94 replies to this topic

[ranrod]

ranrod, on 06 July 2012 - 02:05 AM, said:

Just finished going through some of the released papers.  Their confidence level NOT counting the spin data is 95% that the signal they found is a SM Higgs boson.  As in my previous message the spin will be 0 or 2, where 2 means it is not a Higgs boson of any sort.  Both 0 and 2 would match the data found thus far.  Given the correlations that lead to the 95% confidence, I would not say it's 50-50.  I still stand by my 70% estimate (splitting the difference more or less).

Word is, they won't be able to make a final determination until the end of the year.  Maybe they'll announce it 12-22-12

[sean6]

What If the New Particle Isn't the Higgs Boson?


http://news.discover...ggs-120706.html

[questionmark]

sean6, on 06 July 2012 - 04:13 PM, said:

What If the New Particle Isn't the Higgs Boson?


http://news.discover...ggs-120706.html

Then they keep on looking.

[ranrod]

questionmark, on 06 July 2012 - 04:16 PM, said:

Then they keep on looking.

Not sure if that would be the case.  They would probably spend some time verifying the results and tweaking the model, just to be sure.  If nothing comes of that, then finding that boson at ~125GeV that is not predicted by the model would indicate there's something definitely wrong with it.  They'd start focusing more of their energy on alternate models.  Like the article says, it's not a bad thing if it's not Higgs.  Our knowledge and wisdom increases from successes and failures.

[questionmark]

ranrod, on 06 July 2012 - 05:28 PM, said:

Not sure if that would be the case.  They would probably spend some time verifying the results and tweaking the model, just to be sure.  If nothing comes of that, then finding that boson at ~125GeV that is not predicted by the model would indicate there's something definitely wrong with it.  They'd start focusing more of their energy on alternate models.  Like the article says, it's not a bad thing if it's not Higgs.  Our knowledge and wisdom increases from successes and failures.

I did not say it was bad, I just said that it will not stop science.

[Beckys_Mom]

ranrod, on 05 July 2012 - 10:18 PM, said:

There's not enough data to determine if the test reveals a Higgs.  So my guess is as good as anyone else's.  

It seems the scientists that understand it more are a bit more confident than you are  ...  A lot of people will hope it is not the Higgs particle as it would conflict with their own beliefs   The quest itself was never set to disprove any beliefs..but to help our own understanding of the universe

Reading a little more in the paper... Back in the year 2000  professor Stephen Hawking made a bet with a man called Gordon Kane of the university of Michigan, that the Higgs particle would never be found....he now admits he will have to pay up the $100 bet  !

[ranrod]

Beckys_Mom, on 06 July 2012 - 05:36 PM, said:

It seems the scientists that understand it more are a bit more confident than you are  ...  A lot of people will hope it is not the Higgs particle as it would conflict with their own beliefs   The quest itself was never set to disprove any beliefs..but to help our own understanding of the universe

Reading a little more in the paper... Back in the year 2000  professor Stephen Hawking made a bet with a man called Gordon Kane of the university of Michigan, that the Higgs particle would never be found....he now admits he will have to pay up the $100 bet  !

Did Hawkings admit to losing the bet himself?  I haven't seen that.
I don't know if they've found it or not, nor do I have a horse in that race.  I just quoted their numbers being 95% certainty before spin data came in.  The matters of spin, parity and helicity have to be determined (all those factors are related though).  They are saying they will not have an answer until the end of the year.  The scary thing is the choices they gave: 0 or 2 spin.  "2" discards any of the 5 theoretical forms of Higgs under supersymmetry.  I admit, I don't know what are the odds for each spin choice being right.  I either am or am not the President of the US but the chances are not 50-50.

Even if it's not Higgs, that's not bad.  Discovering a new particle at ~125GeV is monumental and exciting either way.  It will help us get better models either way.

Edited by ranrod, 06 July 2012 - 06:33 PM.

[Magicjax]

Ok. I think I'm starting to understand it more. Well at least understand what it means when they say it has to do with mass. Can someone tell me if my metaphor on the aspect this discovery having to do with mass?

I think about object that have very little mass. For example a small fuzzy bird feather. You know how theyre very hard to catch. In fact it's a folklore that it's good luck if you catch one that's floating through the air. Try to close your hand around one and the sleight air movement causes it to move away because it has so little mass to it. This, in my mind anyway, demonstrates that without mass "thingse" wouldn't come together to form "things".  I quoted the word "things" because without mass there'd be nothing right?

Of course catching an object with more mass such as a ball is simple. Because its mass is effected by gravity.

So in a nutshell the Higgs boson is a particle that serves the function of basically allowing "things" to form together and create mass. Without it "things" would avoid each other. Never attach together. I'm still unclear about if they'd bounce apart or pass through each other. But from what I gather they wouldn't form together without this particle.

Am I getting close to understanding with this very simplified metaphor?

Edited by Magicjax, 06 July 2012 - 06:41 PM.

