13 replies to this topic

[Merc14]

Cern is now Sigma 7 or 99.999999999% sure that a Higgs-like particle has been found, the so-called God particle.  They won't go all the way and call it the Higgs-boson but close enough.  So now what?  Can someone more familiar with theoretical physics explain where we go from here now that the standard model has been verified?

http://www.extremete...the-higgs-boson

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

I think it calls for a celebratory hobnob, maybe even a glass of cherry.

[Merc14]

THere is a link at the bottom explaining the HB for anyone onterested.

[sepulchrave]

[I am reasonably familiar with theoretical physics.]

The discovery of a Higgs-like particle isn't that big a deal in terms of influencing the direction of current theoretical physics research. The Higgs mechanism is the simplest way of adding mass to the Standard Model, so it has been assumed to be true for several decades.

Failing to find a Higgs-like particle in the LHC energy range, or finding out that the Higgs-like boson they just found has a non-zero spin would be much more exciting.

If there are no surprises, and this Higgs-like particle is, in fact, the Higgs boson, the next big task is (in my opinion, anyway) to predict what the masses of particles should be.

The Higgs mechanism offers an explanation of why particles have mass, but I am not aware of anyone successfully predicting what the mass of a particle should be. The technique to calculate the mass of a particle is hideously complicated; so at the moment I think it is unclear of whether we are unable to predict the mass of particles because the theory needs to be expanded, or because we just need to carry the calculations a few steps further.

And of course I should mention that the Higgs mechanism may explain why particles have mass, but gravity (on a quantum level) is still a big mystery.

[Merc14]

sepulchrave, on 18 December 2012 - 01:03 AM, said:

[I am reasonably familiar with theoretical physics.]

The discovery of a Higgs-like particle isn't that big a deal in terms of influencing the direction of current theoretical physics research. The Higgs mechanism is the simplest way of adding mass to the Standard Model, so it has been assumed to be true for several decades.

Failing to find a Higgs-like particle in the LHC energy range, or finding out that the Higgs-like boson they just found has a non-zero spin would be much more exciting.

If there are no surprises, and this Higgs-like particle is, in fact, the Higgs boson, the next big task is (in my opinion, anyway) to predict what the masses of particles should be.

The Higgs mechanism offers an explanation of why particles have mass, but I am not aware of anyone successfully predicting what the mass of a particle should be. The technique to calculate the mass of a particle is hideously complicated; so at the moment I think it is unclear of whether we are unable to predict the mass of particles because the theory needs to be expanded, or because we just need to carry the calculations a few steps further.

And of course I should mention that the Higgs mechanism may explain why particles have mass, but gravity (on a quantum level) is still a big mystery.

I would guess there are petabytes of info to study till 2015 so is tehre a chance that some other major discovery may be in the works?

[sepulchrave]

Merc14, on 18 December 2012 - 01:07 AM, said:

I would guess there are petabytes of info to study till 2015 so is tehre a chance that some other major discovery may be in the works?

Possibly.

The nice thing about the Standard Model is that it is fairly complete; if they find a new particle it means that there must be an entirely different and as-yet-undiscovered family of particles out there.

You can't just ``add one more particle'' to the Standard Model; if something new is found it means either the Standard Model is wrong (very exciting!) or an entire new family of particles is waiting to be discovered (also exciting).

[Merc14]

sepulchrave, on 18 December 2012 - 03:44 AM, said:

Possibly.

The nice thing about the Standard Model is that it is fairly complete; if they find a new particle it means that there must be an entirely different and as-yet-undiscovered family of particles out there.

You can't just ``add one more particle'' to the Standard Model; if something new is found it means either the Standard Model is wrong (very exciting!) or an entire new family of particles is waiting to be discovered (also exciting).

Thanks for your patience!  So they are upping the power and modding the LHC for a new round of banging things together in 2015.  What are they looking to find?  What is the big hope that warrants the billions invested?

edit:  Don't get me wrong, I am all for research, and love the space program and such but the colliders are a mystery to most laymen.

Edited by Merc14, 18 December 2012 - 03:57 AM.

[the L]

What would they do now with such a big facility and equipment after they reached thier goal?

[the L]

sepulchrave, on 18 December 2012 - 01:03 AM, said:

The Higgs mechanism offers an explanation of why particles have mass, but I am not aware of anyone successfully predicting what the mass of a particle should be. The technique to calculate the mass of a particle is hideously complicated; so at the moment I think it is unclear of whether we are unable to predict the mass of particles because the theory needs to be expanded, or because we just need to carry the calculations a few steps further.

That is problem with todays science. More and more we learn we get specalized into one field. One brench, then one leaf. Then one tiny part of that leaf. We become experts of tiny knowledge. Thats why people like Leonardo and Newton were genius. They study different things. To make breaktrough in physics we need breaktrough in mathematics.

[libstaK]

the L, on 18 December 2012 - 09:35 AM, said:

What would they do now with such a big facility and equipment after they reached thier goal?

