Now confident: CERN physicists say new particle is Higgs boson (Update 3)

Mar 14, 2013 by John Heilprin
Simulated production of a Higgs event in ATLAS. Image credit: CERN.

Physicists said Thursday they are now confident they have discovered a crucial subatomic particle known as a Higgs boson—a major discovery that will go a long ways toward helping them explain why the universe is the way it is.

It helps solve one of the most fundamental riddles of the universe: how the Big Bang created something out of nothing 13.7 billion years ago.

In what could go down as one of the great Eureka! moments in physics—and win somebody the Nobel Prize—scientists said Thursday that after a half-century quest, they are confident they have found a Higgs boson, the elusive subatomic speck sometimes called the "God particle."

The existence of the particle was theorized in 1964 by the British physicist Peter Higgs to explain why matter has mass. Scientists believe the particle acts like molasses or snow: When other tiny basic building blocks pass through it, they stick together, slow down and form atoms.

Scientists at CERN, the Geneva-based European Organization for Nuclear Research, announced in July that they had found something that looked like the Higgs boson, but they weren't certain, and they needed to go through the data and rule out the possibility it wasn't something else.

On Thursday, they said they believe they got it right.

"To me it is clear that we are dealing with a Higgs boson, though we still have a long way to go to know what kind of Higgs boson it is," said Joe Incandela, a physicist who heads one of the two main teams at CERN, each involving about 3,000 scientists.

Whether or not it was a Higgs boson had to be demonstrated by how it interacts with other particles and its quantum properties, CERN said. The data "strongly indicates that it is a Higgs boson," it said.

The discovery explains what once seemed unexplainable and still is a bit hard for the average person to comprehend. But it means the key theory that scientists use to explain everything works—for now, at least.

Its discovery could be a strong contender for the Nobel, though it is uncertain whether the prize would go to the 83-year-old Peter Higgs and the others who first proposed the theory, or to the thousands of scientists who found it, or to all of them.

Finding it wasn't easy. It took more than two decades, thousands of scientists and mountains of data from trillions of colliding protons.

And it needed the world's biggest atom smasher—CERN's Large Hadron Collider, which cost $10 billion to build and run in a 17-mile (27-kilometer) tunnel beneath the Swiss-French border—to produce the extreme surge of energies simulating those 1 trillionth to 2 trillionths of a second after the Big Bang.

The Higgs boson is so elusive that only about one collision per trillion will produce one of them in the collider.

CERN said it is open question whether this is the Higgs boson that was expected in the original formulation, or the lightest of several Higgses predicted in some theories that go beyond that model.

"We found a new particle and we want to know how it behaves, and maybe it behaves the way it was predicted in 1964, maybe it's a little bit different," said physicist Sean Carroll of the California Institute of Technology, who isn't involved in the research.

Finding a Higgs more or less as expected is actually a bit deflating, Carroll said, because physicists had also hoped that an unexpected type of Higgs might open windows into yet more mysteries of the universe.

"Scientists always want to be wrong in their theories. They always want to be surprised," he said. "It's a bittersweet victory when your theory turns out to be right, because it means, on the one hand, you're right, that's nice, but on the other hand, you haven't learned anything new that's surprising."

Some of the remaining mysteries including why gravity is so weak and what is the dark matter that is believed to make up a large part of the total mass in the universe, said Patty McBride, who heads a center at the Fermilab in Chicago.


CERN's statement:

New results indicate that new particle is a Higgs boson

At the Moriond Conference today, the ATLAS and CMS collaborations at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) presented preliminary new results that further elucidate the particle discovered last year. Having analysed two and a half times more data than was available for the discovery announcement in July, they find that the new particle is looking more and more like a Higgs boson, the particle linked to the mechanism that gives mass to . It remains an open question, however, whether this is the Higgs boson of the , or possibly the lightest of several bosons predicted in some theories that go beyond the Standard Model. Finding the answer to this question will take time.

Whether or not it is a Higgs boson is demonstrated by how it interacts with other particles, and its quantum properties. For example, a Higgs boson is postulated to have no spin, and in the Standard Model its parity – a measure of how its mirror image behaves – should be positive. CMS and ATLAS have compared a number of options for the spin-parity of this particle, and these all prefer no spin and positive parity. This, coupled with the measured interactions of the new particle with other particles, strongly indicates that it is a Higgs boson.

"The preliminary results with the full 2012 data set are magnificent and to me it is clear that we are dealing with a Higgs boson though we still have a long way to go to know what kind of Higgs boson it is," says CMS spokesperson Joe Incandela.

"The beautiful new results represent a huge effort by many dedicated people. They point to the new particle having the spin-parity of a Higgs boson as in the Standard Model. We are now well started on the measurement programme in the Higgs sector," says ATLAS spokesperson Dave Charlton.

To determine if this is the Higgs boson, the collaborations have, for example, to measure precisely the rate at which the boson decays into other particles and compare the results to the predictions. The detection of the boson is a very rare event – it takes around 1 trillion (1012) proton-proton collisions for each observed event. To characterize all of the decay modes will require much more data from the LHC.

This 2011 image provided by CERN, shows a real CMS proton-proton collision in which four high energy electrons (green lines and red towers) are observed in a 2011 event. The event shows characteristics expected from the decay of a Higgs boson but is also consistent with background Standard Model physics processes. Physicists say they are now confident they have discovered a long-sought subatomic particle known as a Higgs boson. The European Organization for Nuclear Research, called CERN, says Thursday March 14, 2013 a look at all the data from 2012 shows that what they found last year was a version of what is popularly referred to as the 'God particle.' (AP Photo/CERN)

A closer look at the Higgs boson

Scientists working at the world's biggest atom smasher near Geneva have announced they are confident that the new subatomic particle discovered last summer is a version of the long-sought Higgs boson. The particle bears key attributes of the so-called "God particle" that was theorized nearly a half-century ago as fundamental to the creation of the universe. It took thousands of scientists from around the world to hunt the particle in the atom-smasher operated by CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research.

WHAT EXACTLY IS THE GOD PARTICLE?

Everything is made of atoms, inside of which are electrons, protons and neutrons. And those, in turn, are made of quarks and other subatomic particles. Scientists have wondered how these tiny building blocks of the universe acquire mass. Without mass, the particles wouldn't hold together—and there would be no matter.

One theory proposed by British physicist Peter Higgs and teams in Belgium and the United States nearly a half-century ago is that a new particle must be creating a "sticky" energy field that acts as a drag on other particles. The atom-smashing experiments have now confirmed that this particle exists in a form that is similar to—but perhaps not exactly like—what was proposed.

WHY DOES THIS MATTER?

The Higgs is part of many theoretical equations underpinning scientists' understanding of how the world came into being. If the particle didn't exist, then those theories would have needed to be fundamentally overhauled. The fact that it does exist, in some form, means scientists have been on the right track with their theories. So far the measurements seem to line up with was expected under the so-called Standard Model of particle physics. This is disappointing for scientists who were hoping to see new discoveries including a theory known as "super-symmetry" where particles don't just come in pairs—think matter and anti-matter—but quadruplets, all with slightly different characteristics.

