With big science news like this, it's always best to go to the source[0] to avoid sensationalism. Of note, is the following statement which isn't getting repeated much in the mainstream news sources:
"It remains an open question, however, whether this is the Higgs boson of the Standard Model of particle physics, or possibly the lightest of several bosons predicted in some theories that go beyond the Standard Model. Finding the answer to this question will take time."
I find this to be a pretty important distinguishing factor. Not only will it take a while before they really do know, but it may not, in fact, be the Higgs so many have been searching for to fit into the Standard Model.
Many news sources are already claiming that the "god particle" has been found.
The first question, "is the Higgs mechanism how elementary particles get their mass?" is now essentially answered. Whether or not the Higgs boson is a single particle or part of a hierarchy of related bosons is almost irrelevant to the answer of this question.
The second question is "is there new physics at the TeV scale?" If there is, then there are additional bosons related to the Higgs in some models like supersymmetry. However, it is not required that there be additional bosons or that that they be easily measured. Other new particles might be more accessible. On the other hand, there might not be any new physics at LHC energies at all. This question is what will take time to answer.
You're misunderstanding the quoted passage. In either case it would be the Higgs that they were searching for.
The uncertainty is about the structure that exists beyond the standard model. Some sort of Higgs is still necessary in almost any extension to this model, which is why everyone was so damn certain it would be found.
Science is pretty boring to most people, who aren't interested in science per se but only want news bites for use in casual conversation. Media distorts scientific claims in order to appeal to a wider audience and make more money.
God Particle Found! News at eleventy eleven!eleventy!
Well, to be fair, does the sourced NYT article not say exactly what the quote indicates--specifically to the point of referencing the quote itself? Even the article's title says it is a, not the, Higgs boson that is found. Moreover, the article also says "it remains an "open question," CERN said in a statement, whether this is the Higgs boson that was expected in the original formulation, or possibly the lightest of several predicted in some theories that go beyond that model."
The physics involved is fascinating, although a true appreciation of what a Higgs Boson is would take years (i.e. most of a PhD).
The organisation of such a vast data-processing task has surely brought about many discoveries in "big-data" and parallel computing that are not directly related to the discoveries in physics. Much like the research into the magnets that power the accelerator has led to new MRI machines. To people who don't see the point in "science for science's sake", this is a massive spin-off of CERN that will hopefully greatly benefit the world.
To those who forgot, the web as we know it was also pretty much invented at CERN [1] so anyone who is against "science for science's sake" is indeed missing a major point.
Part of me is rather skeptical that the giant mound of assumptions about hardware, software, and physics backing this discovery is correct. However, I have a lot more faith in them then I do in most human endeavors and I fundamentally don't understand what's going on. Which I find to be an odd feeling.
Are there any predictions for possible daily-life-affecting spin-offs from the new physics itself, rather than just from the engineering advances made in the search? Or do the energies involved preclude any direct practical uses?
Radio waves were described by their co-discoverer in 1888 as "an interesting laboratory experiment" with "no useful purpose" whatsoever. - Wikipedia entry for Higgs boson
A physicist friend of mine said, half jokingly, that with that much money poured into the project they had no other option but to find that damn boson.
It's actually very interesting to see how seriously confirmation bias taken by CERN/the collaborations. Not only do they carefully look at the properties of what they find to see if they found something else, but they also take into account other statistical details like the look-elsewhere effect [1].
Sort of related question, which may sound a bit rubbish since I don't really know the physics or their scientific method at that scale, but were they doing enough experiments that they'd have eventually said it couldn't exist if they never found it for some amount of time? Or was it always something that could only be proven, not disproven?
There was a fascinating series of articles on New York times on the search for the Higgs Boson.[1]
There was also an attempt to explain what is the Higgs Boson , by means of some drawings and analogies in the second part of the series. Perhaps someone knowledgeable could comment how accurate the explanation is.
A new pope can start making a difference in the lives of a lot of people as soon as tomorrow. Proving the existence of a Higgs boson won't matter to nearly everyone for many years, if it ever matters. In the past new physics has eventually lead to new engineering which lead to new products that change peoples lives. In this case I'm not sure that will happen, given the energy needed to reach the new physics. At most the engineering needed to reach those energy levels might spin off new products, but they're not likely to be drastically new, just an extension of existing products.
How do you give the discovery of the Higgs a Nobel prize? Particularly in experimental particle physics, the ability to give a nobel prize (even after discounting grad students :) seems impossible today. The number of people who have to be part of any "discovery" is huge. It seems like the prize would then become the prize for who had the most political (office and governmental) sway on the team.
