Definitely, maybe: Evidence grows for positive ID of Higgs boson

Mar 13, 2013 by Sunanda Creagh, The Conversation
It’s now safe to drop the ‘like’ from Higgs-like particle. http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightmash

Physicists say they are now almost certain that the curious "Higgs-like particle" revealed last year at CERN is a Higgs boson.

Data presented this week at the Rencontres de Moriond meeting in Italy – billed as a place for "to discuss recent findings and new ideas in physics in a pleasant, relaxed and convivial atmosphere" – showed that the Higgs-like particle behaves in ways that suggest it is actually a Higgs boson.

The Higgs boson is the missing piece of the puzzle in the of physics, and is crucial to understanding why particles have the masses they do.

A statement on the website said the new scientists speaking at Moriond announced last week "that the new particle discovered at CERN last year is looking more and more like a Higgs boson. However, more analysis is still required before a definitive statement can be made."

"Finding out what kind of Higgs it is will rely on carefully measuring the particle's interactions with other , and that may take several years to resolve," the statement said.

The new findings, presented by CERN scientist Adam Falkowski and colleagues, show that the Higgs-like particle decays into W and Z bosons – crucial criteria that must be met before the particle could be confirmed as a real Higgs boson.

"Previous measurements of the 'Higgs-like' boson determined that it is probably a boson, which means it has a spin quantum number of zero and that it had positive parity. These are qualities we would expect of the Higgs boson, but also of just a Higgs boson (there are models with more than one, and of differing types) or another particle entirely," said Jonathan Carroll, Post Doctoral Research Associate at the University of Adelaide's Centre for the Subatomic Structure of Matter.

"What remains is to sort out a small excess in the two-photon decay channel; to observe it actually decay into fermions; rule out spin-2 to make sure it really is a spin-0 boson (though observing the fermion decays will serve this purpose just fine); and to make sure that it doesn't have a twin," said Dr Carroll.

"These will quite likely occur in the next few years, but at the moment 'Higgs' seems to be the best label to put on this particle."

Dr Nitesh Soni, ARC Research Associate at the Centre of Excellence for Particle Physics at Tera Scale) at the University of Adelaide, said the fresh evidence was "compelling enough to drop the "like" from Higgs-like particle and say it was a Higgs boson."

"But the remaining question is if it is the ultimate boson or do we have more similar, unobserved bosons?"

"To come up with a significant answer on fermions, we will have to wait for the restart of Large Hadron Collider machine," he said.

The University of Adelaide's Professor Anthony Thomas, director of the Adelaide node of the ARC Centre of Excellence in Particle Physics at the Terascale, said it is crucial that the 's existence and properties be established beyond doubt.

"This work adds some confidence concerning one feature of the Higgs, namely its couplings to bosons. However, the essential missing element is the coupling to fermions and there we still need more information and this may not come until after the shutdown of the Large Hadron Collider—not until 2015," he said.

"The whole subatomic physics world is waiting for that information with great anticipation."

Explore further: Hide and seek: Sterile neutrinos remain elusive

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

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

Hide and seek: Sterile neutrinos remain elusive

5 hours ago

The Daya Bay Collaboration, an international group of scientists studying the subtle transformations of subatomic particles called neutrinos, is publishing its first results on the search for a so-called ...

Novel approach to magnetic measurements atom-by-atom

10 hours ago

Having the possibility to measure magnetic properties of materials at atomic precision is one of the important goals of today's experimental physics. Such measurement technique would give engineers and physicists an ultimate ...

Scientists demonstrate Stokes drift principle

13 hours ago

In nature, waves – such as those in the ocean – begin as local oscillations in the water that spread out, ripple fashion, from their point of origin. But fans of Star Trek will recall a different sort of wave pattern: ...

User comments : 59

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

ant_oacute_nio354
1.2 / 5 (17) Mar 13, 2013
The Higgs doesn't exist.
Antonio Jose Saraiva
panorama
4.7 / 5 (12) Mar 13, 2013
The Higgs doesn't exist.
Antonio Jose Saraiva


I mean he's old, but I wouldn't call him non-existant...

http://en.wikiped...er_Higgs
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (12) Mar 13, 2013
Antonio Jose Saraiva


Is not a real person.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (13) Mar 13, 2013
Zephyr! Why are you arguing against something you do not understand?