HOW MUCH DID IT COST?

CERN's atom smasher, the Large Hadron Collider, which forms a 17-mile (27-kilometer) tunnel beneath the Swiss-French border, cost some $10 billion to build and run. This includes the salaries of thousands of scientists and support staff around the world who collaborated on the two experiments that independently pursued the Higgs.

WHAT IF ANY PRACTICAL RESULTS MIGHT COME FROM THE SEARCH?

None directly. But the massive scientific effort that led up to the discovery paid off in other ways, including the creation of the World Wide Web. CERN scientists developed it to make it easier to exchange information among each other. The vast computing power needed to crunch all of the data produced by the atom smasher also boosted the development of distributed—or cloud—computing, that is now entering mainstream services. Advances in solar energy capture, medical imaging and proton therapy—used in the fight against cancer—also resulted from the work of particle physicists at CERN and elsewhere.

WHAT COMES NEXT

It remains an open question, CERN says, whether this is exactly the Higgs boson of the Standard Model of particle physics, or possibly the lightest of several bosons predicted in some theories that go beyond the Standard Model. Finding the answer to this question will take time, as scientists keep probing the new particle until they fully understand how it works. And in doing so, they hope to understand the 96 percent of the universe that remains hidden from view. This may result in the discovery of new particles and even unknown forces of nature.

Explore further: Information storage for the next generation of plastic computers

4 /5 (43 votes)

Related Stories

Interview: CERN chief firmer on Higgs boson

Jan 27, 2013

The world should know with certainty by the middle of this year whether a subatomic particle discovered by scientists is a long-sought Higgs boson, the head of the world's largest atom smasher said Saturday.

Recommended for you

Better thermal-imaging lens from waste sulfur

12 hours ago

Sulfur left over from refining fossil fuels can be transformed into cheap, lightweight, plastic lenses for infrared devices, including night-vision goggles, a University of Arizona-led international team ...

How to test the twin paradox without using a spaceship

Apr 16, 2014

Forget about anti-ageing creams and hair treatments. If you want to stay young, get a fast spaceship. That is what Einstein's Theory of Relativity predicted a century ago, and it is commonly known as "twin ...

User comments : 103

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

vlaaing peerd
4.3 / 5 (14) Mar 14, 2013
ok, now give the guy a nobel prize.
Benni
2 / 5 (20) Mar 14, 2013
What will interest me most is the methodology to prove this is a "no spin" particle. All particles known to date must have "spin" to remain stable. A particle with "no-spin" will not have magnetic polarity precisely because of it's "no-spin" nature.

Proving the "no spin" nature for the existence of the Higgs-boson cannot be realized with current technology, they really do have a lot further to go on this, but at least they're trying, give them kudos for that.
Mayday
2.9 / 5 (9) Mar 14, 2013
Personally, I love the way the press grabs onto the whole "god particle" thing. I think the folks at CERN should just go with it and own it. Have the pope stop by to bless it. What a trip.
EyeNStein
1.4 / 5 (14) Mar 14, 2013

I find the "God particle" hype tiresome, but I supose it brings in the funding. I'm glad that the 126Gev particle smells like a Higgs and sounds like a Higgs and makes the standard model more complete. It makes the next questions to ask clearer and it gives the theoreticians something to chew on while the LHC has its upgrade to test higher energy theories including strings and dark matter. Then the next "God Particle / field theory" may bring Gravity into the equation?
vacuum-mechanics
1.2 / 5 (21) Mar 14, 2013
Physicists said Thursday they are now confident they have discovered a crucial subatomic particle known as a Higgs boson—a major discovery that will go a long ways toward helping them explain why the universe is the way it is.

It seems to be so, but not yet until we could include gravity to hold the universe! Maybe this could help to solve the mentioned problems.
http://www.vacuum...=9〈=en
frajo
2.9 / 5 (16) Mar 14, 2013
to me it is clear that we are dealing with a Higgs boson though we still have a long way to go to know what kind of Higgs boson it is
Somehow the vocabulary has changed. While formerly the key term always was "the Higgs boson" all of a sudden they now use "kinds of Higgs bosons".
This change in language is suspicious because it is unexplained.
antialias_physorg
3.6 / 5 (20) Mar 14, 2013
This change in language is suspicious because it is unexplained.

It's not really clear how many Higgs bosons there are (and you will find this in all press confernces of CERN, especially in the 2 hour video where they showed the data).

The simplest theory predicts one Higgs boson with spin zero. But there are alternatives where several Higgs bosons of various spins can coexist.
As of Feburary 2013 spin 1 has already been ruled out by the decay pattern, and spin 2 seems unlikely given the currently collected data - though that's still not in the significant figures.

At this point we can't say, conclusively, whether nature behaves according to the 'simple' case or not. But it certainly looks like it.
Achille
4.2 / 5 (13) Mar 14, 2013
Somehow the vocabulary has changed. While formerly the key term always was "the Higgs boson" all of a sudden they now use "kinds of Higgs bosons".
This change in language is suspicious because it is unexplained.


No sudden change at all. It all depends which press article you read before, but since the very beginning it was made clear by CERN physicists it was a Higgs-like particle until they can formally identify it.
mohammadshafiq_khan_1
1.4 / 5 (22) Mar 14, 2013
They are befooling themselves & other ignorant people because the very paradigm of physics under which they are doing research has been shown to be incorrect and openly challenged. Open challenge could be seen World Science Database & General Science Journal in my profile.
EyeNStein
2.6 / 5 (20) Mar 14, 2013
The reason it takes time to formally identify the 126 Gev particle as a 'Higgs type' is the huge number of decay products a particle this massive can decay into. The sum of the products can confirm the mass/energy but not give specifics. A few tell tale specific special decay paths are indicative of a Boson with zero spin and the production of the 'particles it gives mass to' (ie the weak force bosons) as predicted by the Higgs field theory. (Though the theory wasn't accurate enough to predict a Higgs type particle mass only exclude some mass value bands.) It takes time for those special decay numbers to reach sigma 5 probability and become a confirmed 'discovery'.
Achille
3.9 / 5 (8) Mar 14, 2013
Proving the "no spin" nature for the existence of the Higgs-boson cannot be realized with current technology, they really do have a lot further to go on this, but at least they're trying, give them kudos for that.


You can mesure it by observing the decay patterns. The photon-photon decay pattern rules out the spin 1 alternative. And you must understand the spin cannot be measured directly as for many other particles because they are disintegrating almost immediately, you always reconstruct from the decay channels.
daywalk3r
2.4 / 5 (14) Mar 14, 2013
ok, now give the guy a nobel prize.

No worries, regardless of whether the theory has any resemblance to reality, he (et al.) will get it.

