A hint of Higgs: An update from the LHC

Aug 16, 2011
The CMS detector at the LHC weighs in at 14,000 metric tons. [Credit: Boreham, S; Brice, M; Ginter, P; Marcelloni, C; Collaboration, CMS]

The physics world was abuzz with some tantalizing news a couple of weeks ago. At a meeting of the European Physical Society in Grenoble, France, physicists -- including some from Caltech -- announced that the latest data from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) might hint at the existence of the ever-elusive Higgs boson.

According to the , the remarkably successful theory of how all the interact, the Higgs boson is responsible for endowing every other particle with mass. And as the last remaining particle pr edicted by the Standard Model yet to be detected, its discovery is one of the chief goals of the LHC, the most powerful on Earth and perhaps the most complex scientific endeavor ever attempted.

Sitting underground near Geneva, Switzerland, the LHC accelerates protons around a ring almost five miles wide to nearly the speed of light, producing two proton beams that careen toward each other. Most of the just keep on going past each other, but a small fraction of them collide, creating other particles in the process. But these particles are fleeting, decaying into lighter particles before they can be detected. The challenge for physicists is to pick out hints of new, exotic physics from the flurry of newly minted particles. By sifting through the data, they hope to tease out signs that some of these particles are Higgs bosons.

The LHC is equipped with several detectors, but the ones that are the largest and are going after the Higgs are called ATLAS (A Toroidal LHC Apparatus) and the Compact (CMS); Caltech plays a prominent role in the latter. Both experiments recently reported what physicists are calling "excess events." That is, the LHC appears to have created slightly more events than would be expected if the Higgs does not exist. The bump occurred in the region between 130 and 150 gigaelectron volts (GeV—a unit of energy that is also a unit of mass, via E = mc2, where the , c, is set to a value of one), which is the expected mass range of the Higgs. But the data are not yet statistically significant enough to be called a definite signal, let alone a discovery of the Higgs particle, says Harvey Newman, professor of physics.

There are two possible explanations for these results, he says. The bump in the data could just be background events due to some unknown source or it could be the first signs of the Higgs. "One could speculate that it's an unusual statistical fluctuation," he says. "But I don't think so."

The LHC is now operating with 7 teraelectron volts (TeV, a thousand times higher than a GeV) of energy at the center of mass between the two proton beams, and may increase to 8 TeV next year (the maximum energy is 14 TeV, which will be reached by 2014).

Physicists will continue to ramp up the LHC, boosting it to higher energies and increasing the number of collisions to improve the chances of producing Higgs bosons. With several times more particle interactions, the physicists are continuing to close in on the Higgs, as well as other new particles and interactions. There's a chance that by the end of next year, they may determine, once and for all, whether the Higgs exists.

Searching for SUSY

If it turns out that the Higgs does not exist, then physicists will have to do some serious rethinking about the Standard Model. "But even if the Higgs exists, the Standard Model still has fundamental problems," Newman says. For example, the theory is not self-consistent. "The most natural way to solve these problems," he says, "is with supersymmetry."

Evidence for supersymmetry, abbreviated SUSY ("soosie"), is also something that physicists had anticipated at the LHC. The theory proposes that each fundamental particle has a supersymmetric partner—for example, a quark's partner is called a "squark." There are many versions of the theory, from simple toy models to subtler ones. So far, however, the LHC hasn't detected any signs of supersymmetry. "Many of the models we're excluding are toy models," says Maria Spiropulu, an associate professor of physics. So even though people might be disappointed, it's way too early to rule out the theory. "Some people get depressed that SUSY is being excluded. But it's quite the opposite—we're confirming that nature is much more subtle than what the obvious thing would be."

What Exactly Is a Higgs Boson?
The Higgs boson gives a particle its mass. But what does that mean?

