Higgs Buzz On

To say you've discovered the Higgs ... it's a complicated story," CERN theoretical physicist John Ellis said in a video prepared in advance of today's briefings. "It's one thing to see evidence of a new particle, but you have to check whether it has the right properties. And to check whether it has the right properties will actually take quite a bit of extra work."

After today's announcement, Heuer alluded to the job ahead. "We have to find out which kind of Higgs boson this is. ... We have discovered a boson, and now we have to determine what kind of boson it is," he told reporters. Later, he said "we can call it a Higgs boson, but we cannot call it the Higgs boson."

Getting the full picture would take time. "Ask me in three, four years," after the LHC reaches full power, Heuer said.
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_new...higgs-quest-scientists-find-new-particle?lite

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It doesn't. The Higgs mechanism is said to do this, but take a look at A Zeptospace Odyssey: A Journey into the Physics of the LHC on Amazon. It’s by Gian Francesco Giudice, a physicist at CERN with a hundred-plus papers to his name. There's a search-inside on Amazon. If you search on Higgs sector you can read pages 173 through 175. He starts by saying: “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.” He also says the Higgs mechanism is “the toilet” of the standard model, and is “frightfully ad-hoc”. 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.” To cut to the chase he says “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.”

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The mystery of the origin of mass is only a mystery in one belief system. The rest of us see it for what it is. Mass is confined electric and magnetic amplitude change.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Rubbish.

 

Funny how you're willing to use the "This person has lots of credentials, listen to him" card when you feel it supports your position while you'll ignore anyone who does have more credentials than you.

Did you attend the "Do as I say, not as I do" school of debating?

One which isn't due to physicists but the retarded "Let's dumb everything down and give things over the top names" media. But then you'd know something about trying to pander to the layperson.

Which isn't due to physicists and which isn't something physicists say. Do you want some help with the strawman you're building or are you okay on your own?

Perhaps you'd benefit from actually learning the SM directly and not having to just take other people's descriptions? Or is that too much like hard work?

The particular choice of how to facilitate the Higg's mechanism is somewhat adhoc. The concept of the Higgs mechanism is not and naturally arises in many more fundamental constructs.

Everything which is to be said to the layman requires a good deal of qualification. It's because laypersons aren't told the details and analogies and metaphors require a warping of the specifics. This is why you cannot construct a physical model by analogy and arm waving alone. That is why your work is worthless.

Any anyone familiar with the details of Yang Mills theory will be well aware of that. But most people who don't even remember their high school physics are unfamiliar with Yang-Mills theory. Just like you aren't familiar with it.

You're complaining that laypeople aren't told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Laypersons either don't care or can't understand. If they cared and could understand it they wouldn't be laypersons! Name any area of science and similar criticisms can be made of any attempt to get laypersons to understand something about that area of science. It's the very nature of being a layperson!

 

...which is mediated by the Higgs boson.

FYI, this is a solid but not unusually long publication record. My PhD advisor is just over 40 and has about 80 publications to his name, for example. That happens when a good researcher attains a sufficiently senior position and starts accumulating PhD students and postdocs.

The "chase", as he explains, is that ordinary matter is composed of bound states of fundamental particles (e.g. protons and neutrons composed of a quark-gluon sea), and apparently the majority of the total mass of ordinary matter is binding energy (in general, the mass of a system isn't the sum of the masses of its constituents in relativistic physics). But when physicists talk about the Higgs explaining mass, they're talking about the masses of the fundamental Standard Model particles themselves, and the Higgs mechanism is supposed to account for 100% of that.

 

When one of the most successful models in physics has survived decades of increasingly detailed testing in particle accelerators, it's a bit disingenuous to dismiss that as "a belief system".

And you know this how, exactly?

 

I am one of those 'laypersons' so perhaps you will forgive my dumb question.

Does this discovery have any immediate application that will affect the average person in their daily challenges?

 

Not in the literal sense, compared to say how the electron's discovery has eventually led to electronics etc or nuclei to nuclear power. Though saying that initially the electron was thought useless but you can strip electrons from things easily, you don't need a 27km long superconductor.

However, accelerators are always designed using 'future technology' by which I mean that when the LHC was first designed CERN laid out a list of technologies which were within the realms of possiblity but which weren't fully developed enough to be used immediately. As such a lot of the funding for the LHC was put into developing new technology pertaining to vacuum pumps, superconductors, superfluids, MASSIVE data processing and transmission computer infrastructure etc. All of those technologies had to be driven forward a significant amount to make the LHC a reality. It's those which do have a direct impact on our lives. The first proto-internet came about because of CERN, now look at how it affects our lives.

So while some people say "Why are we spending 10 billion euros on some particle of no use to anyone?!" they are ignoring all the technological off shots which that money has paid for. Plus that's part of the nature of research, if you knew all the outcomes before you started it wouldn't be worth doing. If someone had refused to fund electron experiments around 1900 because it was considered worthless to society at large there'd be no internet, no electronics, no telecommunications. And without those to facilitate massive data processing and communication between companies and research institutions pretty much all of human civilisation would be held back decades compared to now.

Often the best results come about when you're looking for other things

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Thank you very much for your detailed response, AlphaNumeric.

I was raised to appreciate that there are no 'stupid' questions save the ones that are never asked.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Exactly what future students will say of your work if you don't give up the faith. I know Quantum theory is a religion because it has all the trimmings of a faith based concept.

Can anyone cite one example where you have electric and magnetic amplitude change in a confined area that is not mass?

 

Saying it is a religion is just nonsense. Its a model which makes verified testable predictions and which has been put to practical use. You're making yourself look ridiculous and just plain ignorant.

 

AN, is the standard model and GR logically consistent with each other?

 

They describe nature or physics at different scales. The math does not transform from one to the other well, but that does not mean there is no underlying commonality.

Even moving from SR to GR there are transitions. They do not describe the world exactly the same. And in many respects both GR and QM (thus the SM) emerge from or incorporate SR, at a fundamental level.

I could be wrong here but it seems to me that QM adheres more stricktly to SR than GR does, space being essentially flat, in both SR and QM/SM and dynamically curved in GR.

The logic is sometimes to be discovered.

 

(Higgs Boson)God particle finally claimed to be discovered.

(Higs Boson)God particle finally claimed to be discovered at CERN.
Let us discuss on this.

I Want to learn more about Higs Boson.As you know,mechanical engineers are poor at Detailed Quantum physics even if they may have interest.

Let this be a open public discussion Science thread.

Let understand what is god Particle.
What's its importance and how it is being discovered as heard yesterday on TV news.

First of all,the Word "God particle " does not refer to "God".Few people have misconceptions about the usage of the word "God".

I hope that this discussion will turn out to be interesting.

This is the press release about confirmation of God Particle by Scientists.

http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2012/PR17.12E.html

 

There are many wrong terms used in daily life.For example "electric Generator" is scientifically a wrong term.Proper words should be "Energy converter providing electrical output".

According to media sources,
Nobel Wining physicist Leon Lederman wanted to tittle his book "Goddamn Particle:if the Universe is the Answer,What is the Question?" But his editor changed it to "God particle".The nickname stuck though most Scientists found it misleading.

 

Q: What do you call a group of attendees at a CERN conference?

A: Scientists in relative emotion.