On a similar note, the "particle" will also end up being called a Higgs, regardless of whether it confers mass or has anything to do with a hypothetical Higgs field..

That said, I think the Nobels should be awarded for lifetime contributions rather than (the nowadays typical) flavour-of-the-month one-timers, which can easily end up being proven ultimately wrong a couple of years/decades later..

But in this case - even if the theory doesn't hold up against the test of time - for all what the search for the elusives has led to (sideline discoveries, advancements, motivation, popularization, etc.), Higgs et al. probably well deserve a Nobel.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (28) Mar 14, 2013
Nobel prize was originally dedicated for findings of practical importance and utilitarian significance for human society. Nobel was humanist and not sponzor of some void theories (which is why we have no Nobel prize for mathematicians, after all).


Ya are getting it garbled again Zeph. Actually many Nobels have been awarded to "mathematics". Beginning with Lorentz in 1902. More Nobels in Physics have been awarded to theoretical physicists for some mathematical item than any "practical" or "utilitarian" thing.

"Practical" and "Utilitarian" was never the criteria espoused in Nobel's founding of the prizes. It was for the peaceful expanding of knowledge and expanding fundamental understanding.

True, there no prize awarded for "Mathematics", but many many mathematicians have been awarded one for maths. Most often in theoretical physics, one in literature, and several in economics.
Milou
1.5 / 5 (12) Mar 14, 2013
I love the way this thing (particle) comes out the same time as the Pope (God like). Looks like it put a real "spin" on things!!! More power to everyone.
PhyOrgSux
1.9 / 5 (14) Mar 14, 2013
So if those signs of Higgs was not actually Higgs, what else could they be? Would they be traces of some unidentified particle/phenomena or are there any other alternatives?
arq
3 / 5 (4) Mar 14, 2013
Did they confirm what they discovered last year or did they discover an entirely new one?
antialias_physorg
3.8 / 5 (17) Mar 14, 2013
Did they confirm what they discovered last year or did they discover an entirely new one?

The confirmed what they discovered last year. Last year they found a particle that had an energy consistent with where the Higgs boson should be (although at that time it could, conceivably, still have been some particle that just happens to also show up at that energy). That is why you always read about 'Higgs-like' particles, or 'possible finding of Higgs boson' last year. They knew that they had found something. But it wasn't absolutely conclusive that it was the Higgs.

Now they have more closely characterized what they have found the attributes seem to match more an more what a Higgs boson is supposed to look like. I.e. they are now simply more certain that it isn't just 'a Higgs or some other' particle but indeed a Higgs.
Tausch
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 14, 2013
Signatures have become expensive.
No other particle can handle the job.

On the dotted line.
Thanks.
EyeNStein
1.1 / 5 (15) Mar 14, 2013
Now that the Higgs is officially a discovery we should call the Higgs field theoretical rather than hypothetical.
Hypothetical can be a blue sky dumb idea and theoretical means it is looking like a proven phenomenon. (until someone improves or disproves the theory that is.)
ant_oacute_nio354
1.2 / 5 (23) Mar 14, 2013
The Higgs boson doesn't exist.
The mass is an electric dipole moment of the particles.

Antonio Jose Saraiva

The standard model is all wrong.
EyeNStein
1.8 / 5 (15) Mar 14, 2013
Whereas it is a 'fact' (i.e. neither theory nor hypothesis) that some of the contributors here need to know the difference between theory and fable.
We should be thankful that the guys at the LHC have correctly climbed the cautious and credible scientific ladder from an idea up to a working theory- with much effort and computer power.
Pressure2
1.9 / 5 (12) Mar 14, 2013
Quote from article: "Physicists announced Thursday they believe they have discovered the subatomic particle predicted nearly a half-century ago, which will go a long way toward explaining what gives electrons and all matter in the universe size and shape."

What happened to "giving mass" to all matter?

ant_oacute_nio354
1.5 / 5 (17) Mar 14, 2013

m = q.k'/x ; k' = k ( 1 - pi^3.alpha^2 /2 )

kilogram = Coulomb x meter

m-mass;q-electron charge;k-Boltzmann constant(square meter or farad);x-Compton wavelength;pi=3.1415927;alpha-fine structure constant.
ARE YOU BLIND??? OR WHAT.

Antonio Jose Saraiva

ajps137@gmail.com
ant_oacute_nio354
1.2 / 5 (17) Mar 14, 2013
m = q.k'/x ; k' = k ( 1 - pi^3.alpha^2 /2 )

Kilogram = Coulomb x meter

m-mass;q-electron charge;k-Boltzmann constant(square meter or farad),x-Compton wavelength;pi=3.1415927;alpha-fine structure constant.

ARE YOU BLIND OR WHAT????

Antonio Jose Saraiva

ajps137@gmail.com
Pressure2
1.6 / 5 (13) Mar 14, 2013
If a Kilogram (mass) = Coulomb x meter what is the need for a Higgs particle?

PhyOrgSux
1.5 / 5 (15) Mar 14, 2013
eh so if mass is caused by the electric dipole moment then is there a way to modify the dipole moment so as to make, lets say, my car much lighter? This would allow me to save gasoline.
RichManJoe
3 / 5 (6) Mar 14, 2013
Where do they say what the energy level of the Higgs is? An incredible verbose article with very little information.
ant_oacute_nio354
1.7 / 5 (18) Mar 14, 2013
The mass is an intrinsic propertie, nothing must give the particles theyre mass. What needs an artificial mass are the particles of the standard model because they have mass zero.
THe Higgs boson is an mathematical abstraction as all the standard model.
ant_oacute_nio354
1.2 / 5 (17) Mar 14, 2013
The particles in the standard model can't have also electric dipole moment or they can have a very litle one.
Don't you see?
Everything is made of speed and distance, we don't need any other units. Time is a derived unit and doesn't exist in nature.
The thruth is this: all modern physics based on abstract mathematics is wrong -- relativity (spacetime doesn't exist);quantum mechanics with no meaning; quantum electrodynamics and the standard model. Quantum gravity, supersymmetry, m theory are stupidity. Physics has turned to a wrong way -- it's all wrong.

Antonio Jose Saraiva
bart_laws
2.8 / 5 (9) Mar 14, 2013
This article contains several inaccuracies. I'll just highlight some of the most important.

The so-called "Big Bang" was not a "massive explosion." The name is misleading, to be sure. I have argued for calling it the "Initial Singularity," the IS. Anyway, nothing exploded. The universe expanded very rapidly from a condition of (apparently) infinite density. But space itself expanded; nothing exploded.

The Higgs field is not generated by the Higgs boson. It pervades space. The boson is better thought of as a knot in the field.

It is not the case that everything is made of atoms. The familiar stuff here on earth is made of atoms, but much matter is not, it's loose particles or ionized nuclei.

Better science writing please.
DarkWingDuck
1.9 / 5 (10) Mar 14, 2013
So they eliminated spin 2?
NeptuneAD
1 / 5 (3) Mar 14, 2013
@Bart_laws
Actually, I think the term massive explosion would be quite correct.