[questionmark]

Magicjax, on 06 July 2012 - 06:40 PM, said:

Ok. I think I'm starting to understand it more. Well at least understand what it means when they say it has to do with mass. Can someone tell me if my metaphor on the aspect this discovery having to do with mass?

I think about object that have very little mass. For example a small fuzzy bird feather. You know how theyre very hard to catch. In fact it's a folklore that it's good luck if you catch one that's floating through the air. Try to close your hand around one and the sleight air movement causes it to move away because it has so little mass to it. This, in my mind anyway, demonstrates that without mass "thingse" wouldn't come together to form "things".  I quoted the word "things" because without mass there'd be nothing right?

Of course catching an object with more mass such as a ball is simple. Because its mass is effected by gravity.

So in a nutshell the Higgs boson is a particle that serves the function of basically allowing "things" to form together and create mass. Without it "things" would avoid each other. Never attach together. I'm still unclear about if they'd bounce apart or pass through each other. But from what I gather they wouldn't form together without this particle.

Am I getting close to understanding with this very simplified metaphor?

you came quite close, and for a rudimentary understanding it would be quite sufficient. The reality is that even if we found the particle and therefore now know how mass is created we still don't know how that happens, maybe by breaking a symmetrical balance, maybe by something else. There is still lots to learn.

[ranrod]

Magicjax, on 06 July 2012 - 06:40 PM, said:

Ok. I think I'm starting to understand it more. Well at least understand what it means when they say it has to do with mass. Can someone tell me if my metaphor on the aspect this discovery having to do with mass?

I think about object that have very little mass. For example a small fuzzy bird feather. You know how theyre very hard to catch. In fact it's a folklore that it's good luck if you catch one that's floating through the air. Try to close your hand around one and the sleight air movement causes it to move away because it has so little mass to it. This, in my mind anyway, demonstrates that without mass "thingse" wouldn't come together to form "things".  I quoted the word "things" because without mass there'd be nothing right?

Of course catching an object with more mass such as a ball is simple. Because its mass is effected by gravity.

So in a nutshell the Higgs boson is a particle that serves the function of basically allowing "things" to form together and create mass. Without it "things" would avoid each other. Never attach together. I'm still unclear about if they'd bounce apart or pass through each other. But from what I gather they wouldn't form together without this particle.

Am I getting close to understanding with this very simplified metaphor?

I would say you are close.  Things with no mass, such as light pass through each other.  Without mass there would just be interference patterns in space - all sorts of radiation going through each other.  Interaction with the Higgs field gives some things their mass.  It hasn't been determined if all mass comes from interactions with the higgs field.  It's not necessarily things coming together either.  A gamma ray, for instance, has no mass but can split into an electron and a positron, both massive particles.  I like the wikipedia analogy: "The field can be pictured as a pool of molasses that "sticks" to the otherwise massless fundamental particles that travel through the field, converting them into particles with mass that form (for example) the components of atoms".

[Beckys_Mom]

ranrod, on 06 July 2012 - 06:16 PM, said:

Did Hawkings admit to losing the bet himself?  I haven't seen that.

I read it in the Independent news paper... but  I also  looked it up  for you on line to show you... ( cuz I am that kind  lol )

Stephen Hawking looses bet .... Click this --> http://www.inquisitr...iscovery-video/

[ranrod]

Beckys_Mom, on 06 July 2012 - 08:17 PM, said:

I read it in the Independent news paper... but  I also  looked it up  for you on line to show you... ( cuz I am that kind  lol )

Stephen Hawking looses bet .... Click this --> http://www.inquisitr...iscovery-video/

Awesome! Thanks for that.    It's very nice of Mr. Hawking to concede before conclusive results.  If it proves not to be Higgs, he can always get his money back

[Beckys_Mom]

ranrod, on 06 July 2012 - 08:55 PM, said:

Awesome! Thanks for that.    It's very nice of Mr. Hawking to concede before conclusive results.  If it proves not to be Higgs, he can always get his money back

I think it is safe to say he understands it more than any of us..

[the L]

Thanks Sepul.
Didnt understand all. I will try to read about some of it. To be true to you I have been only interested in physics last few years. I was drawn by hairy ball theory. And with fine tunes in our universe.
Which 5 mysteries of physics you find most puzzling from example this list. Or you have another list. I prefer your list but right now this is only list I have. Probaby arrow of time is one to you.
http://en.wikipedia....lems_in_physics

[sepulchrave]

ranrod, on 06 July 2012 - 06:16 PM, said:

  The scary thing is the choices they gave: 0 or 2 spin.  "2" discards any of the 5 theoretical forms of Higgs under supersymmetry.  

What I find the most crazy is that any most current theories suggest that a massless spin-2 particle must be the graviton.

We don't even have a working theory of a graviton (we know it must be massless and spin-2 from other considerations), and if this ``Higgs candidate'' turns out to be a spin-2 boson... things will get pretty exciting.