They will continue to repeat the process for some time to come I am guessing.  Science uses repitition to verify that the result is the same each time thereby "corroborating the initial hypothesis - or perhaps if there are anomalies, questioning it all over again.

[sepulchrave]

Merc14, on 18 December 2012 - 03:56 AM, said:

Thanks for your patience!  So they are upping the power and modding the LHC for a new round of banging things together in 2015.  What are they looking to find?  What is the big hope that warrants the billions invested?

Check out the official LHC page on ``why the LHC?'' There are 5 big questions the LHC is hoping to answer, finding the Higgs is the answer to only the first (and easiest) of them.

The magnetic monopole experiment is not on the list above, but is a very important one in my opinion.

the L, on 18 December 2012 - 09:35 AM, said:

What would they do now with such a big facility and equipment after they reached thier goal?

They haven't completed all their goals yet, but even if (and when) they do the LHC will probably still be in operation.

The actual detectors (like ALICE and ATLAS, etc.) may become obsolete but the LHC itself is a very powerful and precise particle beam.

Even if all of the particle physics questions are soon answered, the LHC particle beam could easily be used to study complex materials, biological molecules, etc. - the LHC could very easily be converted into a ridiculously good X-ray source, and I think it would out-perform current free-electron lasers.

the L, on 18 December 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

That is problem with todays science. More and more we learn we get specalized into one field. One brench, then one leaf. Then one tiny part of that leaf. We become experts of tiny knowledge. Thats why people like Leonardo and Newton were genius. They study different things. To make breaktrough in physics we need breaktrough in mathematics.

True, but in those days you could learn all there is to know about a subject in a year or so.

In Newton's day, what could one learn? I think just algebra, geometry, and astronomy (so 3 years of study to ``master science''). But then Newton himself invented calculus and mechanics (+2 more years); then over the next two hundred years or so electromagnetism was developed (+1 year), as was organic chemistry, inorganic chemistry, physical chemistry, thermodynamics (say +2 years, they overlap), Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics (say +1 year for both), statistics, and fluid dynamics, (+2 years), then in the 1900s we had statistical mechanics, quantum mechanics (Schrodinger), quantum field theory (Feynman), group theory, general relativity, condensed matter physics, high energy physics, (+7 years if you are super smart, I certainly couldn't master general relativity of quantum field theory in just one year). You'd better learn how to program computers as well, and learn about cutting edge experimental equipment (+2 years)... now we are at about 20 years of university-level learning to ``master physics'' (obviously not ``all science'', because I left out a lot of chemistry and pretty much all biology, not to mention pharmacology, geology, engineering, etc.).

I do agree that the modern education system is a bit lacking though; we need more of a focus on open-ended experiments that need to start at a young age. I think that is the best way of learning ``scientific intuition'', which is something Newton, Einstein, Feynman, etc. had in spades and is something that is very difficult to teach.

Part of the problem is just resource scarcity, of course. Michio Kaku famously built a table-top particle accelerator at a very young age; but even if another child had the smarts and the desire that Kaku did they would find it much more difficult (and expensive!) to get the enormous amount of copper wiring and permanent magnets necessary to build one - copper wire in particular was much cheaper in the 60s when Kaku was growing up than it is now.

[the L]

sepulchrave, on 18 December 2012 - 06:17 PM, said:

Check out the official LHC page on ``why the LHC?'' There are 5 big questions the LHC is hoping to answer, finding the Higgs is the answer to only the first (and easiest) of them.

The magnetic monopole experiment is not on the list above, but is a very important one in my opinion.


They haven't completed all their goals yet, but even if (and when) they do the LHC will probably still be in operation.

The actual detectors (like ALICE and ATLAS, etc.) may become obsolete but the LHC itself is a very powerful and precise particle beam.

Even if all of the particle physics questions are soon answered, the LHC particle beam could easily be used to study complex materials, biological molecules, etc. - the LHC could very easily be converted into a ridiculously good X-ray source, and I think it would out-perform current free-electron lasers.


True, but in those days you could learn all there is to know about a subject in a year or so.

In Newton's day, what could one learn? I think just algebra, geometry, and astronomy (so 3 years of study to ``master science''). But then Newton himself invented calculus and mechanics (+2 more years); then over the next two hundred years or so electromagnetism was developed (+1 year), as was organic chemistry, inorganic chemistry, physical chemistry, thermodynamics (say +2 years, they overlap), Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics (say +1 year for both), statistics, and fluid dynamics, (+2 years), then in the 1900s we had statistical mechanics, quantum mechanics (Schrodinger), quantum field theory (Feynman), group theory, general relativity, condensed matter physics, high energy physics, (+7 years if you are super smart, I certainly couldn't master general relativity of quantum field theory in just one year). You'd better learn how to program computers as well, and learn about cutting edge experimental equipment (+2 years)... now we are at about 20 years of university-level learning to ``master physics'' (obviously not ``all science'', because I left out a lot of chemistry and pretty much all biology, not to mention pharmacology, geology, engineering, etc.).