If it happened at all there must have been an extremely rapid expansion happening and a huge release of energy, perhaps you are thinking the term Big Bang implies detonation and ignition as well.
Tangent2
1.7 / 5 (12) Mar 14, 2013
Costs: some 10 billion dollars.

Results: WHAT IF ANY PRACTICAL RESULTS MIGHT COME FROM THE SEARCH?

None directly.

Conclusion: Priceless.
ValeriaT
1.6 / 5 (15) Mar 14, 2013
The truth is, if the people wouldn't be imbecile by their very nature, they would use the cold fusion, antigravity and magnetic motors for nearly one hundred years already and the physicists could build their colliders and another toys across whole solar system. But the current situation is, just the most influential and powerful people are most retarded at the same moment and they prohibit the exploitation of new technologies in most aggressive way. So we are still residing in sorta medieval times, just the scope of all this medieval mess is by few orders larger.

We should realize, that the God likes us from some reason, because if the cold fusion and magnetic motors are true, then there is absolute no reason for mutual fight and we all are facing gigantic prosperity. We are just supposed to start to work for it. Of course, if we waste this chance, then the progress cannot be stopped anyway, but it will continue just after global war, which would be nothing special for most of us.
ValeriaT
1.6 / 5 (16) Mar 14, 2013
So that the question for everyone of us is quite simple: what would you do with this information? Are we willing to behave like the intelligent creatures at the end - or are we simply unable to cross the shadows of human nature and history without another heavy experience?
antialias_physorg
3.2 / 5 (11) Mar 14, 2013
Results: WHAT IF ANY PRACTICAL RESULTS MIGHT COME FROM THE SEARCH?

None directly.

Conclusion: Priceless.

If you consider that control over the Higgs field would allow us to create superluminal drives (or at the very least almost-light-speed drives which need next to no fuel).
Without knowledge about the Higgs field: No chance of that.

You decide whether that chance is worth it.
I'd say at 10 billion it's a steal.
Q-Star
3.1 / 5 (19) Mar 14, 2013
So that the question for everyone of us is quite simple: what would you do with this information?


Well Zephyr, since all our information is wrong, and ya have all the correct information,,,, it's up to ya to do something with it. What are ya going to do with all the information about the aether? And the electron ducks? What are ya going to do with all your longitudinal-transverse wave information?

Maybe ya should do more with your information, and less talking about other's lack of information.
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (14) Mar 14, 2013
Without knowledge about the Higgs field: No chance of that.
This is complete nonsense, because there is no meaningful way, how the proof of Higgs boson could help us into superluminal travel - and you must know about it in the same way, like me. Instead of it, just the devices, which are ignored if not ridiculed with mainstream physics like the EM-drive are most close to the concept of warp drive and superluminal travel as we known about it. The Higgs field is the stuff of deep interior of atom nuclei, so until you want to travel into hell, you shouldn't bother with it. The whole particle research is the remnant of cold war era, when the politicians believed, the physicists will develop even more powerful weapons, if they give them another money. You're member of parasitic community, which should face the reality at the end.
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (14) Mar 14, 2013
Well Zephyr, since all our information is wrong, and ya have all the correct information, it's up to ya to do something with it.
It's not my information - I just collected it. Most of you could do the very same - it's not so intellectually rewarding, as it appears - it just requires some consequential thinking and some persistence. Even Einstein, Edison or Faraday would do anything significant with their ideas, if the other people wouldn't start to work with it. The era of big men, who are changed the history itself is over, simply because the world is too large for everyone of us. It just needs some optimistic approach from everyone of us. We shouldn't do the things just because some giant massmedial propaganda surrounds it and because some influential leaders are involved - this is just the way of thinking of the past, which we should forget.
Tangent2
1 / 5 (8) Mar 14, 2013

If you consider that control over the Higgs field would allow us to create superluminal drives (or at the very least almost-light-speed drives which need next to no fuel).


If that were the case, then why don't any of the scientists say so? That would seem to me to be a pretty big potential use of the information. But alas, they won't even admit that much. Oh and by the way, I agree with the reasoning that if they found the source of mass inductance, they should have enough information about it to manipulate it or find a means of getting around that problem for very fast space travel. Again, no mention of even the prospect of being able to at least observe or manipulate mass is going to happen anytime soon with the particle that gives other particles their mass. Makes sense?
Q-Star
2.9 / 5 (20) Mar 14, 2013
Well Zephyr, since all our information is wrong, and ya have all the correct information, it's up to ya to do something with it.
It's not my information - I just collected it. Most of you could do the very same - it's not so intellectually rewarding, as it appears - it just requires some consequential thinking and some persistence. Even Einstein, Edison or Faraday would do anything significant with their ideas, if the other people wouldn't start to work with it. The era of big men, who are changed the history itself is over, simply because the world is too large for everyone of us. It just needs some optimistic approach from everyone of us. We shouldn't do the things just because some giant massmedial propaganda surrounds it and because some influential leaders are involved - this is just the way of thinking of the past, which we should forget.


Let me ask again. What are YOU going to do with the information? Not what YOU think WE should do with it.
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (14) Mar 14, 2013
The Higgs field is no mystery: in AWT every space-time is formed with gradient of inhomogeneous inertial environment (no matter, which material this environment is formed by, it's completely irrelevant in this subject). You may think about it like about phase interface formed during condensation of supercritical fluid. Such a phase separation establishes the preferential direction, i.e. the dimensions of space, along which the transverse waves can spread without attenuation, i.e. it creates the space-time (the remaining direction perspendicular to phase interface is the time dimension).

But this model means too, that the space-time is always inhomogeneous in smaller or larger extent. Well, and the smallest density fluctuations observable are Higgs bosons, and the largest ones are the dark matter structure and they're selfsimilar each other. That's all.
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (16) Mar 14, 2013
What are YOU going to do with the information? Not what YOU think WE should do with it.
Well, I'm just spreading it. If you would do nothing, then you're just increasing the probability, you'll be evaporated with some China or Russian nuclear bomb flying randomly in conflict between Iran and Israel or China and Japan or whatever else large countries. You've nothing to lose so to say. Look, many people did cold fusion or magnetic motor experiments - and what did happen? The were ignored. Without changing of the thinking of people these people just die out in similar way, like many generations of researchers before it.

Or are you willing to collect money for independent research of cold fusion and magnetic motors? We already have organizations for it: it's Department of energy and myriads of research institutes. The infrastructure already is here - what is missing is the determination of people capable to do this work. Your way of thinking is still deeply rooted in the past.
ValeriaT
1.6 / 5 (14) Mar 14, 2013
BTW Despite I don't maintain any illusions about human race, I'm still repeatedly surprised, how many young people are willing to spend the money for scientific research, for expensive colliders, for even more expensive cosmic flights - but at the moment, when they should attempt for replication of some trivial mechanism or heat effect, whole their enthusiasm and seeming inquisitiveness is immediately over. What happens here? The young people were never so conservative and skeptical like today. This is indeed the result of contemporary educational system.

