What stood out to me from watching the presentation was the incredible integrity of the physicists involved. The CMS group had 2 sets of data with > 5 sigma significance, but chose to also show weaker data that actually reduced the significance slightly. Consider the enormous effort spent to show that the result was not some background fluke - two separate detectors, running 2 completely different means of detection, each with their own sets of computer programs verifying the results. Finally both show almost exactly the same result (although the masses are slightly different at this point)!
Given that tevatron also sees similar (although weaker) results, the confirmation is beyond doubt. And what an achievement - the first fundamental particle observed since the quarks in the 1980's! An incredible victory for theoretical models developed almost 50 years ago (no wonder Peter Higgs had tears in this eyes)!
Combining the brilliance of the theoreticians with the integrity of experimentalists is what makes science the pinnacle of human achievement (IMO), and makes me proud to be human today.
> So, chose to also show weaker data that actually reduced the significance slightly
Well, they are not trying to convince anyone here. They are trying to prove something. So, choosing to hide that data would've been dumb, as the two possible outcomes would have equally interesting I think: proving that the Higgs Boson does exists, or proving that it doesn't.
Beyond that, yeah, it's a good day today for science :) !!!
This is a great comment:
"Think about it this way. Let’s say you’re at the target range, and the Lone Ranger is shooting at clay pidgins right nearby. Obviously you’ll want to know if he’s shooting silver bullets, right? But you can’t look at them while they’re still tied up in the gun. You can’t look at them after they’ve hit the pidgin. And they’re traveling too fast to study while they’re in flight. The only way you can see if they’re silver bullets is based on how the pidgin gets blown to pieces."
"The Higgs boson has a very short lifetime outside of other subatomic particles. The only way for us to study them is to smash those particles together and see the results of the decay. Based on how the Higgs decays (blows itself to pieces), we can infer its existence."
It's even harder than that, because it turns out full metal jackets will cause the pigeons to blow apart into the same pieces, so it's not just the pieces, but things like the direction and velocity of those pieces.
I'm going to summarize this based on my limited understanding, and hopefully someone can confirm or deny.
This is important because it confirmed the accuracy of the way we conceptualize the structure of the universe.
That means both the people who start and fund projects know that the basis of modern physics is sound. So the time and money won't be wasted by a surprise "nope, Higgs-boson isn't there" in the middle of a project based on the belief that it is.
Yup, this was the last particle predicted by the Standard Model. In addition to not having any evidence that it existed, we also didn't know exactly how massive it was, or how likely it was to show up in high-energy collisions.
Unfortunately, the Standard Model still doesn't have a good explanation for how quantum mechanics and gravity work together, so we know it's not complete. But at least the particle menagerie seems to be full :)
Can someone please explain to me what would the immediate technological advancement be if this is true?, what applications would this have? (Already watched the video and read the FAQ, still a lot that is not clear to me)
This has been covered a lot, but in short: this is basic science that will have far-reaching implications in the long term. It gives us a greater understanding of the universe, and confirms a hypothesis that heretofore had no direct evidence.
The immediate short term won't see any technological advancement, but as with all basic science we will see outcomes in the future.
My science-fiction addled brain can't help but be taken to things like anti-gravity when we start talking about understanding the particle the causes mass. If we could alter the field, we could make things much less massive, making Michael J Fox's hover board that much closer to a reality.
Of course, this is baseless conjecture and, even if true someday, will be nothing like immediate. However, without understanding the field, we won't be able to affect the field (we may never be able to affect the field when we do understand it).
Immediate probably none, but we now know that the Standard Model is not wrong with regards to the Higgs, and the Standard Model is the basis of all kinds of real-world calculations.
Really interesting article: so we're basically back to studying the Aether, right? Or did I get that wrong? The only cause of mass is the particles moving through a vast pervasive invisible field?
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that we need to be more careful about rejecting theories that simply sound like that of the luminiferous aether on the surface.
FYI aethers can be explained mathematically nowadays.
Why should it mean anything special for creationists?
God either created the Higgs or he didn't. This science illuminates God. That's all.
It's not an argument for or against creationism.
(Although if you believe God created the world, then just say it. There is nothing wrong with believing that. But don't hide behind a psudo-science like creationism.)
From what I've gathered this is so expected result that nothing really changes, right now atleast. It'll take a while until something new will come out of this.
As an example this could be summarized like someone showing that P!=NP, it would be totally expected and nothing would really change.
p.s P!=NP would be a bigger result though, the comparison was just for something that is overwhelmingly expected.
In high school I had a fellow student that was ortodox. So, he believed that the Bible should be taken as a literal story.
So, when I asked him if he believed in Dinosaurs, he said that some fossils were from before the Great Flood, and that those animals where the beasts that died a few thousand years ago.
When I asked him about Carbon-14, and that those fossils were dated millions of years ago, his answer was simple:
Two options, those experiments are wrong, or is God testing our faith.
This could be God testing our faith again for them, so... nothing will change.