In 1964, a physicist named Peter Higgs proposed the existence of a field that permeates the whole universe. Just as a magnetic field interacts with iron filings, the so-called Higgs field, which permeates the vacuum between every particle in the universe, interacts with every fundamental particle. These interactions slow a particle as it moves through the field. Because an electron, for example, doesn't interact with the Higgs field that much, it can zip through the field with ease like a sleek anchovy swimming through the ocean, and, as a result, has little mass. Particles like the top quark interact with the Higgs field a lot more strongly, however, so to them, the field is more like an ocean of molasses than of water. The top quark is thus heavy and sluggish, weighing in at more than 300,000 times the mass of an electron. In physics, every field has an associated particle; the electromagnetic field is associated with the photon, for instance. For the Higgs field, the associated particle is the . By interacting with itself, it's responsible for its own mass.

Caltech at the LHC

Spiropulu and Newman, who are now at the LHC working on the latest data run, lead the Caltech team of 40 physicists, students, and engineers that's part of the CMS collaboration. Spiropulu, who joined the faculty in 2008, is an expert on devising ways to discover exotic phenomena beyond the Standard Model, such as theories of supersymmetry that predict particles of dark matter, the mysterious stuff that makes up almost a quarter of the universe.

When Newman arrived at Caltech in the 1980s, he did a lot of the groundwork in designing the crystal detectors that are now used in CMS. He also developed the worldwide grid of networks and data centers that stores and processes the flood of data coming from the LHC. With the LHC generating gigabytes of data per second, no single site can hold all the information, so the data is handled in a distributed fashion at hundreds of sites throughout the world, including Caltech’s Center for Advanced Computing Research, where the first university-based center for LHC data analysis was invented. Newman’s team also runs the transatlantic network that links the LHC to the United States, allowing data to flow between Europe and North America. His team, together with Steven Low, professor of computer science and electrical engineering, developed the state-of-the-art applications for transferring data over long distances, enabling terabytes of data to stream between sites at speeds of up to the 100 gigabits per second. Newman and engineer Philippe Galvez also developed a system called Enabling Virtual Organizations, an internet-based tool that helps physicists and scientists from other fields communicate and collaborate from anywhere in the world.

According to Newman and Spiropulu, the Caltech team consists of experts in everything from the detector and data analysis to how new phenomena might manifest themselves at the LHC. Because the group is involved in so many aspects of CMS, Caltech is making a particularly significant contribution, Spiropulu says. "We are one of the leading groups in the U.S.—and I would say also in the entire CMS collaboration."

Undergraduates are also a critical part of the team. In the last two years, there have been a total of 24 students from the Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowships (SURF) and Minority Undergraduate Research Fellowships (MURF) programs, as well as from programs at CERN (the European Organization for Nuclear Research, the site of the LHC). This year, four SURF students are spending their summer at the LHC. "Caltech students can really 'do things' from an early age—at a level one rarely sees elsewhere," Newman says.

Explore further: Particles, waves and ants

Related Stories

Is the Vacuum Empty? -- the Higgs Field and the Dark Energy

May 10, 2007

The problems in understanding the true nature of the “vacuum” of space were discussed by theoretical physicist Alvaro de Rújula from CERN (the European Council for Nuclear Research) in Geneva, Switzerland, and a professor ...

Meeting the Higgs hunters

Mar 02, 2011

With CERN's Large Hadron Collider (LHC) now being fired up after its winter shutdown, physicists at the Geneva lab are gearing up for the first signs of the Higgs boson -- the never-before-seen particle that is one of the ...

The hunt for the Higgs steps up a gear

Aug 28, 2008

The hunt for the Higgs boson, the most highly sought-after particle in physics, received a boost this month with the release of two new results from the Tevatron particle collider at the US Department of Energy's ...

Michigan integral to world's largest physics experiment

Sep 05, 2008

After 20 years of construction, a machine that could either verify or nullify the prevailing theory of particle physics is about to begin its mission. CERN's epic Large Hadron Collider (LHC) project currently involves 25 ...

CERN continues the hunt for the Higgs

Jan 31, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- It has just been decided that CERN will run for the next two years without a break. The Higgs could be within reach sooner than previously thought so all researchers are keen to continue t ...

Recommended for you

Particles, waves and ants

19 hours ago

Animals looking for food or light waves moving through turbid media – astonishing similarities have now been found between completely different phenomena.