Why do you insist on putting endless ramblings on a science site when you do not understand the concepts you are arguing about? What do you get out of posting your continuing misunderstandings in a public forum?

WHy don't you post this crap to the Thunderbolts forum? Or to the Zeta-talk forum? Why do you insist on doing it here?
Royale
4 / 5 (8) Mar 13, 2013
Thanks Maggnus.. I'm in IT and people love to think they know what they're talking about in my field too. They do the same as Zephyr, and end up mixing up terms, theory, and sound totally foolish on a regular basis..
I think gobble-dee-gook is a good way to explain the random spattering of words/concepts..
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (15) Mar 13, 2013
My question is, what do you think about concepts like the Higgs boson, Lie groups of heterotic string theories, E8 theory of Lissi Garret, AdS/CFT correspondence, dodecahedron model of Universe, dark matter foam and the fabric of space? Are these concepts, which emerged in mainstream physics during last decades absolutely ad-hoced and separated each other? Or is there some concept, which connects them all? Can this concept be explained in few paragraphs? I presume, if you answer YES! to all these questions, then the result will not be very different from my prattling here. Of course, if you don't know, what all these concepts are about, they you cannot see any logics in my explanations. It's like explanation of principle of plane to the space-shuttle, who never did see any plane or even animal with wings. It just couldn't work.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (14) Mar 13, 2013
Or is there some concept, which connects them all?


Yes. It's called "math". You should look into it.
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (14) Mar 13, 2013
Math is something like the leaves, which connect the branches of into compact crown of the tree in deterministic way. The physicists are something like the beetles crawling along the trees in an effort to remain as exact as possible, so they're become gradually specialized into many branches of physics. They're adding the new parameters to their theories and gradually increase their complexity, thus making them more flexible. The result are loopy and stringy theories and their landscapes of 100E500 solutions... This is simply brilliant approach.

Whereas I'm just seeking connection point of all existing branches too, but I'm completely perverted bug. I'm just crawling along the tree in the opposite direction, which appears gradually simpler and simpler...
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (18) Mar 13, 2013
I'm completely perverted bug.


Not much I can add to that Zeph. Ooh, ooh, yes there is something I can add to that, actually it is a quote of something ya said just yesterday,,,,

"it's difficult to explain the stuff, which you don't know."

ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (13) Mar 13, 2013
...
...
Hello guys, I just did find something, I guess...

But.. but... it seems, no leaves are here...
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (13) Mar 13, 2013
And the other bugs are replying:
"...What?!?"
"No leaves, no food. We are staying here. Fuck off, you dumb pervert!"
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2013
The hardest thing in science is trying to explain a concept to someone who can understand it, but refuses to do so.

I say again Zeph-why do you keep posting your ramblings here? What do you get out of posting concepts you do not understand to a site of science when there are perfect sites you could post to that would accept your self-deluded mumbo-jumbo and even feed your ego by blindly agreeing with you?

Why do you insist on posting pages of your misunderstandings here?
Royale
4 / 5 (4) Mar 13, 2013
Really? You respond with a sockpuppet account? Be an adult and use one name.
And Maggnus, I've taken a lot of math for computer science, but I have a ton of trouble trying to understand the math for physics.. perhaps I need to learn the symbols first?
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (13) Mar 13, 2013
Why do you mean, I don't understand it? You should have some particular reason for it. Without it it's just a tautology - a subjective claim, which does not mean anything arguable. You know, I'm willing to listen and dispute only with scientifically equipped people, who are able to argue logically. The authoritative claims are good for worshipers of Bible only.
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (17) Mar 13, 2013
Really? You respond with a sockpuppet account? Be an adult and use one name.


As much as I hate to do, I must come to Zephyr's defense.

Unlike the typical sock-puppet, Zephyr uses several (5 currently??) but he NEVER denies that he is THE Zephyr. He's not dishonest about that.

Though I will tell tell ya true,,, it's something I've always wanted him to explain,,, Zephyr why do ya use several different names without trying to deny that they are ya? Wouldn't be simpler just to keep all the Zephyrs in one account?