> It [the LHC] has been creating high-energy collisions to smash protons and then study the collisions and determine how subatomic particles acquire mass — without which the particles would fail to stick together.
Too bad -- a science writer wouldn't have made this elementary error.
At what point do we stop giving names to particles? Are we there yet?
In other fields I see a pattern of trying to categorize things into relatively short lists that a human can comprehend. E.g. phonemes for speech. It turns out that phonemes don't work, but by using a much finer-grained classification you get a system that does work.
So for particles, charm quark or top quark are not particularly descriptive. The names are really no better than "excitation 112" and "excitation 236b". Perhaps a bit more memorable, but not more descriptive of the physics.
As it happens, about a fortnight ago I was talking to a recently retired but still active professor at CERN (he is the father of a friend of mine). I asked him where things stood with the Higgs Boson, and his reply was that they are definitely seeing a pretty strong signal in the data they've gathered, but they're not sure what it is yet exactly. In particular, it could match any one of a number of different competing theories (Disclaimer: I am not a particle physicist so I might have misremembered the precise terminology he used).
From the article:
'The particle was named for Peter Higgs, one of the physicists who proposed its existence, but it later became popularly known as the "God particle."'
Calling it the "God particle" is an insult to science, and "Higgs Boson" is definitely the more popular term. Here's the adword keyword analysis for both: http://imgur.com/dsNVbum
"Higgs Boson" as a search term is 4.078 times more popular globally and 3.322 times in the US.
The question in my mind is: is there anything beyond the Higgs? Particle theorists hoped the LHC would find whole new families of particles supporting any number of exotic theories. If the LHC finds the Higgs and nothing else, there will be a huge exodus from the field: given the cost of the experiment, a bigger one will be a hard sell in this climate.
Could be a good time to pick up some physics PhDs for your data science team.
I wonder. If this adds one more trust factor to the standard model, does that mean it'll hold forever? Maybe? There must be some level on which we can baseline our understanding of the universe. Maybe this is it? maybe [1]?
It seems clear that any more complete theory describing particle physics must inevitably reduce to something equivalent to the standard model in the appropriate limits. So in that sense, the standard model will hold forever.
It's exactly the same as saying that Newton's law of gravity will hold forever. It applies very accurately under most circumstances; situations that require us to deal with the complexities of general relativity are quite rare. (GR only begins to differ from Newton's gravity when you have extremely strong gravity or when you need extremely high precision.)
But if you want to really understand the inner workings of the universe, Newtonian gravity won't cut it: you need GR. And it's pretty well established that the standard model can't be the whole story, either: its mathematics eventually break down when the energies get high enough. So there's got to be something else up there... we just aren't sure what it is.
> If this adds one more trust factor to the standard model, does that mean it'll hold forever?
Do you mean the Standard Model? Well, to answer, look at the history of scientific theories -- every scientific theory ever put forth has eventually been proven either flat wrong or been shown to be an approximation, without exception.
The Standard Model more or less includes General Relativity, and General Relativity conflicts with quantum theories, so there's already a basis for further work. That work is being addressed by (among other things) string / superstring / M theories, unfortunately without any experimental testable predictions yet.
Physicists just saying "we found it!" and re-re-re-checking existing data for hmmm... last year i suppose. And processing LHC (which already stopped) data will take a lot more time. They found "evidence" (five standard deviations) - but it's slightly more than detection threshold - and because of that they still unsure.
"The particle's existence helps confirm the theory that objects gain their size and shape when particles interact in an energy field with a key particle, the Higgs boson. The more they attract, so the theory goes, the bigger their mass will be."
So does this mean that an ether really does permeate space?
A very important thing is that the Higgs Boson is totally unrelated to the shape and size of the object. It's related only to the mass. (I can even tolerate "weight" with scare quotes in a divulgation article.)
just for the record, in order to warn any non-western members:
"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]
[+] [-] randomdrake|13 years ago|reply
"It remains an open question, however, whether this is the Higgs boson of the Standard Model of particle physics, or possibly the lightest of several bosons predicted in some theories that go beyond the Standard Model. Finding the answer to this question will take time."
I find this to be a pretty important distinguishing factor. Not only will it take a while before they really do know, but it may not, in fact, be the Higgs so many have been searching for to fit into the Standard Model.
Many news sources are already claiming that the "god particle" has been found.
[0] - http://press.web.cern.ch/press-releases/2013/03/new-results-...
[+] [-] mattheww|13 years ago|reply
The first question, "is the Higgs mechanism how elementary particles get their mass?" is now essentially answered. Whether or not the Higgs boson is a single particle or part of a hierarchy of related bosons is almost irrelevant to the answer of this question.