User comments : 57

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Gagarin
1.5 / 5 (29) Aug 16, 2011
In my (non-expert) opinion Higgs bosons do not exist but I may be wrong.
Concerning super-symmetries and superstrings, it is a beautiful mathematical construction, but I am convinced that it was the biggest waste of the time, money and intellectual capacities in the history of science.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (23) Aug 16, 2011
but I am convinced that it was the biggest waste of the time, money and intellectual capacities in the history of science.

That one might go to phlogiston, aether theory, the theory that everything is made up of earth, water, air and fire or researching how to appease weather gods.
bluehigh
1.7 / 5 (23) Aug 16, 2011
By interacting with itself, it's responsible for its own mass.


So absurdly ridiculous that its hilarious. undergrad humor?
brodix
3.2 / 5 (6) Aug 16, 2011
One field to rule over them all?
rawa1
1.6 / 5 (19) Aug 16, 2011
In aether model the Higgs bosons correspond the tiny density fluctuations of underwater, which are dispersing surface ripples. Such a ripples are spreading like vortices, after then and they're gaining a rest mass. Unfortunately, we cannot observe these fluctuations just with surface waves: the smaller waves we use for observation, the smaller density fluctuations we get. The Higgs mechanism is scale invariant, which means, the same mechanism is responsible for dark matter, Cassimir force or Yukawa coupling. At all cases it manifests with gluing of particles at certain scale and increasing the mass of bosons, which are mediating their interactions. But it has no definite mass or size.

What's worse, with increasing distance from human observer size the things become fuzzy like the landscape under the fog. It applies both to the cosmological scale, both the quantum scale. This noise gives the Higgs boson the ambivalent character of fermions, too.
rawa1
1.6 / 5 (16) Aug 16, 2011
In the light of the above explanation the fact, Standard Model cannot predict the mass of Higgs boson isn't problem, but a feature of this Standard Model. We could say, SM is more clever, then the physicists, who developed it and who are trying to interpret it in "hard numbers".

Well known "hiearchy problem" implies, that quantum corrections can make the mass of the Higgs particle arbitrarily large, since virtual particles with arbitrarily large energies are allowed in quantum mechanics. Because Standard Model cannot predict Higgs boson mass, it cannot use it in any equation, which actually means, it doesn't require it for anything from perspective of mainstream physics, which does care just only about numbers of its model, not about their philosophy at background.

Even if we would find some Higgs for most massive particles observable, the indicia of fourth generation of quark and neutrinos would force us to assign new generation of Higgs boson to them too.
rawa1
1.7 / 5 (10) Aug 16, 2011
Before some time I realized, the same dilepton decay channel has been used for both top quark detection, both Higgs boson detection at LHC. If you check the graph of estimated Higgs boson mass spectrum, you will see, the excluded regions are separated into two gaps: one wide and narrow one at ~ 83 GeV.

http://upload.wik...2011.png

If you check the top quark mass (172.0±2.2 GeV/c2), you'll realize, it's exactly the twice of the value of the gap. It's another indicia, (at least one of) the Higgs particle(s) is hiding right there...

Now the new study proposes, a top quark bound by to its anti-matter partner, the antitop quark, would act as a version of the elusive Higgs boson, conferring mass on other particles.

http://www.nature...436.html

It would mean, the same artefact, which is searched at LHC was revealed at Fermilab already before years.
Gezza
2 / 5 (27) Aug 16, 2011
@Gagarin Actually the biggest waste of time, money and intellectual capacities in the history of science was when your parents experimented with what they had learnt in biology.

@Physorg Was this article written for 3yo's or tabloid press. Come on Physorg, maintain some kind of standard. A: This old news. B: Its very inaccurate. "E = mc2, where the speed of light, c, is set to a value of one" c does not equal 1. If that were true then E would equal m. "The bump occurred in the region between 130 and 150 gigaelectron volts (GeVa unit of energy that is also a unit of mass, via E = mc2, where the speed of light, c, is set to a value of one), which is the expected mass range of the Higgs" The higgs wasn't expected to be in this range. Its just that they haven't found it at any other range.

Come on Physorg. Quit the copy/paste journalism unless you are going to check the facts before you print.
amw1978dc
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 16, 2011
I don't know what we have the LHC for, when it's obvious that God is what gives particles mass and also what/(who) created the universe. Kidding . . . of course ;)
vidar_lund
4.9 / 5 (11) Aug 16, 2011
@Gezza,
B: Its very inaccurate. "E = mc2, where the speed of light, c, is set to a value of one" c does not equal 1. If that were true then E would equal m.


In physics 'natural units' are usually used to simplify the equations. http://en.wikiped...al_units
Natural units don't change the laws of physics, they just change the 'measuring rods' we use. However, if you want to use the results for practical purposes you often have to convert back to the metric system.
CHollman82
4.2 / 5 (15) Aug 16, 2011
B: Its very inaccurate. "E = mc2, where the speed of light, c, is set to a value of one" c does not equal 1. If that were true then E would equal m.


Wow... /facepalm

Look it up, and stop commenting on things you know nothing about.

"In many systems of natural units, the speed (scalar) of light is set equal to 1, and the formula becomes the identity E = m; hence the term "massenergy equivalence"."

Moebius
1 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2011
...we're confirming that nature is much more subtle than what the obvious thing would be.


With regard to physics, that has been confirmed repeatedly since the Einstein revolution.
anadish
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 16, 2011
It will never stand up out of the theory pages. It's as fictional a character as a tachyon. Let us accept. There are reasons for the discrepancy, however.There are unexplored regions in explaining space which STR cannot take care of. Even the eV terminology for the mass of a particle needs corrections as space and c gets a clearer understanding. I had been conducting research and have been able to find the basics of gravity. Deciphering space is very challenging, although, there are promising observations.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) Aug 16, 2011
I had been conducting research and have been able to find the basics of gravity.

Link?
Veneficus
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 16, 2011
B: Its very inaccurate. "E = mc2, where the speed of light, c, is set to a value of one" c does not equal 1. If that were true then E would equal m.


Actually, in relativistic (geometrized) units, c=1, by definition, to make calculations a lot easier.
Gagarin
1.7 / 5 (7) Aug 16, 2011
I see a lot of negative reactions on my opinion; but different opinions are both normal and necessary for any progress. I love science and I would be very happy with any progress, including confirmation of supersymmetry and superstrings. However, my (non-expert) impression is that already 30 years theoretical physics is dominated by this kind of research, best students turned to this kind of research in which I simply do not believe (six extra dimensions?) in spite of mathematical beauty. In my opinion physics must be based on simple physical ideas rather than mathematical ideas. Mathematics should be in service of physical ideas.

jsn3604
4.6 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2011
Just hope this doesn't end up being a modern version of the of the Greek Geocentric Model. Worked mathematically, but still wrong.
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (51) Aug 16, 2011
@Gagarin, How would you define 'physical ideas' as apart from mathematics? The standard model makes successful use of 'point particles' which have no extension, and QM employs ideas which have no intuitive sense at all. The purpose of science is no longer to provide an intuitive understanding of reality, as this is not possible. It does not matter how many extra degrees of freedom a theory invokes, as long as predictions can be observationally verified. It would be nice to know what those extra degrees of freedom 'are', or if it is merely a matter of matching mathematical patterns to observational patterns and nothing more,.. but that ventures into philosophy no science.
antialias_physorg
3.8 / 5 (15) Aug 16, 2011
Just hope this doesn't end up being a modern version of the of the Greek Geocentric Model. Worked mathematically, but still wrong

A geocentric model isn't 'wrong'. It's just a lot more complicated than the model we currently use. You can map a geocentric model perfectly on a heliocentric (or any other -centric) model.

Physics (utilizing math) always on the lookout for the simplest model that explains what we observe and gives us accurate predictions about future events.