Is this question a result of the name "God particle" confusing people again? In that case, it is just a stupid name that science journalist, not scientist, decided to go with. It doesn't mean anything at all, and Higg's boson has nothing to do with god.
just for the record and to please the prospective downvoting mob, here are my experimental observations consistent with the cern experimental domain in order to warn any non-westerners:
"The cost [...] has been evaluated, taking into account realistic labor prices in different countries. The total cost is X (with a western equivalent value of Y) [where Y>X]
[+] [-] pessimist|13 years ago|reply
Given that tevatron also sees similar (although weaker) results, the confirmation is beyond doubt. And what an achievement - the first fundamental particle observed since the quarks in the 1980's! An incredible victory for theoretical models developed almost 50 years ago (no wonder Peter Higgs had tears in this eyes)!
Combining the brilliance of the theoreticians with the integrity of experimentalists is what makes science the pinnacle of human achievement (IMO), and makes me proud to be human today.
[+] [-] molmalo|13 years ago|reply
Well, they are not trying to convince anyone here. They are trying to prove something. So, choosing to hide that data would've been dumb, as the two possible outcomes would have equally interesting I think: proving that the Higgs Boson does exists, or proving that it doesn't.
Beyond that, yeah, it's a good day today for science :) !!!
[+] [-] kamagmar|13 years ago|reply
A minor correction -- the tau neutrino wasn't discovered until 2000.
[+] [-] mkr-hn|13 years ago|reply
This is a great comment: "Think about it this way. Let’s say you’re at the target range, and the Lone Ranger is shooting at clay pidgins right nearby. Obviously you’ll want to know if he’s shooting silver bullets, right? But you can’t look at them while they’re still tied up in the gun. You can’t look at them after they’ve hit the pidgin. And they’re traveling too fast to study while they’re in flight. The only way you can see if they’re silver bullets is based on how the pidgin gets blown to pieces."
"The Higgs boson has a very short lifetime outside of other subatomic particles. The only way for us to study them is to smash those particles together and see the results of the decay. Based on how the Higgs decays (blows itself to pieces), we can infer its existence."
[+] [-] SoftwareMaven|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sanxiyn|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] confutio|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Luc|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adrianN|13 years ago|reply
http://vimeo.com/41038445
[+] [-] mkr-hn|13 years ago|reply
This is important because it confirmed the accuracy of the way we conceptualize the structure of the universe.
That means both the people who start and fund projects know that the basis of modern physics is sound. So the time and money won't be wasted by a surprise "nope, Higgs-boson isn't there" in the middle of a project based on the belief that it is.
[+] [-] sp332|13 years ago|reply
Unfortunately, the Standard Model still doesn't have a good explanation for how quantum mechanics and gravity work together, so we know it's not complete. But at least the particle menagerie seems to be full :)
[+] [-] fungi|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrpollo|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amackera|13 years ago|reply
The immediate short term won't see any technological advancement, but as with all basic science we will see outcomes in the future.
Science is in fact not engineering.
[+] [-] SoftwareMaven|13 years ago|reply
Of course, this is baseless conjecture and, even if true someday, will be nothing like immediate. However, without understanding the field, we won't be able to affect the field (we may never be able to affect the field when we do understand it).
[+] [-] yaix|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ieureur|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Raticide|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hessenwolf|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blueprint|13 years ago|reply
FYI aethers can be explained mathematically nowadays.
See: http://www.quora.com/Physics/Besides-maturity-of-model-what-...
[+] [-] senjin|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] esusatyo|13 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe
Can we now conclude what'll happen if we go right to the edge of the universe with speed of light? Without any further debates?
[+] [-] mserdarsanli|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sdiwakar|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ars|13 years ago|reply
God either created the Higgs or he didn't. This science illuminates God. That's all.
It's not an argument for or against creationism.
(Although if you believe God created the world, then just say it. There is nothing wrong with believing that. But don't hide behind a psudo-science like creationism.)
[+] [-] jmcqk6|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sharpneli|13 years ago|reply
From what I've gathered this is so expected result that nothing really changes, right now atleast. It'll take a while until something new will come out of this.
As an example this could be summarized like someone showing that P!=NP, it would be totally expected and nothing would really change.
p.s P!=NP would be a bigger result though, the comparison was just for something that is overwhelmingly expected.
[+] [-] okamiueru|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] molmalo|13 years ago|reply
So, when I asked him if he believed in Dinosaurs, he said that some fossils were from before the Great Flood, and that those animals where the beasts that died a few thousand years ago.
When I asked him about Carbon-14, and that those fossils were dated millions of years ago, his answer was simple: Two options, those experiments are wrong, or is God testing our faith.
This could be God testing our faith again for them, so... nothing will change.
[+] [-] i_cannot_hack|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ygmelnikova|13 years ago|reply
"I'm about fifty-fifty on believing in God" - Steve Jobs
[+] [-] Create|13 years ago|reply
"The cost [...] has been evaluated, taking into account realistic labor prices in different countries. The total cost is X (with a western equivalent value of Y) [where Y>X]
source: LHCb calorimeters : Technical Design Report
ISBN: 9290831693 http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/494264
about integrity:
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1127343?ln=en
FYI: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Spin_(public_...