Take a look at the physicsworld article "picture of a new particle" at this url and it's no such thing. It's just a bump on a graph. And take a look at A Zeptospace Odyssey: A Journey into the Physics of the LHC by Gian Francesco Giudice. If you search on Higgs sector you can read pages 173 through 175. He says The most inappropriate name ever given to the Higgs boson is "The God particle". The name gives the impression that the Higgs boson is the central particle of the Standard Model, governing its structure. But this is very far from the truth. On page 174 he says It is sometimes said that the discovery of the Higgs boson will explain the mystery of the origin of mass. This statement requires a good deal of qualification. He gives a good explanation, and finishes by saying: In summary, the Higgs mechanism accounts for about 1 per cent of the mass of ordinary matter, and for only 0.2 per cent of the mass of the universe. This is not nearly enough to justify the claim of explaining the origin of mass.. This absolutely does not square with the hype that CERN nourishes and does not correct.

Perpetual Student said:
This could be a poster child for "argumentum ad ignorantiam."
Click to expand...
No it couldn't. I'm not ignorant. Not is Giudiuce.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom