Tevatron scientists announce their final results on the Higgs particle

Jul 02, 2012
After more than 10 years of gathering and analyzing data produced by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Tevatron collider, scientists from the CDF and DZero experiments have found their strongest indication to date for the long-sought Higgs particle. The Tevatron results indicate that the Higgs particle, if it exists, has a mass between 115 and 135 GeV/c2, or about 130 times the mass of the proton.

(Phys.org) -- After more than 10 years of gathering and analyzing data produced by the U.S. Department of Energy's Tevatron collider, scientists from the CDF and DZero collaborations have found their strongest indication to date for the long-sought Higgs particle. Squeezing the last bit of information out of 500 trillion collisions produced by the Tevatron for each experiment since March 2001, the final analysis of the data does not settle the question of whether the Higgs particle exists, but gets closer to an answer. The Tevatron scientists unveiled their latest results on July 2, two days before the highly anticipated announcement of the latest Higgs-search results from the Large Hadron Collider in Europe.

"The Tevatron experiments accomplished the goals that we had set with this data sample," said Fermilab's Rob Roser, cospokesperson for the CDF experiment at DOE's . "Our data strongly point toward the existence of the Higgs boson, but it will take results from the experiments at the Large Hadron Collider in Europe to establish a discovery."

Scientists of the CDF and DZero collider experiments at the Tevatron received a round of rousing applause from hundreds of colleagues when they presented their results at a scientific seminar at . The Large Hadron Collider results will be announced at a scientific seminar at 2 a.m. CDT on July 4 at the particle physics laboratory in Geneva, Switzerland.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
Fermilab scientist Don Lincoln describes the concept of how the search for the Higgs boson is accomplished.

"It is a real cliffhanger," said DZero co-spokesperson Gregorio Bernardi, physicist at the Laboratory of Nuclear and , or LPNHE, at the University of Paris VI & VII. "We know exactly what signal we are looking for in our data, and we see strong indications of the production and decay of Higgs bosons in a crucial decay mode with a pair of bottom quarks, which is difficult to observe at the LHC. We are very excited about it."

The is named after Scottish physicist Peter Higgs, who among other physicists in the 1960s helped develop the theoretical model that explains why some particles have mass and others don't, a major step toward understanding the origin of mass. The model predicts the existence of a new particle, which has eluded experimental detection ever since. Only high-energy particle colliders such as the Tevatron, which was shut down in September 2011, and the , which produced its first collisions in November 2009, have the chance to produce the Higgs particle. About 1,700 scientists from U.S. institutions, including Fermilab, are working on the LHC experiments.

The Tevatron results indicate that the Higgs particle, if it exists, has a mass between 115 and 135 GeV/c2, or about 130 times the mass of the proton.

"During its life, the Tevatron must have produced thousands of Higgs particles, if they actually exist, and it's up to us to try to find them in the data we have collected," said Luciano Ristori, co-spokesperson of the CDF experiment and physicist at Fermilab and the Italian Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN) . "We have developed sophisticated simulation and analysis programs to identify Higgs-like patterns. Still, it is easier to look for a friend's face in a sports stadium filled with 100,000 people than to search for a Higgs-like event among trillions of collisions."

The final Tevatron results corroborate the Higgs search results that scientists from the Tevatron and the LHC presented at physics conferences in March 2012.

The search for the Higgs particle at the Tevatron focuses on a different decay mode than the search at the LHC. According to the theoretical framework known as the Standard Model of Particles, Higgs bosons can decay in many different ways. Just as a vending machine might return the same amount of change using different combinations of coins, the Higgs can decay into different combinations of particles. At the LHC, the experiments can most easily observe the existence of a Higgs particle by searching for its decay into two energetic photons. At the Tevatron, experiments most easily see the decay of a Higgs particle into a pair of bottom quarks.

Tevatron scientists found that the observed Higgs signal in the combined CDF and DZero data in the bottom-quark decay mode has a statistical significance of 2.9 sigma. This means there is only a 1-in-550 chance that the signal is due to a statistical fluctuation.

"We achieved a critical step in the search for the ," said Dmitri Denisov, DZero cospokesperson and physicist at Fermilab. "While 5-sigma significance is required for a discovery, it seems unlikely that the Tevatron collisions mimicked a Higgs signal. Nobody expected the Tevatron to get this far when it was built in the 1980s."

The Tevatron is one of eight particle accelerators and storage rings on the Fermilab site. The largest, operational accelerator at Fermilab now is the 2-mile-circumference Main Injector, which provides for the laboratory's neutrino and muon research programs.

Explore further: Cooling with molecules

More information: The CDF and DZero collaborations submitted their joint Higgs search results to the electronic preprint archive arXiv.org. The paper also is available at: tevnphwg.fnal.gov/results/SM_Higgs_Summer_12/

Related Stories

Tevatron experiments close in on favored Higgs mass range

Jul 21, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Experiments at the Department of Energy’s Fermilab are close to reaching the critical sensitivity that is necessary to look for the existence of a light Higgs particle. Scientists from both the CDF and ...

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 ...

New experiments constrain Higgs mass (w/Videos)

Mar 13, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- The territory where the Higgs boson may be found continues to shrink. The latest analysis of data from the CDF and DZero collider experiments at the U.S. Department of Energy's Fermilab now ...

Recommended for you

Cooling with molecules

15 hours ago

An international team of scientists have become the first ever researchers to successfully reach temperatures below minus 272.15 degrees Celsius – only just above absolute zero – using magnetic molecules. ...

Backpack physics: Smaller hikers carry heavier loads

Oct 21, 2014

Hikers are generally advised that the weight of the packs they carry should correspond to their own size, with smaller individuals carrying lighter loads. Although petite backpackers might appreciate the ...

User comments : 82

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

persecond
4 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2012
if the physicist find the Higgs particle,so we can define the mass.But I wonder that what situation gives the Higgs particle itself the mass.
it's like the Matryoshka doll.
Can you give me a explanation?
thx
Turritopsis
2.8 / 5 (8) Jul 02, 2012
There is very low statistical probability that the CERN teams results will oppose these conclusions by the TEVATRON teams.

The TEVATRON teams conclude that the Higgs Boson is in the data.

Most likely, the CERN teams will conclude the same.

The question is, will the signal be above the 5 sigma threshold (enough to constitute a discovery)?
El_Nose
4.1 / 5 (7) Jul 02, 2012
It's like explaining masterbation

It can interact with itself -- simply put

light is made of photons -- and photons are light

So the Higgs field gives mass --- the higgs particle is the equivalent of breaking off a piece of the field to examine. It would have a great deal of energy and be very unstable. The higgs particle is expected to decay extremely rapidly.
Osiris1
2.3 / 5 (11) Jul 02, 2012
Maybe 'persecond' has something there. A kind of 'superhiggs' field would be similar to the control grid in an old fashioned vacuum tube...a small force controlling a very large force. Sci-Fi writer/physicist/chemist/mathematician/engineer's as myself would make LOTS of capital on the possibility here implied that one could fashion a forcefield, perhaps an interquantumelectrodynamic one that could defeat inertia or at least oppose it in a working starship... And at the same time help or outright create a small pocket quasi-universe around it that can be arbitrarily moved whilst the ship is stationary within it, a bubble in spacetime impervious to collision to collisions from matter in the trajectory of the bubble universe. Such would be a true starship, and as long as it did not go too near, maybe, a black hole of size...well then read my books to come. Such a thing probably would strongly affect all electric fields, be capable of fantastic moves, and be very bright....
Kedas
2.5 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2012
So if there is a field, wouldn't it be possible that we sooner later find a way to make a whole in it?
(analogy: cages of Faraday)

casualjoe
5 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2012
Wow, I wonder what's going on beyond 200 Gev/c^2?
trekgeek1
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 02, 2012
So if there is a field, wouldn't it be possible that we sooner later find a way to make a whole in it?
(analogy: cages of Faraday)



I am not a particle physicist, so I can't say. However, I think it would be awesome if that was a possibility. If you could make a bubble around a spacecraft and make it massless, you could travel between stars much faster than we could otherwise. Again, sci-fi hopes, not physics.....yet.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2012
"what situation gives the Higgs particle itself the mass." - Foofie

It provides a sea of similar particles, and together they give each other their mass.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2012
The bubble boundary would still need to interact with the Higgs field outside.

You can't get there from here.

"If you could make a bubble around a spacecraft and make it massless" - trek
radek
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2012
can someone explain why Higgs boson is so elusive and decays so easily if it`s so common in nature?
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 02, 2012
can someone explain why Higgs boson is so elusive and decays so easily if it`s so common in nature?

Because it decays really really fast into other particles (much like quarks which don't stay quarks for a very long time)

Here's a really good (cartoon) movie on the why's and wherefores of the Higgs (and the LHC). Starts at around the 40 second mark.

http://apod.nasa....501.html
Pyle
3.7 / 5 (7) Jul 02, 2012
Going back to El Nose's "masterbation"...

The Higgs boson is the quanta of the Higgs field. i.e. the force carrier. As Nose states " the equivalent of breaking off a piece of the field".

Just as the W and Z bosons are the charge carriers of the magnetic field, you wouldn't find a Higgs boson just floating around today. Photons are different because they are massless. The equivalent on the Higgs side would be the graviton, which, theoretically, are all but impossible to detect individually.

@VD - On the bubble, are you so sure? Think of a microwave oven. The stuff inside is interacting, but nothing on the outside. If you could create a comparable bubble in the Higgs I think the effective mass of the bubble would be just the bubble "wall" and not whatever is inside. Just as the price to move the Faraday cage in a magnetic field depends on the charge of the cage itself, not the charge of whatever is shielded inside the cage.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2012
If anyone is interested in Science Fiction on "inertialess drives" you can go back to the 1930s and 1940s and read the Lensman series (starting with Triplanetary).

http://en.wikiped...E._Smith

The author E.E. (Doc) Smith had a fantastic imagination and produced some great books.
Nikstlitselpmur
1 / 5 (18) Jul 03, 2012
The Large Hadron Collider will produce roughly 15 petabytes (15 million gigabytes) of data annually, the LHC is now running at 100 million collisions per second

Theory of Accidental Excellence

If an infinite number of monkeys were left to bang on an infinite number of typewriters, sooner or later they would accidentally reproduce the complete works of William Shakespeare
vacuum-mechanics
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 03, 2012
By the way, lets assume that Higgs boson was found, then it seems that the Standard model was fulfilled. So next step is the final goal, i.e. Standard model + gravity = supergravity. And before reaching the final dream, what was has to be done is something like connect gravity with Higgs field! May this could be done by this unconventional idea.

http://www.vacuum...mid=9=en
Sean_W
1 / 5 (2) Jul 03, 2012
So then you have fields giving properties to stuff like the Higgs field for inertial mass, gravitational for the gravitational mass, (one type of interaction: attractive) and the electromagnetic field for charge and magnetic "spin" or whatever (positive/negative, north/south spin integers)...

Then we move on to the questions like: Why particles interact with these fields differently? Why the fields, which are supposed to be symmetrical at high energies are not at low energies?

If we answer those questions do we finally come to a rather simple description of matter/energy? Or does this just keep getting more confusing forever?

Nikstlitselpmur
1 / 5 (10) Jul 03, 2012
There are plenty of Higgsless models, I prefer "The SpaceTime Model" Spacetime explains all phenomena of the universe: gravity, quarks, antimatter, neutrinos...and gives mass to particles.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (14) Jul 03, 2012
Or does this just keep getting more confusing forever?

What do you mean by 'more confusing'? Nature doesn't have to comform to what human brains (which are geared towards searching for nuts and berries) find easy to understand.

Most certainly the deeper we go into things the less we will be able to match everyday analogies to it (like with photons where we already fail with either wave or particle analogies or with matter in general where the concept of what 'solid' or 'position' or 'momentum' become rather absurd the closer you look)

So yes. Stuff will get weirder (but more unified) the deeper we go.
It really all depends on what you want to use: Stuff that you can feel comfortable with (but which give you wrong answers and lead to erroneous assumptions about the nature of things - like field lines in elctromagnetism) or stuff that is abstract but give you the right answer (like field equations in electromagnetism)
AtlasT
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 03, 2012
What do you mean by 'more confusing'? Nature doesn't have to conform to what human brains... find easy to understand.
LOL, this is just what the "confusing" means. It doesn't matter, whether nature or whatever else is responsible for it. Why the mainstream science proponents have such problem to admit, the mainstream science is not infallible like the pope? Because every church is working so?
.. why Higgs boson is so elusive and decays so easily.. Because it decays really really fast into other particles..
So that Higgs boson decays easily, because it decays fast? This is very clever explanation, worth of many additional upvotes....
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (14) Jul 03, 2012
Why the mainstream science proponents have such problem to admit, the mainstream science is not infallible like the pope?

because that is like saying : "The sky is blue"
You don't need to restate it every day. It's common knowledge.

No one on the planet has ever claimed that science is infallible - least of all any scientist.

So that Higgs boson decays easily, because it decays fast? This is very clever explanation

If you watched the movie I linked to you will have noticed that it decays in like 10E-23 seconds. Much like quarks it can't really exist on its own (for long). So even if it were to move at the speed of light that's much too short for it to reach a detector. So you have to detect it by the (longer lived) decay products.

If it were stable it would be easy to detect (and would already have been detected long ago)

this is just what the "confusing" means

What is 'confusing' to one may not be so to another. Many find relativity confusing. Some don't.
AtlasT
1 / 5 (10) Jul 03, 2012
..no one on the planet has ever claimed that science is infallible - least of all any scientist...
It apparently doesn't apply to Big bang theory, cold fusion, antigravity devices, zero-point overunity motors, gravitational waves or aether model. Can you admit, that the science can be wrong in all of this? Because it looks so for me.
it decays in like 10E-23 seconds?
Your answer indicates, you're satisfied with such way of "explanation" (and your upvotes indicate, other people here are satisfied with explanation by using synonyms too.) The original question wasn't, HOW fast the Higgs decays, but WHY it decays so fast - can you distinguish it?
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (13) Jul 03, 2012
HOW fast the Higgs decays, but WHY it decays so fast

'Why' is a very iffy question at those timescales. You may be aware of the uncertainty principle which links two variables. The most known pair is momentum and position. But there are such pairs (called conjugate variables). One such pair is energy and time (another is angular momentum and angle).

So we should first find out whether the Higgs exists at all and THEN worry about why it decays so rapidly, don't you think?

BTW: A similar question of why it decays can also be asked of all quarks. The, only seemingly simple - but utterly correct - answer is: because it can (i.e. other particles cannot(!))

Remember that the Higgs (or a quark) is not a 'solid object' but a probability wavefunction. And cetain rules apply to wavefunctions with certain properties which can tell you how likely it is to decay into other particles (other wavefunctions).

WHY such particles have the energies they have - now there is a REAL doozy.
AtlasT
1 / 5 (9) Jul 03, 2012
In truth the Tevatron experiments are saying that the highest local significance in the bb final state alone is of 3.2 standard deviations, but this occurs for a Higgs mass hypothesis of 135 GeV, quite far from the mass of the Higgs boson estimated with LHC experiments. In this sense these two results are mutually inconsistent. The Tevatron experiments have been "one-sigma lucky", when their median sensitivity for a 125 GeV Higgs would have been just short of two-sigma.
'Why' is a very iffy question at those timescales.
So WHY not to simply say, you have no idea what to say about it and why are you pretending, you know the answer?
infinite_energy
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2012
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap120501.html

CERN cafeteria ... Do scientists really need food? Can't they be with just pure energy :)
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (10) Jul 03, 2012
So WHY not to simply say, you have no idea what to say about it and why are you pretending, you know the answer?

Who's pretending to know the answer? No one?

The point I was trying to make is that at those timescales your QUESTION may not make much sense (note the 'may'). Much like when someone asks "what was before time" or "what is beyond the universe".
Sure you can pose such questions. But before you sink a lot of time and money into trying to find an answer shouldnt you first take a good, hard look at whether the question isn't ill posed?
dzipo
1 / 5 (2) Jul 03, 2012
Isn't this prediction of Higgs a bit like - whatever deviation from expected result we observe is confirmation of Higgs (rather than some unknown effect/particle)?
And in that picture at the top of the article there is 2 sigma deviation form expected no-Higgs result at 200GeV as it seems. And shouldn't it be like compact peak if we would like to claim discovery? After all shouldn't Higgs boson have rather certain mass? Or can they have different masses in some range (something like photon energy).
AtlasT
1 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2012
What is ill with the question, why some particle decays faster than the another ones? The predictions of life-time of various isotopes belongs into important sector of nuclear physics. Why the life-time of Higgs boson should be an exception?
AtlasT
1 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2012
Isn't this prediction of Higgs a bit like - whatever deviation from expected result we observe is confirmation of Higgs (rather than some unknown effect/particle)?
The true is, the LHC results aren't consistent with Tevatron results and they're not inconsistent even with Standard Model. The physicists are just trying not to blame himself - currently for them it's more advantageous to pretend, that the resonance found corresponds their predictions then just to speculate about alternatives. They're risking the premature closure of LHC experiments due the financial crisis (which they initiated itself with their ignorance of cold fusion finding before twenty years). What would you do being at their place?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2012
Isn't this prediction of Higgs a bit like - whatever deviation from expected result we observe is confirmation of Higgs (rather than some unknown effect/particle)?

Not quite. There are a number of ways the Higgs can decay - but not ANY number of ways. So a lot of 'bumps' in other places would not be an indication for the Higgs.
After all shouldn't Higgs boson have rather certain mass?

You always get a smear. The Uncertainty principle plays a part in this (your detectors cannot pinpoint location and energy exactly).
But there's also the parts of the decay that you don't catch in the detector which can have a contribution (e.g. a lot of these decays produce neutrinos of some kind which don't get caught by the detectors. Or the decay products decay further (e.g. the Higgs-into-two-bottom-quarks line will quickly decay further - and the bottom quark can also decay into a number of things)

It's tricky stuff. There's a reason why you need something as big as the LHC.
AtlasT
1 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2012
Example of data: Standard Model Higgs (in dotted line) versus LHC Atlas finding...
So a lot of 'bumps' in other places would not be an indication for the Higgs
This is just what the Tevatron's results are about - a lotta bumps, but at different places.
The Uncertainty principle plays a part in this
You're just confusing different concepts. Why the detector doesn't play a part in observation of electron mass? We know the electron mass exactly.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2012
What is ill with the question, why some particle decays faster than the another ones?

Ths really goes into quantum mechanics - and I can only give you what I remember of it from uni (which is by no means all): But the way this works is that you have probabilities for getting from an initial state to an end state (if you want to see the math I suggest you google for the bra-ket notation/Dirac formalism).
By summing over the probabilities of all possible end states within a given time you can get a probability for any decay at all.

Note that there is no 'cause' for such a decay. Just by having many aways to decay in - which are highly likely - the average decay time can become very short. As I said: it decays fast because it can. (Other particles don't because they can't)

The Higgs has man possible way to decay (this is due to conservation of energy, angular momentum, spin, etc. fitting a lot of - high probability - 'end states')
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Jul 03, 2012
This is just what the Tevatron's results are about - a lotta bumps, but at different places.

As I said: there are a lot of possible ways for the Higgs to decay (A Higgs can decay along ANY of these lines. Much like some atomic nuclei can go through alpha or beta or gamma decay). So you'd EXPECT a lot of bumps. The thing is: The bumps must be in the right places (realtive to each other).

Where exactly the bumps line up is a matter of what the energy of the Higgs is. This is why you've heard so many press releases in the past of the Higgs not being in a particular energy range.

We know the electron mass exactly.

We know the rest mass. But we cannot pinpoint location and momentum of electrons flying out of the crashbox exactly (Heisenberg, remember? And we also don't know exactly what energy the crashing particles had for the same reason)
And when we detect we detect its energy (by its path) and location-also by its path. Both of which are smeared because of Heisenberg.

AtlasT
1 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2012
BTW Because the Standard Model cannot predict the mass of Higgs boson, the branching ratio is the only clue here. This is Higgs boson branching pie in accordance to Standard Model. It's evident, the di-photon events represents quite minute portion in it. But the most of the excitement from last results (including the Tevatron plot above) came from looking at two-photon events, even though those are expected to happen less than one percent of the time.
dzipo
5 / 5 (1) Jul 03, 2012
which they initiated itself with their ignorance of cold fusion finding before twenty years

This escapes my logic. Is cold fusion some mechanism how belief of physicists in it is converted into energy or what?
antialias_physorg
4.9 / 5 (10) Jul 03, 2012
BTW Because the Standard Model cannot predict the mass of Higgs boson

The standard model has no prediction of the masses for any particles except those made up of several others - like protons and neutrons. But there are no predictions for the masses of the quarks that make them up. Neither are there predictions for the masses of the other bosons (and leptons) in the chart.
Their values have been measured, but they are so all over the place that this is still one of those "WTF"-areas in physics.

Finding the Higgs boson is the attempt to remedy that, because the Higgs field may explain why those masses are the way they are.

This is Higgs boson branching pie in accordance to Standard Model
...only the 125GeV Higgs. For other energies it's different. If we find a Higgs then there's also the possibility that there are more than one type of Higgs (one Higgs is just the simplest model)
Turritopsis
1.8 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2012
The Higgs Boson is created by interaction of energy with the Higgs Field.

The naked Higgs Boson is unstable because the energy creating it is gone.

This is WHY the Higgs Boson decays so fast. When free of energy creating it, there is nothing to hold it together.
tkjtkj
not rated yet Jul 03, 2012
Re: Persecond 's comment:
"..But I wonder that what situation gives the Higgs particle itself the mass...
]

If we consider the proposal that the physical model of a tank of water (Higgs field) offers different resistance (accellerations) to objects of different shape moving thru it .. and thereby appreciate that different objects are affected differently (ie, masses vary) by the water (Higgs field), we then might imagine a flow of that water encountering another water flow, where both affect each other, it becomes easier to imagine that the Higgs field can react with itself, too. .. giving the Higgs mass, likewise.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2012
This is why the diphoton decay channel is sought after. Photons are massless energy. When 2 massive protons (or whatever nucleons, or whatever massive particles) collide, and massless energy emerges (aforementioned photons), we have evidence of uncoupling of energy (photons) from the Higgs Field.

In other words, the collision of 2 massive particles produces 2 massless particles. The mass (Higgs Boson) is lost in the collision event. This 'proves' the Higgs mechanism in a destructive form. It 'proves' the opposite of how mass is formed. It 'proves' how mass is lost. From this decoupling event (energy separating from the Higgs Field), working in reverse we gain knowledge on the coupling process (how energy forms mass by interacting with the Higgs Field).
AtlasT
1 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2012
..finding the Higgs boson is the attempt to remedy that, because the Higgs field may explain why those masses are the way they are..
At the moment, when Standard model CANNOT predict Higgs boson mass, then it allows whatever mass for Higgs boson and the Higgs boson mass is orthogonal to mass of quarks in SM. Whatever value will be equally correct and you cannot compute the quark mass from Higgs boson mass anyway. If we could do it, then we would get a narrow constrain of Higgs boson mass immediately, because the masses of all quarks are already known with high precision already. Got it?

Apparently you cannot handle this trivial logics at all, which explains, why you get upvotes for it immediately from community of another trolls. Because the trolls are defined just with their tendency to value a nonsense more, than the consequential logical thinking.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2012
The naked Higgs Boson is unstable because the energy creating it is gone.
This is WHY the Higgs Boson decays so fast. When free of energy creating it, there is nothing to hold it together.


That can't really be the cause, because, by that logic, if you pump enough energy in there to create an electron it should also decay as soon as you shut off the beam - yet it's stable.

Other stuff created is stable for longer or shorter periods of time.
E.g. the top quark and the Z-boson both have energies around the proposed one for the Higgs boson (the former a bit higher, and the latter a bit lower). Both decay orders of magnitude faster.
Other quarks are very much lighter. For example strange and down quark are merely 2 orders of magnitude apart by mass but 10 orders of magnitude apart by decay time.

So mass/energy of the particle is a very iffy indication of how stable stuff is or isn't relative to one another.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2012
Think of a water balloon submerged in a body of water, as a, proton submerged in the Higgs Field. The water is the Higgs Field. The rubber of the balloon is the energy of the quarks, the tension of the rubber is the gluons pulling the quarks together.

The Higgs Boson is unstable for this reason:

Get rid of the quark energy (pop the balloon). What happens to the pressurized water inside of the balloon? It is lost in the body of water.

The Higgs Boson, when freed of the energy creating it, is lost in the Higgs Field.
AtlasT
1 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2012
In particular, these trolls are fed with mainstream physics propaganda, which spreads an illusion, that the finding of Higgs boson mass will help us in finding of another particle mass (for to make the Higgs boson search more substantial and worth of spending billions of dollars). This is utter nonsense though - if such connection would exist, then we would already know quite exactly, where to look for Higgs boson at the mass spectrum, because only one possible value of Higgs boson mass would fit all experimental values of quark masses. But the true is, the Higgs boson finding is completely useless for it.
AtlasT
1 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2012
Think of a water balloon submerged in a body of water, as a, proton submerged in the Higgs Field. The water is the Higgs Field. The rubber of the balloon is the energy of the quarks, the tension of the rubber is the gluons pushing the water inside of the balloon together.... The Higgs Boson is unstable for this reason:.
LOL, you just demonstrate the prime example of sloppy thinking, which is typical for crackpots. They usually propose some model - but at the end they're not using it at all for their predictions - which will become ad-hoced and completely hand-waved in this way. This is very widespread mistake and the consequence of inconsistent non-consequential thinking.

WHERE the Higgs boson IS in this model? If it's nowhere, then you can say nothing about it just with using of this analogy. Got it?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2012
If we could do it, then we would get a narrow constrain of Higgs boson mass immediately,

Just thinking out loud here:
If they find the exact (or approximate) value for the Higgs boson by how it decays and narrow down the frequency of what it decays into then that can give you interaction rates between Higgs bosons and whatever it is that it gives mass to.

So if we set this interaction rate for something where we know the mass well (e.g. the electron) and we know the probability of interaction with electron relative to, say, top quark (as per the LHC data) - then we can check if the mass of the top quark (as measured) gives the correct result.

At the moment, when Standard model CANNOT predict Higgs boson mass

Yes. But since it's the Higgs that presumably confers mass it would be circular reasoning if it could. That's why the search for the Higgs was all over the place (energy-wise).
AtlasT
1 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2012
So if we set this interaction rate for something where we know the mass well (e.g. the electron) and we know the probability of interaction with electron relative to, say, top quark (as per the LHC data) - then we can check if the mass of the top quark (as measured) gives the correct result.
Nope, no such connection exists - or we would know, where to look for Higgs boson already many years. But the only truth is, that the Higgs boson (or whatever else it is in the current moment) was found with blind trial&error approach, i.e. with gradual exclusion of the whole energy spectrum searchable with LEP, Tevatron and LHC gradually during last twelve years.

http://www.popsci...logx.png

In another words, you've no idea of how Higgs search is actually working and you're living in illusions about power of Standard Model predictions regarding the Higgs boson.
ant_oacute_nio354
1 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2012
Higgs doesn't exist!
The mass is the electric dipole moment!

Antonio Saraiva
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2012
Nope, no such connection exists - or we would know, where to look for Higgs boson already many years.

Only if we knew the interaction rate. But since we knew neither (interaction rate nor energy) of the Higgs (almost) any value was up for grabs. As soon as we have one we can calculate the other.

So OF COURSE it was trial and error (though not completely blind trial and error. There are wide ranges where it couldn't lurk. But still the energy ranges where it could were huge.)
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Jul 03, 2012
WHERE the Higgs boson IS in this model?


The Higgs Boson is the pressurized water within the balloon.

And this is not a model. It is an explanation of the elusiveness and instability of the Higgs Boson.
AtlasT
1 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2012
The Higgs Boson is the pressurized water within the balloon.
Nope, it's the proton. You told us, that the water OUTSIDE of proton is the Higgs field, so that the Higgs boson cannot be INSIDE of it. Look, I'm not here for teaching you your own models...
It is an explanation of the elusiveness and instability of the Higgs Boson
Sorry, it isn't because of its apparent logical flaws..
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Jul 03, 2012
Apologies Zephir, I was riding on the assumption that you knew what a "water balloon" was. A "water balloon" is a balloon that is filled up with water.
AtlasT
1 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2012
A "water balloon" is a balloon that is filled up with water.
This is irrelevant to my objection above. You told us, that the water OUTSIDE of proton is the Higgs field, so that the Higgs boson cannot be INSIDE of it. Can you remain logically consistent at least in one single post?
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Jul 03, 2012
You're more dense than your Aether model.

'Think of a water balloon submerged in a body of water, as a, proton submerged in the Higgs Field. The water is the Higgs Field.'

I didn't state this:

-Think of a water balloon submerged in a body of water, as a, proton submerged in the Higgs Field. The water [outside of the balloon] is the Higgs Field, [and the water inside of the balloon is not the Higgs Field].- which you keep imagining I did.

'The water is the Higgs Field.' Water is present OUTSIDE of the "water balloon", and INSIDE of the "water balloon".
AtlasT
1 / 5 (2) Jul 03, 2012
You're more dense than your Aether model.
Just consequential... OK, so that the water both inside both outside of water balloon is the Higgs field. What represents the Higgs boson in this model?
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (2) Jul 03, 2012
Theory of Accidental Excellence

If an infinite number of monkeys were left to bang on an infinite number of typewriters, sooner or later they would accidentally reproduce the complete works of William Shakespeare


Ah, but would the Monkeys be able to explain what made the works of William Shakespeare excellent, or even understand them at all?
Turritopsis
1.9 / 5 (7) Jul 03, 2012
'The Higgs Boson is the pressurized water within the balloon.

And this is not a model. It is an explanation of the elusiveness and instability of the Higgs Boson.'
Turritopsis
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2012
Why isn't this a model? - should be your question Zephir.

Because, the Higgs Field theory describes the formation of mass.

My explanation does nothing of the sort. My explanation provides the reason as to why the Higgs Boson is so hard to find.
AtlasT
1.3 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2012
'The Higgs Boson is the pressurized water within the balloon.
You told us above, that the water is the Higgs field. Now you're telling us, this water is actually a Higgs boson itself. Sorry, you cannot use an explanation of Higgs boson properties, in which Higgs boson is equivalent to Higgs field. Because these two concepts aren't identical in reality, such an explanation is wrong from its very beginning. BTW What the Higgs field and Higgs boson is supposed to be in dense aether model? Did you get some idea about it?
Turritopsis
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 03, 2012
It is looking for water inside of water. We can't see the Higgs Boson, the Higgs Boson is the Higgs Field. The way we discover the Higgs Boson is by finding the *popped balloon pieces*. We know the "water balloon" was there before we destroyed it. Finding parts of the "water balloon" allows us to know that the water that was inside of it is now a part of the "body of water".

In the case of nucleons (which are massive), when we find the nucleon energy in a massless form (like photons), we know the mass, the Higgs Boson, has returned to the Higgs Field.
El_Nose
4.7 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2012
wow

turritopsis did give a good explanation - you people are just being too literal

the higgs field is at least the size of the universe and superimposed on the universe

if you hit two particles hard enough -- you might break off a piece of the field and 'see' a higgs boson. or higgs force carrier

water is the field -- the h2o molecule is the force carrier of the field.
-----------

as to other particles -- you might not realize this but quarks are fields -- so that makes all bayronic matter fields -- extrapolate as you like

---------------

space is mostly empty
Archea
1 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2012
We can't see the Higgs Boson, the Higgs Boson is the Higgs Field.
It isn't.
Finding parts of the "water balloon" allows us to know that the water that was inside of it is now a part of the "body of water".
If I remember well, you claimed to explain the instability of Higgs boson with it. Actually you analogy is wrong even in the point, that the "finding parts of the "water balloon" allows us to know that the water that was inside of it", because the analysis of water balloon popped in water doesn't tell us about composition of water at least a bit. The balloon of yours is baloney and you're cheating us by pretending, you're explaining something - but you don't. So we should be upset with you..
turritopsis did give a good explanation
Try to reproduce this explanation - and we'll see..;-) The abstract ad-hoced character of mainstream physics has lead into the complete lost of sense for logical explanation and analogies between people.
Pyle
1 / 5 (1) Jul 03, 2012
Try to reproduce this explanation - and we'll see..;-)

It was a good analogy. Like all analogies it is only useful to a limited extent. Obviously this analogy can't be extended too far since quantum particles/waveforms aren't really anything like water or rubber, actually funny that Zephir with his intuitivity isn't drooling all over it.

To recreate it. The issue was why isn't the Higgs stable. In the colliders the idea is to create a Higgs, but we can only detect it by the remnants of its decay because it is unstable. This would be analogous to looking at the rubber pieces left after the ultra-thin Higgs water balloon popped. In the case of a proton the balloon material would be thicker and you could detect it in the water, but the thinner Higgs balloon doesn't stick around so all you see is chaff. No, the decay of a Higgs is nothing like bits of rubber, but the idea is loosely analogous.
radek
1 / 5 (2) Jul 03, 2012
what is the source of Higgs field? Is it`s force is consistant everywhere (why if so)?
Nikstlitselpmur
1 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2012


Ah, but would the Monkeys be able to explain what made the works of William Shakespeare excellent, or even understand them at all?

If you tickle a monkey, does it not laugh?
Pyle
1 / 5 (1) Jul 03, 2012
More on energy and stability. AP said that mass and energy can't be directly linked to stability and cited examples of when mass was more and decay is slower and faster, etc. All good stuff.

In my previous comment I put "you wouldn't find a Higgs boson just floating around today". (quoting myself, egomaniac that I am. Wohoo!) If we go back to just after the Big Bang this probably isn't so. At some point, probably before supersymmetry breaking, the Higgs, if it existed, might have been "stable" or at least regularly in the mix of unstableness.

Pure conjecture. Nobody knows, certainly not me.

Oops on my earlier comment. You could detect the proton balloon in the water, not the proton balloon's chaff. Just to clarify my "it".
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Jul 03, 2012
The Higgs Boson doesn't actually decay into anything. In a proton-proton collision it is the protons that decay. The Higgs Boson is the fleeting mass produced from the excitation of the Higgs Field.
--
In a diphoton decay event, the 2 protons (which are massive) become 2 'powerful' gamma photons (which are massless). So, we have a conversion of massive particles (nucleons) into massless particles (photons).

What this means is that the energy of the 2 protons has uncoupled from the Higgs Field (which gives particles their mass).

The Higgs Boson doesn't decay into anything, it just falls into a state of lower excitement (read the Higgs Boson rejoins the Higgs field).

It is the massive proton energy that becomes massless photon energy, the mass (the Higgs Boson) stays behind.

This shows the uncoupling of energy from the Higgs Field.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jul 03, 2012
So if there is a field, wouldn't it be possible that we sooner later find a way to make a whole in it?
(analogy: cages of Faraday)


I am not a particle physicist, so I can't say. However, I think it would be awesome if that was a possibility. If you could make a bubble around a spacecraft and make it massless, you could travel between stars much faster than we could otherwise. Again, sci-fi hopes, not physics.....yet.
Your speculations are of course not new:
http://en.wikiped...ss_drive

Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Jul 03, 2012
Showing that energetic particles of mass - can become - energetic massless particles - provides evidence - of a mass generating field.

The primary design of the LHC was to do just that, it was designed to show that a Universal field exists. The Higgs Field.

Obviously this analogy can't be extended too far since quantum particles/waveforms aren't really anything like water or rubber, actually its funny that Zephir with his intuitivity isn't drooling all over it.


I crafted the explanation exclusively for him. I thought the water analogy would resonate well, I'm just as surprised as you are with his objections. I think he is still missing the point, the analogy isn't meant to explain the Higgs Field, it is meant to explain the difficulty of finding the Higgs Boson.
Archea
1 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2012
what is the source of Higgs field? Is it`s force is consistant everywhere (why if so)?
It's difficult to say, what the universe is actually composed of - but it should be rather random than zero or whatever else particular value. After then the model of random gas may serve as a physically relevant model of this randomness. In dense aether theory the space-time is composed with density gradient of particles field in similar way, like the water surface or membranes of foam. The density fluctuations of this particle (i.e. scalar) field, which are manifesting like the Brownian noise at the water surface would correspond the Higgs bosons at quantum scale, the CMBR noise at the human observer scale or the streaks of dark matter at the cosmic scale.
Archea
1 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2012
We cannot see the aether particle by itself, only less or more structured fluctuations of it in similar way, like inside the water only density fluctuations are observable - not the molecules of water itself. You may believe in aether or not - but the scalar Higgs field is the stuff, which we could recognize in dense aether model at smallest distances. With increasing distance from human observer scale this perspective becomes more and more fuzzy in similar way, like the distant objects observed inside of foggy landscape. So that all complexity of aether fluctuations will disappear - only scalar density fluctuations will remain. One of aspects of this model is, it's symmetric with respect to human scale, so that the largest observable artifacts on the sky (dark matter foam) should be geometrically similar to the smallest observable ones (quantum foam) and it should follow the hypersphere packing geometry described with root vectors of Lie E8 group arranged in nested dodecahedrons.
Archea
1 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2012
I thought the water analogy would resonate well, I'm just as surprised as you are with his objections.
I just wanted to point you to the water analogy more consequentially. The density fluctuations of water can be observed at different energy density, the higher energy you will use, the faster and more shortliving these density fluctuations should be. Therefore the Higgs bosons must be one of least stable particles at all. When some massive particle decides to decompose, it may appear inside of some temporary density fluctuation of vacuum. When this fluctuation will decay, then the particle will decay together with it, i.e. in symmetric way. This indicates the way, in which the density fluctuations of Higgs field may be detected in particle colliders. When some particle will decay into two halves, the momentum of whose is roughly equal (with consideration of different angles of observation, indeed), then there is high probability, that the Higgs boson contributed to its decay.
Nikstlitselpmur
1 / 5 (7) Jul 03, 2012
In physics, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on the phenomenon being observed.

Quantum quackery, debunks itself, observed photon collisions provide proof of existence of Higgs boson, however when you apply the "observer effect" a QM tenant, you find the existence of an observer effects the outcome. So according to QM if you didn't observe the experiment, the Higgs wouldn't exist, and if you do observe it, it does exist.or vica versa, and other such nonsense.

The infamous double slit experiment, "The grand daddy of quantum weirdness"

http://www.youtub...eprQ7oGc
Pyle
not rated yet Jul 03, 2012
@Turriptosis
The Higgs Boson doesn't actually decay into anything.

Really? I am pretty sure this isn't so. I am pretty sure that some very small percentage of the proton-proton collisions generate a Higgs boson which then decays. The researchers are looking for the signature of the decay in the trillions of data points collected.

Massive stuff decaying into massless energetic stuff doesn't prove the Higgs mechanism. We know this happens. The Higgs mechanism is "proved" by the existence of the Higgs boson that the theory predicts. *I think*
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Jul 03, 2012
@Turriptosis
The Higgs Boson doesn't actually decay into anything.

Really? I am pretty sure this isn't so. I am pretty sure that some very small percentage of the proton-proton collisions generate a Higgs boson which then decays. The researchers are looking for the signature of the decay in the trillions of data points collected.

Massive stuff decaying into massless energetic stuff doesn't prove the Higgs mechanism. We know this happens. The Higgs mechanism is "proved" by the existence of the Higgs boson that the theory predicts. *I think*


You're right. The protons convert their energy into field potential (the protons merge forming a Higgs Boson). The Higgs boson then blasts apart via varying possible decay modes.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Jul 03, 2012
It all goes back to prediction. The Higgs Boson is predicted to have certain decay routes. During collisions some decay routes match those predicted. When the collision decay channel equals the predicted decay channel, (so when theory matches experiment), it is a good indicator that the Higgs Boson was produced.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Jul 03, 2012
The Higgs Boson is the Singularity of the Big Bang. The predicted decay channels are the same.

Big Bang hypothesis:
Singularity decays to light (high energy gamma). Light then decays to positrons and electrons.
- this is 1 possible decay channel for the Higgs boson. Higgs boson decays to high energy Gamma photons, those gamma photons then decay to electrons and positrons.
ant_oacute_nio354
1 / 5 (7) Jul 04, 2012
Higgs doesn't exist, the mass is the electric dipole moment.
Antonio Saraiva
AtlasT
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 04, 2012
The Higgs Boson is the Singularity of the Big Bang. The predicted decay channels are the same.
The nonsense like this make the censorship of crackpots substantial - why I should support the people like you, after then?
Pyle
3 / 5 (3) Jul 05, 2012
why I should support the people like you, after then?


HAHA! Very funny Zephir. After all the times you have been shown to be so very wrong this is quite rich.

Here is an alternate to the observed signal being the Higgs. Don't ask me to explain the particulars. It is a bit past my threshhold. But since it comes from the author of my favorite beyond the Standard Model theory I thought I would throw it in here.

Has A 125 GeV Pseudoscalar Resonance Been Observed at the LHC?
http://arxiv.org/...4702.pdf

I am sure there are countless other possibilities as well.
canuckit
3 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2012
Too little, too late.
lNIN
1 / 5 (10) Jul 07, 2012
Seems they could have used .00001% of 10 billion dollars investing in the work of NASSIM HARAMEIN that would yield far better answers not to mention an understanding of the TORUS and real KEY to FREE ENERGY and structure of the VACUUM. Such a waste of science IMO... how can you ever find a particle that is ultimately a fractal of Sacred Geometry and technically really doesn't even exist anyways!! lol wwwyoutubecom/watch?v=hx5DbUNRAjg&feature=youtu.be
frukc
5 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2012
most amaizing thing about all this higgs boson search is the way it's took theoretical physic from small group of geeks to masses. lately many physicists explaining quantum physic to milions thru all kind of media must have made minds of some to discover interest in sciences. i hope it will result in more students in this field of study. more enlightened society!
rkilburn81
1 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2012
The discovery of the Higgs Boson, the particle that gives matter its mass, means there is most likely a Higgs field.
Is there a relationship with this field and the space/time lattice bent and curved by the presence of matter that we observe as gravity?
Aren't they not one and the same?