And Maggnus, I've taken a lot of math for computer science, but I have a ton of trouble trying to understand the math for physics.. perhaps I need to learn the symbols first?


A poster that I can really appreciate. Everyone should be so open. If ya like I could suggest some simple and easy things ya could do to overcome some of the hurdles of the maths involved in physics.
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (16) Mar 13, 2013
You know, I'm willing to listen and dispute only with scientifically equipped people, who are able to argue logically.


Zephyr, that would challenge anyone's credulity. Tone it down a little. (Unless it was meant as a joke, if so, it was a good one.)
ValeriaT
1.8 / 5 (12) Mar 13, 2013
The Zephir account was already banned. Before some time I was banned from there regularly so I did stuck with two remaining randomly chosen accounts: one at computer at work, the second one at my notebook. I'm just lazy to consolidate them. The people should learn, the names aren't important here - the arguments are. Only the people, who have no arguments seek identity of author and for another ways, how to dismiss the uncomfortable opinions.
scientifically equipped people, who are able to argue logically
I'm deadly serious about it. The name calling and accusing of incompetence is indeed nice for expression of negativism, but it cannot replace the matter of fact arguments.
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 13, 2013
And Maggnus, I've taken a lot of math for computer science, but I have a ton of trouble trying to understand the math for physics.. perhaps I need to learn the symbols first?


Lol! Sometimes the smartest person in the room is the one who says I don't get it! I had the pleasure of chatting to Alex Philipinko at a conference a few years ago, and his intellect was like a physical force. That people think they can discuss some of this stuff at a level to compete with people like that leaves me shaking my head.
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 13, 2013
5 currently?
It's impossible - all other accounts are disabled. I'm just using the natello and ValeriaT aliases last year here. After all, I'm not difficult to recognize me by the rather "specific" way, which I deal with English language - not to say about adherence on aether concept.
to compete with people like that leaves me shaking my head
But I don't want to compete with Phillipinko in complexity of description, but with simplicity of explanations. It's actually an application of supersymmetry at the cognitive level: every complex idea has its easy explanation and vice-versa.
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (14) Mar 13, 2013
Lol! Sometimes the smartest person in the room is the one who says I don't get it! I had the pleasure of chatting to Alex Philipinko at a conference a few years ago, and his intellect was like a physical force. That people think they can discuss some of this stuff at a level to compete with people like that leaves me shaking my head.


Filippenko.... But let agree with the power of his intellect,,,, It is hard for me a single out a "best" in a field of so many giants. But Alex Filippenko is probably the best educator in astronomy. Bar none!!! His students ALWAYS learn, most often, learn a lot. He can explain the current state of astronomy/astrophysics to ANYONE.

By the By: For anyone interested, his "The Cosmos - Astronomy in the New Millennium" one of the most accessible and understandable introductory texts in astronomy available. If it's too pricy for ya, maybe ya can find it in a library, ya'll find it worthwhile.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (9) Mar 13, 2013
But I don't want to compete with Phillipinko in complexity of description, but with simplicity of explanations.


And again, that is what you don't get Zephyr. In order to explain something you have to understand it. In order to understand it, you have to know the foundations. In order to understand the foundations, you have to be able to do the maths.

You can't. As a result, you misunderstand. Because of your misunderstandings, you arrive at incorrect conclusions.
Q-Star
3 / 5 (16) Mar 13, 2013
5 currently?
It's impossible - all other accounts are disabled. I'm just using the natello and ValeriaT aliases last year here. After all, I'm not difficult to recognize me by the rather "specific" way, which I deal with English language - not to say about adherence on aether concept.


Natello, Valeria, Yash17, Kron,,,

But I don't want to compete with Phillipinko in complexity of description, but with simplicity of explanations.


Zeph, I think ya would find his work rewarding to study. Ya certainly surpass him in your "complexity of description". His explanations are consistent, modern, up-to-date, and accessible to anyone regardless of their background. I wasn't kidding when I rate him as THE best educator in the field of astronomy and astrophysics.

ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (12) Mar 13, 2013
In order to understand it, you have to know the foundations
Personally I disagree. You aren't required to be a broody hen for being able to distinguish the aged egg. You can understand the function of Windows without detailed knowledge of machine code. You can find the shortest way trough fractal landscape even without bothering of details - or just because of it. Try to explain, why the supersymmetry predicts five Higgs bosons instead of single one - and we will see, who understands his subject better.
Yash17, Kron
I never used these accounts. I'm not here for social games with multiple accounts. I wouldn't be bothered with solely anonymous forum here. The interesting fertile ideas is, what should win the discussions, not accounts. IMO the voting system and personal registrations just distracts the people from subject.
Maggnus
3 / 5 (4) Mar 13, 2013
Agreed Q-star, his grasp of the subject and his ability to share that knowledge sets him in a catagory with DeGrasse and Sagen.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (9) Mar 13, 2013
Regarding the Alex Filippenko, I frankly cannot imagine, how someone, who REALLY understands his stuff can adhere on Big Bang model... You cannot teach an old dog the new tricks.
Q-Star
3.4 / 5 (17) Mar 13, 2013
Regarding the Alex Filippenko, I frankly cannot imagine, how someone, who REALLY understands his stuff can adhere on Big Bang model...


It's because he does understand "his" stuff. And he could help ya to understand it also, if ya gave him a chance and didn't assume it was wrong because YOU don't understand it.

You cannot teach an old dog the new tricks.


Do ya mean "new tricks" like that modern, cutting edge, "aether theory"?
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (10) Mar 13, 2013
if ya gave him a chance and didn't assume it was wrong because YOU don't understand it
I perfectly understand all reasons, for which the contemporary astronomers believe in Big Bang model or classical black hole theory. After all, in similar way, like we all probably understand well the motivations of Ptolemy geocentric model: the motion of Earth around Sun really appears like the motion of Sun around the Earth - and nobody here tries to deny it. And so? Does it really mean something? Does it mean, I don't understand these motivations, if I dismiss this view?
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 13, 2013
Regarding the Alex Filippenko, I frankly cannot imagine, how someone, who REALLY understands his stuff can adhere on Big Bang model... You cannot teach an old dog the new tricks.


Thats because you don't understand it. You keep making that same error Zeph--just because YOU can't understand it, doesn't mean that it's wrong. Do you recognize that fallacy?
ValeriaT
1.7 / 5 (10) Mar 13, 2013
One again: you're implying, that I don't understand the Big bang model, because I don't agree with it. Does it mean, if I dismiss the geocentric model (or whatever else model of your preference), that I don't understand it? This is not a fallacy (Argumentum ad verecundiam be more specific)?
Maggnus
4 / 5 (4) Mar 13, 2013
One again: you're implying, that I don't understand the Big bang model, because I don't agree with it. Does it mean, if I dismiss the geocentric model (or whatever else model of your preference), that I don't understand it?


I'm not implying it. I am stating it as fact. You don't agree with it because you don't understand the maths. You don't understand the maths because they are too complicated for you.
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 13, 2013
Do you understand the math of geocentric model? Is it really so important to understand it, if you can demonstrate, that the order of Venus phases violates it? You aren't required to be a broody hen for being able to distinguish the aged egg. You can understand the function of Windows even without detailed knowledge of machine code. My private advice - forget some (knowledge of) math at all when discussing matter of fact arguments. You can derive mathematically, the Sun is revolving around Earth, the Earth is a hollow sphere or flat desk and the age of Earth is six thousands of years. All these claims were once supported mathematically.
Q-Star
3 / 5 (14) Mar 13, 2013
Do you understand the math of geocentric model? Is it really so important to understand it, if you can demonstrate, that the order of Venus phases violates it? You aren't required to be a broody hen for being able to distinguish the aged egg. You can understand the function of Windows even without detailed knowledge of machine code. My private advice - forget some (knowledge of) math at all when discussing matter of fact arguments. You can derive mathematically, the Sun is revolving around Earth, the Earth is a hollow sphere or flat desk and the age of Earth is six thousands of years. All these claims were once supported mathematically.