The second question is "is there new physics at the TeV scale?" If there is, then there are additional bosons related to the Higgs in some models like supersymmetry. However, it is not required that there be additional bosons or that that they be easily measured. Other new particles might be more accessible. On the other hand, there might not be any new physics at LHC energies at all. This question is what will take time to answer.
[+] [-] shardling|13 years ago|reply
The uncertainty is about the structure that exists beyond the standard model. Some sort of Higgs is still necessary in almost any extension to this model, which is why everyone was so damn certain it would be found.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson#Alternative_models
[+] [-] harshreality|13 years ago|reply
God Particle Found! News at eleventy eleven!eleventy!
[+] [-] bobwaycott|13 years ago|reply
Sensationalism where?
[+] [-] brazzy|13 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oh-My-God_particle
[+] [-] ichirotherager|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Jabbles|13 years ago|reply
The organisation of such a vast data-processing task has surely brought about many discoveries in "big-data" and parallel computing that are not directly related to the discoveries in physics. Much like the research into the magnets that power the accelerator has led to new MRI machines. To people who don't see the point in "science for science's sake", this is a massive spin-off of CERN that will hopefully greatly benefit the world.
http://home.web.cern.ch/about/computing
[+] [-] eranation|13 years ago|reply
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_World_Wide_Web#1...
[+] [-] Retric|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DougWebb|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oneandoneis2|13 years ago|reply
Someone up there having a joke, obviously.
[+] [-] laumars|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] EA|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] InclinedPlane|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] huhtenberg|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bmuon|13 years ago|reply
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Look-elsewhere_effect
[+] [-] mcintyre1994|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sid6376|13 years ago|reply
There was also an attempt to explain what is the Higgs Boson , by means of some drawings and analogies in the second part of the series. Perhaps someone knowledgeable could comment how accurate the explanation is.
[1]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/05/science/chasing-the-higgs-...
[+] [-] ichinaski|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DougWebb|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] InclinedPlane|13 years ago|reply
pt1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Uh5mTxRQcg
pt2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASRpIym_jFM
pt3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6guXMfg88Z8
[+] [-] SoftwareMaven|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomkinstinch|13 years ago|reply
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/
[+] [-] lutusp|13 years ago|reply
Too bad -- a science writer wouldn't have made this elementary error.
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] JabavuAdams|13 years ago|reply
At what point do we stop giving names to particles? Are we there yet?
In other fields I see a pattern of trying to categorize things into relatively short lists that a human can comprehend. E.g. phonemes for speech. It turns out that phonemes don't work, but by using a much finer-grained classification you get a system that does work.
So for particles, charm quark or top quark are not particularly descriptive. The names are really no better than "excitation 112" and "excitation 236b". Perhaps a bit more memorable, but not more descriptive of the physics.
[+] [-] anonymousDan|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adonisn|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gammarator|13 years ago|reply
Could be a good time to pick up some physics PhDs for your data science team.
[+] [-] ra|13 years ago|reply
[1] http://news.discovery.com/space/we-might-not-live-in-a-holog...
[+] [-] Steuard|13 years ago|reply
It's exactly the same as saying that Newton's law of gravity will hold forever. It applies very accurately under most circumstances; situations that require us to deal with the complexities of general relativity are quite rare. (GR only begins to differ from Newton's gravity when you have extremely strong gravity or when you need extremely high precision.)
But if you want to really understand the inner workings of the universe, Newtonian gravity won't cut it: you need GR. And it's pretty well established that the standard model can't be the whole story, either: its mathematics eventually break down when the energies get high enough. So there's got to be something else up there... we just aren't sure what it is.
[+] [-] lutusp|13 years ago|reply
Do you mean the Standard Model? Well, to answer, look at the history of scientific theories -- every scientific theory ever put forth has eventually been proven either flat wrong or been shown to be an approximation, without exception.
The Standard Model more or less includes General Relativity, and General Relativity conflicts with quantum theories, so there's already a basis for further work. That work is being addressed by (among other things) string / superstring / M theories, unfortunately without any experimental testable predictions yet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory
[+] [-] out_of_protocol|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jeffcasavant|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RockofStrength|13 years ago|reply
So does this mean that an ether really does permeate space?
[+] [-] gus_massa|13 years ago|reply
A very important thing is that the Higgs Boson is totally unrelated to the shape and size of the object. It's related only to the mass. (I can even tolerate "weight" with scare quotes in a divulgation article.)
[+] [-] elwin|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 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
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1127343?ln=en