Whereas just this research is whole the basis of this future! All these former things are just applications of it. We cannot consider seriously the future of cosmic research with oil fueled rockets and these nuclear ones will contaminate atmosphere after first crash.
Q-Star
2.9 / 5 (19) Mar 14, 2013
What are YOU going to do with the information? Not what YOU think WE should do with it.
Well, I'm just spreading it.


Ya don't seem to be getting through, maybe ya should do something else.

If you would do nothing, blah, nuclear bombs, blah, blah, blah


I'm not losing any sleep, if I worried about it wouldn't effect any changes.

You've nothing to lose so to say. Look, many people did cold fusion or magnetic motor experiments - and what did happen? The were ignored.


Except I would be saying a lie. It just didn't happen no matter how many times ya repeat that.

Or are you willing to collect money for independent research of cold fusion and magnetic motors?


No, it's not my field.

Your way of thinking is still deeply rooted in the past.


And look how far we've come, it must be a fairly good way to think. How much progress has YOUR way of thinking made? So far, not so much.
SethD
1.4 / 5 (18) Mar 14, 2013
This change in language is suspicious because it is unexplained
Actually it's explained http://home.web.c...w-boson, because the director of CERN himself isn't sure about actual identity of Higgs boson (despite he is saying the opposite here).

Oh man, so not only they now dodge THE question (If Higgs boson gave mass to everything, what then gave mass to Higgs boson?), they're now in trouble because the "particle" has no spin! LOL this bullshit is getting hilarious.

Not even the timing as plotted in "Angles and Demons" by one author Francis I will help them turn magic into reality. Simply put, no one buys their "God particle" crap, not even the West's chief scientist who just became Jesuit Pope.

Oops, I just told the big secret: who wrote the Da Vinci Code too.

Shit has just hit the fan. The Vatican's dome is about to collapse, right on the head of these phys grad students who'll be shocked: to learn the Pope is their boss!
antialias_physorg
2.8 / 5 (13) Mar 14, 2013
This is complete nonsense, because there is no meaningful way, how the proof of Higgs boson could help us into superluminal travel

The idea is pretty simple: If you can avoid interaction of particles with the Higgs field then you have effectively lowered their inertial mass. That means that if you use a reaction mass (for which you do not lower the interaction at the time of use) you can accelerate the rest of your ship (for which you DO decrease interaction with the Higgs field) a lot.
Inifitely so if you manage to completely avoid interaction with the Higgs field.

With perfect control over the Higgs field (i.e. completely decoupling your ship from it) you can altogether avoid relativistic effects which prevent you from accelerating beyond light speed.

But to get at that sort of control you need to know what it is you want to control. So intimate knowledge of the Higgs field is essential.
SethD
1.4 / 5 (18) Mar 14, 2013
Quote from article: "Physicists announced Thursday they believe they have discovered the subatomic particle predicted nearly a half-century ago, which will go a long way toward explaining what gives electrons and all matter in the universe size and shape."

What happened to "giving mass" to all matter?


They dodge it. Or else they have to answer THE question: what then gave mass to Higgs boson.

DaVinci Code meets Angels and Demons. Right under the Vatican's dome as the Jesuit steals the Church.

LOL just watch CNN, they're drooling over it all, hoping they have just conquered the West, both religious and science way.

Italian cardinals announced last night after Jesuit stole their church that they congratulate Scola for becoming new Pope.

Shit's about to hit the fan. Oh and no, there's no BS like "Higgs boson" or whatever name Illuminati within the church gave to it, like "God's particle"... LOL
ValeriaT
1.7 / 5 (17) Mar 14, 2013
No, it's not my field.
The (over)specialization is another problem of contemporary physicists. Such an experts cannot see the wood for the trees routinely and they're naturally biased against any research outside the area of their specialization. It's just another example of the missleading thinking of the past.
there's no BS like "Higgs boson"
Such a stance is perfectly dual to stance "the dark matter actually doesn't exist". But it has an apparent signature in the background in similar way like the Higgs boson and best of all, these signatures are similar each other.
Q-Star
3 / 5 (22) Mar 14, 2013
The (over)specialization is another problem of contemporary physicists.


Zephyr, is that why your name is a household word? Because ya seem over specialized in every single field of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, & philosophy?

If being a polymath in all things science was possible, then ya should have plenty to do besides trolling the internet science forums(is this part of your treatment regimen?)

Wouldn't your time be better spend writing a replacement for the Encyclopedia Britannica? If ya devoted as much time at it as ya do trolling, ya'd be up to 127 or 130 volumes by now, really thick and heavy volumes.

Such an experts cannot see the wood for the trees routinely and they're naturally biased against any research outside the area of their specialization.


How can I be biased about research outside of my field? I don't have time to read 75% of it, much less develop a bias. There isn't that much time. Unless I did as ya do, read the titles & invent the rest.
Maggnus
2.7 / 5 (10) Mar 14, 2013
Zephyr - the naked prophet standing in an empty field preaching to his flock about the grandeur of his multi-hued robe.
typicalguy
3.2 / 5 (9) Mar 14, 2013
Zephyr can't make cold fusion or antigravity work because they aren't real. He wants someone else to waste their time working on his ideas that have no chance of being true and he knows it. How do we know he knows he's full of shit? He spams here instead winning his own nobel prize by creating antigravity. Hes a cult of one.
xel3241
3.6 / 5 (12) Mar 14, 2013
The idea is pretty simple: If you can avoid interaction of particles with the Higgs field then you have effectively lowered their inertial mass.


The Alcubierre drive would be far more effective to get to superluminal speed. There are already laboratory experiments attempting to create miniature warp bubbles at NASA.

Of course, I am not one to downplay the significance of the Higgs discovery. Einstein created general relativity without knowing of its application in GPS and in the future the Alcubierre drive. Schrodinger and Heisenberg could not have imagined that quantum mechanics would lay the foundation for nearly all of modern technology. But nowadays people ask immediately after a discovery is made what the practical applications are (or even before), hampering basic research and reducing our long-term prosperity. We don't know what the Higgs discovery will gain us now, but I can be sure that it will have a profound impact on our lives at some point in the future.
ValeriaT
1.5 / 5 (16) Mar 14, 2013
There are already laboratory experiments attempting to create miniature warp bubbles
IMO the EMdrive doesn't create a warp field, just a weak gradient of space-time inside of it - but it's still a reactionless drive. It's speed therefore isn't apparently limited. With compare to Alcubierre drive has a significant advantage: it really works and its function was independently confirmed with Chinese reseachers already.
ya seem over specialized in every single field of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, & philosophy?
I don't specialize in anything except the exceptions. I'm not finding new connections with induction (extrapolations of already well known deterministic connections), but with synthesis of many facts and I'm focused to anomalies instead. It's dual holistic approach, which may appear indeterministic for someone, but the quantum mechanics is indeterministic too - and it still works. IMO it's as effective tool of findings, like the strictly deterministic way.
ValeriaT
1.8 / 5 (16) Mar 14, 2013
can't make cold fusion or antigravity work because they aren't real
Why the hell you're so sure about it? I can't see any logics in your stance. The first observational evidences of cold fusion and transmutations are nearly as old, as the whole model of atom nuclei.
Q-Star
3.1 / 5 (19) Mar 14, 2013
I don't specialize in anything except the exceptions. I'm not finding new connections with induction (extrapolations of already well known deterministic connections), but with synthesis of many facts and I'm focused to anomalies instead. It's dual holistic approach, which may appear indeterministic for someone, but the quantum mechanics is indeterministic too - and it still works. IMO it's as effective tool of findings, like the strictly deterministic way


Well that is as deep as most of your theories I suppose,,,, I've got to run for the day,,, keep up the good work on your anomalies.
typicalguy
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 14, 2013
can't make cold fusion or antigravity work because they aren't real
Why the hell you're so sure about it? I can't see any logics in your stance. The first observational evidences of cold fusion and transmutations are nearly as old, as the whole model of atom nuclei.

The logic is simple, you haven't done it. Go do it NOW. You are insane.
theon
2.1 / 5 (14) Mar 14, 2013
Can people who write these views please start to read papers that explain that WIMP dark matter would be a disaster for the Galaxy, and hence cannot exist. It is appalling to see the dark matter claim repeated over and again. No dark matter has been found or will be found at the LHC. Even if supersymmetry is found there (in no way it looks credible now), this cannot yield the WIMP.
typicalguy
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 14, 2013
Ideas no one else believes in and is quite nonsense to everyone else. Combine with black helicopter conspiracy theories about governments holding back cold fusion for the oil companies and scientists not researching it so they can have jobs.

You are THE DEFINITION OF INSANE.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (13) Mar 14, 2013
.....no dark matter has been found or will be found at the LHC.


I think you're right about this. My opinion is that it is uniquely found at another place in the Universe far beyond our locality, at the perimeter edge which forms an impenetrable boundary.

Somehow the sum total of all gravity extant throughout the cosmos must be accounted for, 90-95% of it has not been, and we know there is no "dark matter" inside our solar system. So how can we account for all that gravity if none of it is local? Probably all the way to the perimeter of the spherical universe, there we will discover why entropy works so well inside the perimeter.
baudrunner
1.7 / 5 (12) Mar 14, 2013
Scientists believe the particle acts like molasses or snow: When other tiny basic building blocks pass through it, they stick together, slow down and form atoms.
But we saw that the Higgs boson decays into W and Z bosons. It is conforming to quantum behavior.

When an object accelerates to the speed of light (I know - impossible) it has infinite mass. Simple acceleration confers mass on an object. Fine.

All particles are always accelerating, but maintain consistency in constituency because they do this because everything is always shrinking all the time. There is an end to things, when all energy in the halo of this creation that we occupy (creation continues ad infinitum at the periphery of the universe) finally peters out and is exhausted. This happens to Higgs too, yielding W and Z bosons which in turn yield 2nd generation particles.

The Higgs boson can be considered to be a 4th generation particle. It, by itself, is not responsible for conferring mass on particles.
phi-stee
3.4 / 5 (10) Mar 14, 2013
I am guessing that the reason science daily doesn't have a comments section is evidenced here with all the cold fusion and other physics quacks that like to pitch their pet theories.
baudrunner
2 / 5 (12) Mar 14, 2013
How long can everything keep going until all the energy is exhausted? To find that out, the expansion rate of the WMAP cold spot has to be calculated, then we can decide when to start worrying.
Tausch
1 / 5 (5) Mar 14, 2013
Is a decay process finite? With nothing left over? You don't make sense.
baudrunner
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 14, 2013
Is a decay process finite? With nothing left over? You don't make sense.
I do actually. The first generation particles have the longest and most stable lifetime.

This is not like nuclear decay which occurs during collisions or fusion or fission. Creation occurred out of nothing, which can be represented as infinite density - ie. infinite potential. Ultimately, the first generation particles shrink until they become nothing - they have accelerated to light speed and become a point source of with infinite density, or nothing. Reality is just a temporary abstraction, a fractal expression with a shelf-life.
xel3241
2.6 / 5 (10) Mar 14, 2013
Scientists believe the particle acts like molasses or snow: When other tiny basic building blocks pass through it, they stick together, slow down and form atoms.
But we saw that the Higgs boson decays into W and Z bosons. It is conforming to quantum behavior.

When an object accelerates to the speed of light (I know - impossible) it has infinite mass. Simple acceleration confers mass on an object. Fine.

All particles are always accelerating, but maintain consistency in constituency because they do this because everything is always shrinking all the time. There is an end to things, when all energy in the halo of this creation that we occupy (creation continues ad infinitum at the periphery of the universe) finally peters out and is exhausted. This happens to Higgs too, yielding W and Z bosons which in turn yield 2nd generation particles.


This is why we need a theory of everything. And besides, analogies to molasses are just simplifications for the general public.
loneislander
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 14, 2013
"Scientists believe the particle acts like molasses or snow: When other tiny basic building blocks pass through it, they stick together, slow down and form atoms."

What a horrible malterpretation. Now that someone else has done all the work the least we can do is learn what the Goldstone Boson is (and why we never need to talk about it beyond understanding that it, theoretically, exists) and how it relates to all this so we can stop talking about adhesives and goo a the sub-nano scale where those concepts become utterly ridiculous (and, as such, ought to be ridiculed). I've done my part.
Tausch
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 14, 2013
You do not make sense baudrunner. Nothing is a STATE called zero.
You set that to whatever lies left of an equation.
aether_displacement
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 15, 2013
Yes, aether condenses into matter. Can we move on now?
Deletereligion
2.2 / 5 (13) Mar 15, 2013
So a zero spin Boson could be called a "Boso" (Bozo)?

Just like the clowns who think they've discovered it.

Keep searching CERN fellows, in some respects you're doing great work but it's an irrational search.
LordKinyambiss
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 15, 2013
Ok! After the brief intellectual snobbery and vacuum mechanics/cold fusion garbage comments, can someone tell me about SUSY and what else the LHC upgrade might bring up. What else can the LHC tell us besides the varieties of the Higgs
antialias_physorg
2.8 / 5 (11) Mar 15, 2013
Such an experts cannot see the wood for the trees routinely and they're naturally biased against any research outside the area of their specialization.

That's how it seems a lot of time to the layman with superficial knowldge of some labels. (Much like every sports fan thinks he'd be a better coach than the one of their favorit team).

But when you get into the different fields to any depth you quickly realize that such superficial 'knowledge' means nothing (an it isn't even knowledge. What the layman does is 'collecting stamps/labels'. They know a few words but don't know what they really mean to any depth).
The devil is in the details and the subtle connections between the fields - and THAT is someone who doesn't specialize never sees and therefore never understands.

It's like a beginner at chess. You may know what a rook is and how it moves - but until you have spent the time studying to become a grand master you will not know all it's potential, uses and subtleties.
antialias_physorg
2.8 / 5 (9) Mar 15, 2013
IMO the limitations of both approaches are completely symmetrical.

No they aren't. One is philosophy, the other is science. Philosophy hasn't amde a meaningful contribution to ways of science since Popper. And no meaningful contribution to our understanding of reality since Plato.

Currently the so-called "relativity experts" are able to kill every idea

Realtivity experts (or QM experts) can kill foolish ideas (like aether) because they immediately see where laymen's naive ideas don't mesh with reality/observation/already performed experiments. Not because of some 'political motive'.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 15, 2013
Realtivity experts (or QM experts) can kill foolish ideas (like aether) because they immediately see where laymen's naive ideas don't mesh with reality/observation/already performed experiments. Not because of some 'political motive'.


......that's for sure.
LarryD
1 / 5 (4) Mar 15, 2013
I am a layman, as some of you will know by now, but I hope not a 'dumb' one as mentioned in one of the comments. I look for a general 'coherence' and to be honest as soon as I read that it might be this or it may be that, alarm bells started ringing. I don't expect 100% certs and I am very keen to learn what these scientists are aiming for. This article reads like a 'public relations' exercise to me. It seems to me that someone behind the scenes is pushing for results to be presented to the public. This is too important a subject (no matter which 'camp' one is in) to be waved about with premature findings. Let the scientist continue their study and let them announce when they are more confident.
xel3241
2.3 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2013
Well, this is the question, what is foolish idea here. Is for example EMDrive a foolish idea? It creates a http://www.youtub..._aRiUXs. And this force is quite strong - seventy grams/kWatt of power. Such a device violates both Lorentz symmetry, both Newtons inertia law, both equivalence principle.


This is not the end-all, be-all. The EMDrive has been criticized roundly by numerous theoretical physicists, and just because someone claims to be "persecuted by the church of mainstream science" does not mean that their results have stood the test of many experiments. The results from the Chinese experiment are likely to be experimental error or fraud. The Alcubierre drive is, however, based on solid, mainstream physics.
baudrunner
1.9 / 5 (13) Mar 15, 2013
You do not make sense baudrunner. Nothing is a STATE called zero. You set that to whatever lies left of an equation.


Calling nothing a state called zero is mere semantics. That's just your interpretation. Hawking theorizes that black holes may be point sources to another dimension, and I guess he makes sense to you, but I don't because I'm not Hawking. Can you explain the WMAP cold spot? Think of this - if you tried to cross that "zone" you would probably continue at the other side instantaneously, which is a paradox because "it exists" but it needs to exist because reality is continuing to be defined beyond its perimeter. You just don't understand abstraction, probably don't understand a lot of anything, and no doubt feel big about re-iterating what you are reading about what the so-called "experts" are telling you. If they are theorizing, then they don't know, right?
Tausch
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 15, 2013
Somebody translate the above. The above leaves Zeph's Czech/English looking like literary masterworks in comparison.
ValeriaT
1.6 / 5 (13) Mar 16, 2013
In dense aether model nothingness doesn't exist, it's just perfect randomness. In similar way, like the underwater appears for surface ripples. The discussion of WMAP cold spot is here - I don't think, it's a hole into outside universe, but in the black hole Universe analogy such an idea has still its meaning.
Tausch
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 16, 2013
There's no place for zero 'in dense aether model'. We're not there where you exist.
Tausch
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 16, 2013
There's no place for zero 'in dense aether model'. We're not there where you exist.

I don't expect the local physics at the hole to be the physics of all external references frames.
Tausch
1 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2013
Any final process will give a finite universe.
Tausch
1 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2013
A(ny) finite process gives a finite universe.
Typo correction to last post.
baudrunner
1.9 / 5 (13) Mar 16, 2013
A(ny) finite process gives a finite universe.
I presume that you are talking about the "big bang". That is undeniably true if there actually was that one-time event at the beginning because an explosion is a finite event, yielding a finite amount of product. Therein lies a contradiction, because cosmologists tell us that the Universe contains an infinite amount of matter, and that cannot be, then. That's why the Big Bang scenario needs to be rethought, and obviously I have done that. The "Big Bang" is an ongoing process in the infinitely expanding creation front at the periphery of the Universe.
xel3241
2.5 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2013
A(ny) finite process gives a finite universe.
I presume that you are talking about the "big bang". That is undeniably true if there actually was that one-time event at the beginning because an explosion is a finite event, yielding a finite amount of product. Therein lies a contradiction, because cosmologists tell us that the Universe contains an infinite amount of matter, and that cannot be, then. That's why the Big Bang scenario needs to be rethought, and obviously I have done that. The "Big Bang" is an ongoing process in the infinitely expanding creation front at the periphery of the Universe.


Only Hoyleists and the followers of Pope Wickramasinghe claim that the Universe is literally infinite. The Universe is large beyond our comprehension, but certainly finite.
ValeriaT
1.7 / 5 (12) Mar 16, 2013
The Universe is large beyond our comprehension, but certainly finite.
This is an oxymoron. Observable universe is limited because we are limited - but it behaves like the observable zone of landscape under the fog. We are always at the center of observable universe, which is one of predictions/consequences of dense aether model - not so trivial as it appears at the first look. Mainstream physics cannot deduce from many apparent facts, until they're not formalized and written down mathematically.
casualjoe
not rated yet Mar 16, 2013

Has anybody worked out yet how to relate the Higgs mass to big G? Is it ok to say that G is constant every where in the universe? I can't seem to find a reasonable explanation or work it out.
DavidW
1.9 / 5 (13) Mar 16, 2013

The devil is in the details


You have it backwards.

The devil is in the lies. The truth is what is real, including the details.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (10) Mar 16, 2013
@casualjoe: Currently we have no evidence for any change of G across the universe. Usually you can read, that the Higgs field accounts to 2% of the total mass (i.e. the mass of W/Z bosons inside of quarks). The rest of mass of matter is therefore unexplained with Higgs boson.

In dense aether model the Higgs field is of unparticle character (something like the clouds on the sky) and it surrounds all massive particles and gives the mass of all bosons in accordance to mass-energy equivalence. This view is not accepted yet with mainstream physics, which considers other bosons massless and which just seeks for mathematical description, not conceptual explanation.
Lurker2358
1.6 / 5 (19) Mar 16, 2013
No practical benefits.

What a waste of time and resources.
Egleton
1.6 / 5 (14) Mar 16, 2013
What a lively debate.
To me the inflationary period is one huge Kludge inserted to hold a beautiful idea together.
First we have everything popping into existence for the want of something better to do, and then it says to itself "And now for my next trick I think I will inflate. Watch this!"
This is a crisis of magnificent proportions.
I am gratified that the nikked ape is is up against his limits.
My God is not the God of the cracks. My God is the God of the yawning, echoing Chasms.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (13) Mar 17, 2013
The Universe is large beyond our comprehension, but certainly finite.
This is an oxymoron. Observable universe is limited because we are limited - but it behaves like the observable zone of landscape under the fog. We are always at the center of observable universe, which is one of predictions/consequences of dense aether model - not so trivial as it appears at the first look. Mainstream physics cannot deduce from many apparent facts, until they're not formalized and written down mathematically.


Dead-on wrong Valeria. It's impossible for "entropy" to be established in an "infinite" space, which why the Einsteinian model of the Universe is the accepted model of the best educated & most knowledgable astro-physicists, none of them believes "infinity" exists anywhere in the Universe, that it is in fact a spherically shaped "stellar island" ruled by "entropy". I should add that "entropy" is not a "god", so don't selectively misconstrue what I'm stating here.
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (15) Mar 17, 2013
We should be thankful that the guys at the LHC have correctly climbed the cautious and credible scientific ladder from an idea up to a working theory- with much effort and computer power.


REALLY? They could have fooled me!!
johanfprins
1.9 / 5 (13) Mar 17, 2013
@ValeeriaT
Are we willing to behave like the intelligent creatures at the end - or are we simply unable to cross the shadows of human nature and history without another heavy experience?


AS proved OVER and OVER again on this forum, YOU are totally unable to "behave like an intelligent creature". I find it a bit rich that you have the audacity to advise other people to do so!!
johanfprins
1.5 / 5 (12) Mar 17, 2013
Dead-on wrong Valeria. It's impossible for "entropy" to be established in an "infinite" space,


Bravo!

which why the Einsteinian model of the Universe is the accepted model of the best educated & most knowledgable astro-physicists, none of them believes "infinity" exists anywhere in the Universe, that it is in fact a spherically shaped "stellar island" ruled by "entropy".


What about an infinite "universe" with zero-entropy within which our "stellar island" universe is a "bubble" with entropy? Zero entropy does NOT mean zero-energy, it only means zero kinetic-energy!
SethD
1.3 / 5 (16) Mar 18, 2013
Extra, Extra! http://phys.org/n...her.html :

"I always said that the nightmare scenario would be if they found the Higgs and nothing else," he said on Thursday. "That's what they found—the Higgs and nothing else." ... "-So what now?" ... "There's neutrinos. There's supersymmetry. There's dark matter—that's the next big thing, I think," he said. "I'm writing a paper now on the possibility that there's another Higgs that they had missed at CERN."

What a total waste of money and time. And what a shameless bunch of people those particle physicists are. Without them, military couldn't launder the taxpayer's buck.

But then most people knew this would be the way it ends, except for the government who wanted their new gunpowder. There they can have it -- right in their face!

BBWWHHAHHAHAHAHHHHAHAHAHAHAHHAH
casualjoe
1 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2013
Don't worry guys, i've just reminded myself what an electron volt is, and how that is related to the fine structure constant and big G, it makes for a lovely picture.
EverythingsJustATheory
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 18, 2013
What a total waste of money and time. And what a shameless bunch of people those particle physicists are. Without them, military couldn't launder the taxpayer's buck.


Total waste of money and time? Did someone not read the whole article?

Even if you don't think money should be spent on physics experiments, this was not a waste of time. The ROI on this is off the charts.

"But the massive scientific effort that led up to the discovery paid off in other ways, including the creation of the World Wide Web. CERN scientists developed it to make it easier to exchange information among each other. The vast computing power needed to crunch all of the data produced by the atom smasher also boosted the development of distributed—or cloud—computing, that is now entering mainstream services. Advances in solar energy capture, medical imaging and proton therapy—used in the fight against cancer—also resulted from the work of particle physicists at CERN and elsewhere."

ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (12) Mar 18, 2013
Even if you don't think money should be spent on physics experiments, this was not a waste of time. The ROI on this is off the charts
IMO most of physical experiments will become obsolete, ignored and forgotten sooner before they could be ever used or just replicated. For example, physicists demonstrated the magnetic motors and cold fusion before one hundred years already - and what did actually happen? Absolutely nothing.
Q-Star
3.1 / 5 (19) Mar 18, 2013
IMO most of physical experiments will become obsolete, ignored and forgotten sooner before they could be ever used or just replicated.


Of course they become obsolete. After ya do them enough, with the same results, they get boring, and it's wasteful to conduct them over and over if ya are getting the same results. Old "garage" type experiments have their place as teaching examples, but old experiments aren't good for much else, unless ya offer a new approach that advances the science.

For example, physicists demonstrated the magnetic motors and cold fusion before one hundred years already - and what did actually happen?


I'll let ya answer that one yourself.

Absolutely nothing.


And since nothing came out of them, people quit doing them. If your experiment produces no results, it's very difficult to get someone interested in it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 19, 2013

The devil is in the details


You have it backwards.

The devil is in the lies. The truth is what is real, including the details.
Well bullshit is good for making flowers grow and it IS spring. These things are true at least.
And since nothing came out of them, people quit doing them. If your experiment produces no results, it's very difficult to get someone interested in it.
Hold on...

"According to Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist, NASA Langley Research Center, one percent of the nickel mined per year could meet the world's energy needs for a quarter of the cost of coal. In past years, several labs have blown up while studying LENR and windows have melted – showing that if it really works, it can produce an impressive amount of energy."

-lets not confuse the 2-
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 19, 2013
Re LENR, things have definitely changed within the last year.

"The current situation is that we now have over two decades of hundreds of experiments worldwide indicating heat and transmutations with minimal radiation and low energy input. By any rational measure, this evidence indicates something real is occurring. So, is LENR "Real?" Evidently, from the now long standing and diverse experimental evidence. And, yes - with effects occurring from using diverse materials, methods of energy addition etc. This is far from a "Narrow Band" set of physical phenomena."
http://futureinno...ons.html
http://www.e-catw...h-cop-6/
avengers
1 / 5 (12) Mar 19, 2013
The Higgs boson can be considered to be a 4th generation particle. It, by itself, is not responsible for conferring mass on particles.


Bravo!

More news stories

Better thermal-imaging lens from waste sulfur

Sulfur left over from refining fossil fuels can be transformed into cheap, lightweight, plastic lenses for infrared devices, including night-vision goggles, a University of Arizona-led international team ...

Scientists tether lionfish to Cayman reefs

Research done by U.S. scientists in the Cayman Islands suggests that native predators can be trained to gobble up invasive lionfish that colonize regional reefs and voraciously prey on juvenile marine creatures.

Leeches help save woman's ear after pit bull mauling

(HealthDay)—A pit bull attack in July 2013 left a 19-year-old woman with her left ear ripped from her head, leaving an open wound. After preserving the ear, the surgical team started with a reconnection ...