Example:
1 2 3 4 5

Many would suggest the next number is 6. But there are an infinite number of mathematical formulae which will render this sequence (including the 6). Which of them is 'right' and which is 'wrong'? We can't tell. We only _choose_ the one that is simplest. But that doesn't make it any more right than any of the others.
(However, observation lets us eliminate a much larger infinity of formulae which don't fit the bill - so not _every_ theory is equal. Just the ones that fit the observations
baudrunner
2 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2011
Relativity theory concludes that mass is a function of velocity. Those particles are not standing still. The mass of a particle is therefore a function of the domain of its confinement and its velocity. Saying that there is a particle that confers mass and then justifying its existence so elegantly by stating that Higgs theory therefore allows the Higgs particle to confer mass upon itself is like rationalising the existence of God by virtue of the existence of reality. But where does God come from?
bewertow
3.1 / 5 (7) Aug 16, 2011
@Physorg Was this article written for 3yo's or tabloid press. Come on Physorg, maintain some kind of standard. A: This old news. B: Its very inaccurate. "E = mc2, where the speed of light, c, is set to a value of one" c does not equal 1. If that were true then E would equal m. "The bump occurred in the region between 130 and 150 gigaelectron volts (GeVa unit of energy that is also a unit of mass, via E = mc2, where the speed of light, c, is set to a value of one), which is the expected mass range of the Higgs" The higgs wasn't expected to be in this range. Its just that they haven't found it at any other range.


Wow you must be retarded. It's called natural units dumbass
Gagarin
1 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2011
@Gagarin, How would you define 'physical ideas' as apart from mathematics?

For instance, a simple physical principle is that inertial and gravitational mass are equivalent (it is in fact cornerstone of General Relativity). After that mathematics follows from it (in this case tensor analysis and Riemannian geometry). Mathematics on which General Relativity is based will stay correct forever, but General Relativity depends on validity of this principle.
krundoloss
4.3 / 5 (12) Aug 16, 2011
As humans, we have a fundamental flaw - some things will not fit in our 3-Dimensional Brain. Go ahead and try to conceptualize another spacial dimension. You cant. But you can describe it mathmatically. I think we should stop trying to make everything make sense as we know it (as in, we can conceptualize it), and try to go beyond into areas that do not make sense to us, like Quantum Mechanics. It seems the deeper we probe, the more confusing things become. I believe this is becuase we are seeing evidence of higher dimensions interacting with our dimension, since higher dimensions are a foreign concept to our brains, it becomes almost impossible to understand the deeper nature of the universe. Gladly, we are creating tools that can go beyond what our human brains can understand, so that we will eventually figure it out. Do give me a break on the replies, this is a very abstract comment.
Pyle
4.4 / 5 (13) Aug 16, 2011
First off. People need to cut it out with this:
Come on Physorg. Quit the copy/paste journalism unless you are going to check the facts before you print.
The article was not written by Physorg. Nor do they edit it. They aggregate news. It is a portal. They also do independent work (Lisa's work is my favorite.), but the majority is just pulled from other sources and so credited at the bottom of the article.

Regarding Gagarin's "physical ideas", what? Inertial and gravitational mass is equivalent. Ok, so what is inertia? Where does it come from? Yeah, that's what I thought. All the work in extra dimensions and what not DOES turn into physical ideas. The thought is that there is a solution to the math that correctly describes the universe we live in. We search only for the answer, and do so by narrowing down the possibilities.

We live in exciting times. Sit back and enjoy the ride.
krundoloss
4 / 5 (8) Aug 16, 2011
for the love of god can we stop ads in these forums.
Magnette
5 / 5 (10) Aug 16, 2011
for the love of god can we stop ads in these forums.


Click on the report abuse button, they seem to get removed quite quickly.
kaypee
2.7 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2011
Terrible analogies -- whoever wrote the section explaining the Higgs idea needs to let someone else do it... "These interactions slow a particle as it moves through the field."... The interaction of electrons with the Higgs field does NOT slow them down. That would violate the principle of relativity and vindicate Aristotle.
runrig
5 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2011
Kaypee .... "The interaction of electrons with the Higgs field does NOT slow them down. That would violate the principle of relativity and vindicate Aristotle."

Try reading the article again !

Here.... "an electron, for example, doesn't interact with the Higgs field that much, it can zip through the field with ease"
Jonel
not rated yet Aug 16, 2011
Well i think , i hope ist not all waste of funds and money , they will get soemthing useful out of it also...
Jonel
not rated yet Aug 16, 2011
Well i think its not all waste of funds and time... they will get alot useful out of this incedible maschine aswell. As always the paste of tecnological progress goes over pumps and even mountains before reaching the goals, no one sayd its should be easy.. so its not wasteing its progressing and evoulution i a way aswell.
SemiNerd
5 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2011
@rawal1 - for an example of the flaw in your example, check out a really ancient riddle called 'Zeno's Paradox'.

As you study calculus you being to understand that this branch of mathematics is really about how an infinite number of infinitely small quantities can be added up to generate real values.

But really, I can't believe the incredible egos of the non educated, laypeople responding to this post with crap they know utterly nothing about.
vidyunmaya
1 / 5 (16) Aug 16, 2011
Sub:LHC misleads spirit of Science-short of Cosmology Research
Cosmology research needs best of brains trust.LHC and particle physics groups seem to be in a hurry -that may bring even negative energies at Earth-planet that support Life.
The oriogins-Cosmology Vedas Interlinks- East West Support needed-can help to probe heritage documents back to 5th-7th century. At the outset Cosmic Dance of Lord SIVA is not understood in spirit. This applies to Singularity as well
Vidyardhi nanduri
flicktheswitch
5 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2011
^ Hey... it's like KevinRTS (Hindu Version)
Callippo
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 16, 2011
@rawal1 - for an example of the flaw in your example, check out a really ancient riddle called 'Zeno's Paradox'
Which example? Can you be more specific, please?
A geocentric model isn't 'wrong'. It's just a lot more complicated than the model we currently use.
Maybe from pure geometrical perspective, but the planets simply cannot move in epicycles along stable paths due the Newton inertial and gravitational laws. From perspective of classical mechanics the geocentric model is unsustainable.
RobertKarlStonjek
1 / 5 (6) Aug 16, 2011
What will those working on SUSY do when the last best guess is eliminated? Here's what I reckon:
around 1/4 of them will continue on somewhere else math;
around 1/4 will continue on somewhere else physics;
around 1/2 will continue on somewhere else exotic just so stories such as UFO phenomena, religious studies, or stories relating to before the Big Bang or beyond the Black Hole or the nature of Dark Energy and so on.
jonathan_christian
Aug 16, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Aug 17, 2011
Maybe from pure geometrical perspective, but the planets simply cannot move in epicycles along stable paths due the Newton inertial and gravitational laws.

As I said: You can map the two perfectly. That a geocentric model just becomes mathematically enormously complex doesn't mean it's wrong (and nowhere did I suggest that a geocentric model should be limited to Newtonian mechanics. That have REALLY been shown to be wrong). That it's a foolish waste of resources to use a geocentric model is not the point.

Simplicity of the formulae is not an indicator whether a theory is good or bad (otherwise we'd have never made the leap from Newton to Einstein or from an atomistic model to quantum physics)

Using the simplest possible model is pleasing (and easy) - but nowhere is there a prerequisite that the universe be simple.

That's the interesting thing about science: We only ever know what works. But we'll never know whether we have it right-so we'll never be sure we have the TOE, too
georgert
5 / 5 (6) Aug 17, 2011
In my (non-expert) opinion Higgs bosons do not exist but I may be wrong.
Concerning super-symmetries and superstrings, it is a beautiful mathematical construction, but I am convinced that it was the biggest waste of the time, money and intellectual capacities in the history of science.


First, you admit you're no expert, then you say you're convinced that string theory will prove to be a waste of time. That's like saying, "I don't know how to speak French, but the subjunctive is completely useless." As I'm sure Dr. Witten would be too polite to say, "When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you."
rawa1
1 / 5 (5) Aug 17, 2011
You can map the two perfectly. That a geocentric model just becomes mathematically enormously complex doesn't mean it's wrong
You cannot, until mechanics - not just geometry - of planetary motion is involved. It's not only question of complexity of resulting model, but a direct violation of known physical laws. Geometric points can do whatever motion, you want - but point constrained with inertia and mutual gravitational interactions cannot move in arbitrary way.

I know, formally thinking people aren't very sensitive to these nuances and from similar simplification many nonsensical models of string theory follows. You cannot invert space-time for objects at the moment, when they're driven of their own inertia.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (4) Aug 17, 2011
You cannot, until mechanics - not just geometry - of planetary motion is involved.

The centricity of a model is completely independent of what type of physics you use - it's just a mathematical transformation.
rawa1
1 / 5 (5) Aug 17, 2011
The centricity of a model is completely independent of what type of physics you use - it's just a mathematical transformation.

Nope, if you would violate the entropy law and the causality arrow of time, on which the causality of formal math is itself based.

This is just the point, in which formal math differs from physics. Formal math is atemporal, it doesn't recognize time concept and all connections in it are valid at the same moment. Nature is more richer in this extent, which leads into physical systems, which cannot be described mathematically, despite such a systems are quite trivial (the N-body system, for example). And vice-versa: many formal system described with abstract math simply cannot exist in temporal physics.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Aug 17, 2011
You can have a completely bijective mapping from a heliocentric to a geocentric (to a non-centric) model. As such certainly the one is mathematically equivalent (though vastly more complex) than the other.

Note that geocentric does not equate to ptolemaic. Geocentric just means: 'Taking the earth as the center'.

Without a fixed reference system such an assumption is percetly valid (though foolish because it makes computations of everything else a lot harder). In the absence of a static aether we don't have a definite reference system - so any system is as 'good' or 'bad' as any other with respect to how valid it is.

many formal system described with abstract math simply cannot exist in temporal physics.

And temporal physics (whatever you mean by that since it isn't the official name of any scientific discipline) is described using...what?
Ricochet
not rated yet Aug 17, 2011
Kaypee .... "The interaction of electrons with the Higgs field does NOT slow them down. That would violate the principle of relativity and vindicate Aristotle."

Try reading the article again !

Here.... "an electron, for example, doesn't interact with the Higgs field that much, it can zip through the field with ease"

Yes, like a "slick anchovie". Very visual representation... I can only imagine the author was eating pizza at the time.
rawa1
1.4 / 5 (7) Aug 17, 2011
In the absence of a static aether we don't have a definite reference system
We can still have a dynamic aether, which serves as a reference frame, but changing in time. Its particles must remain in "ethernal" motion ("Panta rhei"), while colliding and bouncing mutually - or they would collapse into singularity. Such model is behaving both like aetheric, both like aether-less.
rawa1
1 / 5 (6) Aug 17, 2011
"The interaction of electrons with the Higgs field does NOT slow them down. That would violate the principle of relativity and vindicate Aristotle."
Aether model explains this paradox. The small objects aren't slowed down during their motion at the water surface, until their speed and acceleration isn't higher, than the average speed and acceleration of water molecules.

The whirling beetles (Gyrinidae) are using this feature, because they're using surface waves for their mutual communication. But the same waves would notify their prey in advance, so that these clever beetles accelerate in lower speed, than the speed of water molecules. Only at the moment, when they need to communicate mutually (e.g. to avoid collisions in dense crowd), they're doing a circular motion, which emanates "synchrotron waves" into outside.

http://www.physor...528.html

It means, the thin surface layer of water is behaving like the superfluid, until the acceleration isn't high enough.
anadish
1 / 5 (3) Aug 17, 2011
@antialias_physorg

anadish.com
ant_oacute_nio354
1 / 5 (4) Aug 18, 2011
The mass is the electric dipole moment.

Antonio Saraiva
Ethelred
3.2 / 5 (5) Aug 20, 2011
Ok, so what is inertia?
A property of the Universe. At least that is one way of looking at it. Another is to note that a change in velocity entails a change in energy. Does the Higgs boson fit in with this? The idea that the Higgs only supplies mass to SOME particles and another thing supplies it to others is what I don't like about it. It makes no sense in regards to General Relativity. Mass-Energy doesn't give a damn about the kind of particle. Just its energy. Which increases with velocity.

Ethelred
Nanobanano
1 / 5 (3) Aug 20, 2011
Even if you found an unknown particle, how would you know it is "really" the Higgs?

Couldn't it just as well be some other particle or compound particle?

Even if you found something looks like the Higgs, how would you know the Higgs is fundamental?

The real Higgs might be a compound particle made of other stuff you never imagined too.

And if there is a Higgs, then isn't there an anti-higgs as well? And wouldn't that make finding the "Higgs" twice as easy? Why has neither the higgs nor anti-higgs been discovered?

I find it amusing that people will build a multi-billion dollar accelerator to look for an almost infinitesmally small particle, and even if the particle is found, it won't actually resolve much of anything. Even if the Higgs is found, the standard model could still have 50 unknowns in it and most of the time you won't even know for any of the stuff we normall care about, even in computers or electronics.
Nanobanano
2 / 5 (4) Aug 20, 2011
Mass-Energy doesn't give a damn about the kind of particle. Just its energy. Which increases with velocity.


Correct.

In the theory of relativity, which has been allegedly found correct to within margn of error of instrumentation, mass and energy are directly related to velocity by the equations given, and the curve is only defined from v = 0 to c "from the left".(i.e. any velocity between zero to exactly equal to c.)

At any rate, this is a continuous curve for every V from zero to c in the set of real numbers.

And for example, neither the kinetic energy equation in classical physics, nor the relativistic mass or mass-energy equations would be reconciled to a "single" particle supplying the mass to all other particles, because the value of mass is different for all velocities, and the value of "v^2" is different for all velocities.

It doesn't make sense mathematically, regardless of relativity.

In relativity, neither mass, nor energy, nor velocity is "digital".
Ricochet
1 / 5 (1) Aug 20, 2011
Wouldn't the hypothesis that the "Higgs" only gives mass to some, but not others, support superstring theory, where it has to do with particals matching certain vibrational frequencies in order to interact with the others' energy states?
hush1
1 / 5 (2) Aug 21, 2011
Everything you conjure up is possible and will work.
This present phase is what the human existence labels "How"?

That premonition and predisposition suggests:
We are in for a long haul.
definitude
1 / 5 (2) Aug 21, 2011
As I am a proponent of Steady State and more classical like physics, I find it more likely we do not formulate a sythesis between Higgs and "particle theories" alike. This is confusing due to the fact that original classical theories lead to partical like theories, for the most part. However, there are some basic revolations that have played out over time that are still tolerant of early assertions of field dynamics and leave open the absence of a Cosmological Constant. To this I attest to the greatness of Einsteins logic to remain skeptical of quantum theories.

I trust the nature of the renormalization could be better understood if we put the same resources into the notion. The realization of a particle to hold up and say "here it is," must be abandoned.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (3) Aug 21, 2011
The finding of the Higgs boson confirms the existence of the Higgs field. Energy of neutral charge (light, photons) don't create massive particles because they are unidirectional (the lightwave has equal negative and positive divergence), lightwaves correct their trajectories.

Positrons and electrons (as 2 polar opposites) interact with the field differently. Because light which is neutral is unidirectional particles of charge (not neutral) are infidirectional (points have infinite directionality). Charges create mass. Different Charges create different masses (more or less massive, more or less dense).

Some masses fall apart quickly (decay) due to weak surrounding, retaining, pressures (forces). The top quark for instance is too massive to survive in earths atmosphere due to lack of energy.

The Higgs boson requires extraordinary pressure (force) to hold on its own. One such Higgs boson is a blackhole, naked mass. And even that decays.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (3) Aug 21, 2011
Whether the Higgs boson exists is beyond me, but if it does and it is found it will open the door for new physics to emerge. Not one of discovery but one of purpose and use. With knowledge comes power.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (4) Aug 21, 2011
Me:

One such Higgs boson is a blackhole, naked mass. And even that decays


And that depends on whether the blackhole is singular space (infinitely small point, of any given mass) or/ a rip in the field. A rip in the field would have backwards decay, the blackhole would get more massive over time.

On second thought, a blackhole is a rip in the field. It swallows up mass. A blackhole is a Higgs boson past the allowable mass/density threshold. I was wrong. A blackhole is not a Higgs boson.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (3) Aug 21, 2011
When an electron (a particle) is not forced it remains still. When forces are involved the electron accelerates (action reaction). The resistance of the electrons motion through the field is the mass increase. The higher the electrons velocity the higher its mass.

Kinetic energy (motion) charges the electron.

This takes us back to the top. The higher the charge the bigger the mass.
AngeleSL
not rated yet Sep 03, 2011
First, you admit you're no expert, then you say you're convinced that string theory will prove to be a waste of time. That's like saying, "I don't know how to speak French, but the subjunctive is completely useless." As I'm sure Dr. Witten would be too polite to say, "When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you."

Thank you, georgert.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.