And now ya know why not a single person understands ya. Why ya are the ONLY person who knows how it all really works. It must be lonely being the ONE person who understands anything.
baudrunner
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 13, 2013
The Higgs boson is the missing piece of the puzzle in the Standard Model of physics, and is crucial to understanding why particles have the masses they do.
That entire statement is patently false. It is not a missing piece of any puzzle, but a predictable event based on empirical observations, and thinking that it is crucial to understanding why particles have mass is a deviation not even remotely related to fact. Not even close.

The new findings, presented by CERN scientist Adam Falkowski and colleagues, show that the Higgs-like particle decays into W and Z bosons.
I recall saying just last year that the Higgs was just another W or Z type boson. I was almost right.

"But the remaining question is if it is the ultimate boson or do we have more similar, unobserved bosons?"
That's a good question, because the calculations will show that if there is another boson, it will appear at energy levels that are unattainable by current means.
Code_Warrior
3 / 5 (7) Mar 13, 2013
I don't really have a problem with Zephyr. He is rarely discourteous despite being attacked continuously and I believe he is honest.

He and I have debated before about the lack of mathematics in his theory. To him, the physical picture is of primary importance and the corresponding mathematical model matters little. To me, both the physical picture and the mathematical model are equally important.

The physical picture gives me intuition and the mathematical model gives me the quantifiable predictions that allow me to engineer systems and predict their level of performance. I do not care if the physical picture bears any semblance to reality as long as it provides me with intuition and produces an accurate enough mathematical model for engineering work. To me, physics would be useless without the math model.

That being said, the lack of a commonly agreed interpretation of QM does concern some physicists:
http://www.youtub...ggH9wB7Y
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Mar 13, 2013
To me, both the physical picture and the mathematical model are equally important.
But I'm of the same opinion - from long therm perspective. From the perspective of cyclical evolution though, the period of nonformal understanding of reality is alternating with period of gradual formalization of this empirical model, which will persist until the number of empirical evidences against it will exceed the critical level. After then a new empirical model will be established and so on. These epoch deeply overlap mutually, because as Max Planck once said "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it". Now we are in the epoch, when the classical low-dimensional physics must be replaced with some more general model and the number of empirical evidences against mainstream theories increases.
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 13, 2013
To me, physics would be useless without the math model
And vice-versa: Physics without understanding of this math is just a numerology. As Einstein once said: "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." Feynman was even more straightforward: "Physics is to mathematics as sex is masturbation"

As I already explained many times, the symmetry in universe comes in waves: at the increasing distance scales the fuzzy random objects alternate with symmetrical ones and back again. So far we lived in epoch, when the more formal approach helped the progress and the unification of physics. Now the same approach becomes a brake of the further unification.
vacuum-mechanics
1.3 / 5 (10) Mar 13, 2013
"Previous measurements of the 'Higgs-like' boson determined that it is probably a boson, which means it has a spin quantum number of zero and that it had positive parity. These are qualities we would expect of the Higgs boson, but also of just a Higgs boson (there are models with more than one, and of differing types) or another particle entirely," said Jonathan Carroll, Post Doctoral Research Associate at the University of Adelaide's Centre for the Subatomic Structure of Matter.

It seems that this evidence of Higgs boson (which was arisen from Higgs field), it is something like proving the existence of the old aether concept which wasn't been accepted before, wasn't it?
Maybe this could explain the mentioned problems.
http://www.vacuum...=9〈=en
Code_Warrior
2.3 / 5 (4) Mar 13, 2013
And vice-versa: Physics without understanding of this math is just a numerology. As Einstein once said: "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." Feynman was even more straightforward: "Physics is to mathematics as sex is masturbation"

I don't care how it all really works. To me, physics is a tool, nothing more. Physicists are employed to make the tool more accurate. If they are motivated by some grand quest to understand the true nature of reality, no problem. In the end, I just want the improved toolkit and the physical picture that goes with it. However, don't expect me to believe that the physical picture bears any semblance to reality. To me it's just an intuitive aid that allows the math to be more easily understood. As long as the physics toolkit keeps improving, I'm happy. If the physicists want to believe their theories are real, they are entitled to their opinion.
typicalguy
4 / 5 (5) Mar 13, 2013
This fake dense eather model with no math is not fooling anyone. You are the only one that believes it. When one person runs around and makes outrageous claims that no one else believes then says "trust me, it's real" instead of supporting it with math they are either an insane man on a science site or a cult leader telling people an alien space ship behind Halebop will pick up their souls once hey kill themselves.