I do agree that the modern education system is a bit lacking though; we need more of a focus on open-ended experiments that need to start at a young age. I think that is the best way of learning ``scientific intuition'', which is something Newton, Einstein, Feynman, etc. had in spades and is something that is very difficult to teach.

Part of the problem is just resource scarcity, of course. Michio Kaku famously built a table-top particle accelerator at a very young age; but even if another child had the smarts and the desire that Kaku did they would find it much more difficult (and expensive!) to get the enormous amount of copper wiring and permanent magnets necessary to build one - copper wire in particular was much cheaper in the 60s when Kaku was growing up than it is now.

Hm. I would have to check some info first to agree with you. But in generaly looking I agree with small correction.
Newton and Leibnitz invented calculus. In1684 Leibnitz published book about calculus,Newton claim that he invented calculus in 1666
But Principia was published in 1687 so...Leibnitz was in London before book and he met with members of English Royal society, Collins maybe gave Newton documents.
Yes intuition is crucial as Einstein said "Only valuble thing is intuition." But I have different view how to improve modern science. By meditation. But thats a whole new thread. And not some mumbo jumbo meditation. But scinetifcly prooven method of meditation which help us to achive better results.
Also what I like to do whenever I do something what is matter to me is something I called Poincare strategy. Last universalists startegy. He was also genius with rare insights. He talked that our sub-consciousness solve all problems for us. We attack problems from all directions with consciousness and then wait when subconsciousness tap our shoulder. He used this tactic. One day he steped out of bus and problem he thinks for months flashes in front of his eyes. Sub consciousness and meditation are keys for future science because consciousness cant deal with all data. Subconsciousness can. Also all studies and statistic confirm it. All point into that direction. Idea is floating around for a while. Soon or later we will made breaktrough there.

Edited by the L, 18 December 2012 - 07:10 PM.

[Professor T]

the L, on 18 December 2012 - 06:54 PM, said:

Hm. I would have to check some info first to agree with you. But in generaly looking I agree with small correction.
Newton and Leibnitz invented calculus. In1684 Leibnitz published book about calculus,Newton claim that he invented calculus in 1666
But Principia was published in 1687 so...Leibnitz was in London before book and he met with members of English Royal society, Collins maybe gave Newton documents.
Yes intuition is crucial as Einstein said "Only valuble thing is intuition." But I have different view how to improve modern science. By meditation. But thats a whole new thread. And not some mumbo jumbo meditation. But scinetifcly prooven method of meditation which help us to achive better results.
Also what I like to do whenever I do something what is matter to me is something I called Poincare strategy. Last universalists startegy. He was also genius with rare insights. He talked that our sub-consciousness solve all problems for us. We attack problems from all directions with consciousness and then wait when subconsciousness tap our shoulder. He used this tactic. One day he steped out of bus and problem he thinks for months flashes in front of his eyes. Sub consciousness and meditation are keys for future science because consciousness cant deal with all data. Subconsciousness can. Also all studies and statistic confirm it. All point into that direction. Idea is floating around for a while. Soon or later we will made breaktrough there.

I Like this line of thinking..

Meditation is a powerful tool of intuition.. And it doesn't have to be the Mumbo Jumbo type either, though though lack of understanding it seems that the Mumbo Jumbo could help. And without going to far off topic, My greatest wish is that the Higg's boson will dumbfound the world and be revealed as having behavior or properties that can only be explained as consciousness.. lol.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Hypnagogia

Quote

The hypnagogic state can provide insight into a problem, the best-known example being August Kekulé’s realization that the structure of benzene was a closed ring while half-asleep in front of a fire and seeing molecules forming into snakes, one of which grabbed its tail in its mouth.^[39] Many other artists, writers, scientists and inventors—including Beethoven, Richard Wagner, Walter Scott, Salvador Dalí, Thomas Edison, Nikola Tesla and Isaac Newton—have credited hypnagogia and related states with enhancing their creativity.^[40] A 2001 study by Harvard psychologist Deirdre Barrett found that, while problems can also be solved in full-blown dreams from later stages of sleep, hypnagogia was especially likely to solve problems which benefit from hallucinatory images being critically examined while still before the eyes.^[41]

[the L]

Professor T, on 18 December 2012 - 09:11 PM, said:

I Like this line of thinking..

Meditation is a powerful tool of intuition.. And it doesn't have to be the Mumbo Jumbo type either, though though lack of understanding it seems that the Mumbo Jumbo could help. And without going to far off topic, My greatest wish is that the Higg's boson will dumbfound the world and be revealed as having behavior or properties that can only be explained as consciousness.. lol.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Hypnagogia

There are schools which inserted meditation in students agenda. Results are amazing. Those students show best scores on competitions.