While I'd rather you stay here and rant your insane nonsense than go outin the world and start some stupid cult, it's still really annoying spam. You need something more productive to do with your time.
Trenchant
3 / 5 (3) Mar 14, 2013
ValeriaT I hope you look good naked, 'cause you got nothing else going for ya.
Reg Mundy
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 14, 2013
ValeriaT does say good things occasionally, e.g.
Max Planck "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die.."

So does Code_Warrior
To me, physics is a tool, nothing more.

For centuries, science believed Earth was the centre of the Universe. Today, science says this is not so. But the Universe consists of all things observable, so as far as the Earth is concerned we are at the centre of an expanding bubble the edge of which is defined by the light reaching us today - therefore the Earth IS the centre of the Universe. The truth is what most people believe, and changes with time. What pisses me off is the dogmatic assertion by the current scientific establishment that they are RIGHT! Nearly everything in current astronomical science is based on fundamental assumptions that are unproven. Anyone who knows me is familiar with my disbelief in the law of gravity -easy to disprove!
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 14, 2013
@ 99% of previous posters:

Why don't almost all of you cease from posting diatribes against one another & do something constructive, you know, like directing your comments to the contents of the subject matter. If you don't like somebody's personal diatribes, ignore the post (don't even rank it with a one star, if you do, you acknowledge you've read it & that is what the poster wants, recognition, just go to the next post.

If you hold fast to discussing only the science of the subject matter, you just might be surprised how that one act in itself can substantially reduce the negativism of trolling. In most cases don't even click the "star" rankings feature, that just feeds trolling more than you know.
Royale
5 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2013
Lol, so you guys downvote Benni..

Q-Star: If you could recommend some place to get the proper physics math foundations, it would be great!!
Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (11) Mar 14, 2013
Lol, so you guys downvote Benni..

Q-Star: If you could recommend some place to get the proper physics math foundations, it would be great!!


I'll send ya a PM with some suggestions sometime today.
Reg Mundy
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 14, 2013
@natello
With qualitative understanding the spending of money into search of gravitational waves would be never possible, because everyone would realize, that these waves were observed already.

No, they haven't, and in my belief never will be, despite LIGO now undergoing it's third (or fourth?) reiteration at enormous cost.
On the other hand, comparatively trivial cost and simple experiments which prove that the accepted law of gravity or force of attraction between two bodies F=mMG/RR is untrue are ignored.
Royale
not rated yet Mar 14, 2013

I'll send ya a PM with some suggestions sometime today.


Thanks!
Tausch
1 / 5 (3) Mar 14, 2013
There are two universes. One inside our heads. And the other One.

I do not understand either one. I learn from both.

I lack the maturity to exclude any universe.
In the face of any universe we die naive.

Returning to the article...

"These will quite likely occur in the next few years, but at the moment 'Higgs' seems to be the best label to put on this particle."

This is a better label than God.
SethD
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 14, 2013
"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

All this time you "physicists" worked for the Pope! The Pope financed the LHC.. darn he even built it in his backyard, named it Gods particle... but you still didn't get it! How dumb is that

LOL
ValeriaT
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 14, 2013
What happened to "giving mass" to all matter?
The Higgs field was assumed to account into the mass of W/Z bosons only, which contributes to only 2% of observable matter mass (the gluons and photons are considered massless). Actually it's just misinterpretation of mainstream physics, because these bosons are slightly massive too and they're gaining their mass from density fluctuations of vacuum as well - just at different density scales. It's just more difficult to detect these Higgs bosons, because their mass depends on the mass of interacting particles - and the gluons and photons are exchanged between wide spectrum of different particles. For example the virtual photons mediating the Cassimir force between metallic plates should have its characteristic spectrum too, but its location would depend on the size of plates, so it cannot be attributed to single particle. After all the single Higgs boson is probably the illusion even for the particle found at LHC.
ValeriaT
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 14, 2013
IMO all massive objects are surrounded with less or more regular foam of density fluctuations, which has a geometry of nested dodecahedrons, but its very subtle and it vanishing with distance fast. At the case of Earth the nodes of invisible dark matter foam may give the physical meaning of dodecahedral Earth hypothesis and possibly even to distribution of convective currents of hot magma raising from Earth mantle. Because the neutrinos could behave like colliding spheres in certain extend, they're subject of sphere packing geometry around the Earth and the increasing concentration of the neutrinos in the nodes of that foam would lead into accelerated heating of magma with accelerated decay of radioactive elements in it. You shouldn't take this hypothesis cum grano salis though - but you should know, I know about it and collecting another indicia for it...;-)
ValeriaT
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 14, 2013
Please note, that in similar way like the five versions of Higgs the evidence grows for five versions of neutrino (chameleon particles). Is it accident? Nope - just the manifestation of the same particle packing geometry at different scales. The high-energy neutrinos are indeed particle-like in similar way, like the fast vortices at the water surface, but how the slow and low energy neutrinos should appear and behave?
Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (13) Mar 14, 2013
Is it accident? Nope -


So ya did it intentionally?

The high-energy neutrinos are indeed particle-like in similar way, like the fast vortices at the water surface, but how the slow and low energy neutrinos should appear and behave?


Are they transverse to the line of electron ducks? Or longitudinal with the line of electron ducks? (I've been missing the water surface stuff today, thanks for throwing that in.)
Code_Warrior
5 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2013
So you're just an ignorant, who is proud of its ignorance.
LOL. Oh the irony...
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2013
The Zephir account was already banned. Before some time I was banned from there regularly so I did stuck with two remaining randomly chosen accounts: one at computer at work, the second one at my notebook. I'm just lazy to consolidate them. The people should learn, the names aren't important here - the arguments are. Only the people, who have no arguments seek identity of author and for another ways, how to dismiss the uncomfortable opinions.
scientifically equipped people, who are able to argue logically
I'm deadly serious about it. The name calling and accusing of incompetence is indeed nice for expression of negativism, but it cannot replace the matter of fact arguments.

Zephyr, do you understand that when you are banned its because you did something against the site rules? I'll give you this, you wore down the monitors here to the point they realize its pointless to ban you anymore because youll make more accounts so you get away with it. but still....
Requiem
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 18, 2013
I feel sorry for whatever poor bastard still takes Zephyr out for a pint or two every now and then even though he's gone bonkers and gets to listen to him talk about how he owns all of the idiots on phys.org all the time. Just imagine THAT conversation.
nEc
5 / 5 (2) Mar 18, 2013
From what i've read (and im not loosing my mind to read all his comments), Zephyr definitely needs to take GR course with all of its subjects. I think prof. Gerard t'Hooft has a nice article for you to read, Zephyr. It's called "How to become GOOD theoretical physicist" (it's the first link in Google search, while searching article's title). I'd suggest you, to at least take a look at t'Hooft article's proposed topics... probably AFTER that, there would be some hope for you.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2013
"How to become GOOD theoretical physicist"
It's not my intention to become a physicist, theoretical the less. I'm seeking the simplest and most universally valid explanations, not the most exact one. And I want to remain solely practical in this matter. The role of BAD guy is much more entertaining, after all.
Q-Star
2.6 / 5 (10) Mar 18, 2013
"How to become GOOD theoretical physicist"
It's not my intention to become a physicist, theoretical the less. I'm seeking the simplest and most universally valid explanations, not the most exact one. And I want to remain solely practical in this matter. The role of BAD guy is much more entertaining, after all.


Zeph, I say this because I am fond of ya and I do enjoy bantering with ya,,,, but the role ya have chosen is not the "BAD guy", it's better described as the "VILLAGE idiot". Ya are like the dishevelled little man down at the Student Center Yard, the one carrying around the tattered sign that says "BEWARE THE ILLUMINATI AND THEIR TEMPLAR ENFORCERS". No, Zephyr, the role ya play is not the "BAD guy",,, (Though I can see why ya would like to think that.)
Reg Mundy
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 18, 2013
@Q-Star/antialias_physorg/brt/Quinn/all_your_other_aliases/etc.
For your own sake, give up with this "TEMPLAR" fixation, they aren't really out to get you, I was only joking! The "ILLUMINATI" however, are a different matter....