Particle looking 'more and more' like Higgs, LHC scientists say

Mar 06, 2013
This graphic distributed by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Geneva shows a representation of traces of traces of a proton-proton collision measured in the Compact Muon Solenoid experience. The subatomic particle whose discovery was announced amid much fanfare last year, is looking "more and more" like it could indeed be the elusive Higgs boson, scientists said.

The subatomic particle whose discovery was announced amid much fanfare last year, is looking "more and more" like it could indeed be the elusive Higgs boson believed to explain why matter has mass, scientists said Wednesday.

But in the latest update, told a conference in La Thuile, Italy, that more analysis is needed before a definitive statement can be made.

Key to a positive identification of the particle is a detailed analysis of its properties and how it interacts with other particles, the European Organisation for (CERN) explained in a statement.

Since scientists' announcement last July that they had found a particle likely to be the Higgs, much data has been analysed, and its properties are becoming clearer.

One property that will allow several teams researching the particle to declare whether or not it is a Higgs, is called spin.

A Higgs must have spin-zero.

"All the analysis conducted so far strongly indicates spin-zero, but it is not yet able to rule out entirely the possibility that the particle has spin-two," said .

"Until we can confidently tie down the particle's spin, the particle will remain Higgs-like. Only when we know that it has spin-zero will we be able to call it a Higgs."

British physicist Peter Higgs theorised in 1964 that the boson could be what gave mass to matter as the Universe cooled after the .

Last July, scientists said they were 99.9 percent certain they had found the particle without which, theoretically, humans and all other joined-up atoms in the Universe would not exist.

Explore further: Could 'Jedi Putter' be the force golfers need?

More information: public.web.cern.ch/public/

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.

Researchers' data are closing in on Higgs boson particle

Jun 21, 2012

Scientists at the world's largest atom smasher say they have reams of new data that will reveal with greater certainty whether they have already glimpsed a long-sought theoretical particle that could help ...

Recommended for you

Could 'Jedi Putter' be the force golfers need?

21 hours ago

Putting is arguably the most important skill in golf; in fact, it's been described as a game within a game. Now a team of Rice engineering students has devised a training putter that offers golfers audio, ...

Better thermal-imaging lens from waste sulfur

Apr 17, 2014

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 ...

User comments : 25

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

vacuum-mechanics
1.2 / 5 (23) Mar 06, 2013
One property that will allow several teams researching the particle to declare whether or not it is a Higgs, is called spin.
A Higgs must have spin-zero….
British physicist Peter Higgs theorised in 1964 that the boson could be what gave mass to matter as the Universe cooled after the Big Bang.

What we were told is that Higgs give mass, next we have to find where the Higgs got its mass! Maybe this physical view could help.
mechanics.com/index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=9〈=en
Maggnus
4.8 / 5 (20) Mar 06, 2013
Maybe this physical view could help.


maybe you ought to quit spamming science sites with your garbage.
mohammadshafiq_khan_1
1 / 5 (14) Mar 07, 2013
There could be no Higg's field or Higg's Boson because the very paradigm of physics under which Higg's field or Higg's Boson are theorised has been shown to be fundamentally incorrect & baseless. The paradigm shift of physics which Einstein proposed stands openly challenged and the open challenge could be seen on websites of World Science Database & General Science Journal in my profile.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (7) Mar 07, 2013
The spin has been more constrained towards the 0 spin state since last data release though.

BTW, the crackpots pushing their own invalid ideas (non-testable due to lack of description, even rejected generically as regards "no Higgs") instead of discussing the article (vm, mohammadshafiq_khan_1- the usual loons) reminds me of the article on the Nullarbor cave slime. Feeding of the ammonia of shit, instead of the energy from enlightened science.
VendicarE
4 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2013
It doesn't predict anything of course, since it isn't a predictive theory.

It isn't even a theory.

It is just mindless nutcase chatter.

"The dense aether model predicts clearly, how the Higgs boson should looks like." - NatCase
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2013
No such links appear in Mohammad's profile of course.

"World Science Database & General Science Journal in my profile." - Mohammad

Quack... Quack... Quack...

What is it about Quantum Mechanics and cosmology that attracts the mentally ill?
ant_oacute_nio354
1 / 5 (13) Mar 07, 2013
The Higgs doesn't exist.
The mass is an electric dipole moment.
vlaaing peerd
3 / 5 (4) Mar 08, 2013
The higgs DOES exist. It is predicted by unified GCM(Gouda Cheesehole model)field theory. The universe resembles the Gouda-cheese-hole model where the higgfield resembles the yellow stuff between the holes giving mass to the cheese. Note that the holes in the cheese do not carry mass but do contribute to the expansion of space-time(-cheese), it's only because French and Swiss cheese is not yellow nor does it have holes that they weren't able to come up with this competitive model for QM. Instead their cheese is all stinky and blue.

Mainstream science has teamed up with this dirty french/swiss conspiracy (LHC in between CH and FR a coincidence?!? I think not! ...just saying)to quickly build in the higgs and let QM prevail above the unified CHM theory.

I tell you, you can't trust them French and Swiss guys, there's something stinky about them, that's a predicted outcome from my low grade stinky blue cheese consumption-model (LGSBCC).

antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 08, 2013
I don't like the mainstream physics too, but such a cheap silly attacks actually weaken its opposition,

Actually the mere notion by some people that such a thing as 'mainstream' physics even exists puts them on the fringe of lunacy.

Phyics (and science in general) is about finding stuff that has NOT been found to date. It therefore can never be 'mainstream' since you never know what you will find.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 08, 2013
At the moment, when some findings are ignored just because they doesn't play well with mainstream theories

Again: 'mainstream physics' does not exist.

Stuff isn't ignored because it doesn't 'play well'. Stuff that doesn't work is just stuff that people tend not to put further effort in. That's how it goes in science. sometimes theories are just wrong - BECAUSE it doesn't agree with observation. Observation is the final arbiter. Period.

It doesn't matter how beautiful the theory it is, how much you want it to be true or what your name is. If it doesn't conform to observation it's wrong. People spent a lot of time and money on your pet theories an they couldn't observe what was predicted. End of story for that theory.

And you can beat a dead horse all you want but that doesn't make a wrong theory any more right.

Maggnus
5 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2013
If you want to fight against stupidity of mainstream physics, you should be smarter, not even more stupid.


SO what happened to you Zephyr? Fraud. You can't counter or explain the mainstream position on this because you don't understand it. You don't present a coherent argument because the maths are too difficult for you.

You are a pseudo-scientific lying fraud.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 08, 2013
where the Higgs boson resides, a more heavier intermediate object is formed, which decays like black hole of pulsar with symmetrical jets at both ends.


Cause the quantum ducks of the water ripples slowly disperse cross horizonally backwards thus osscilating the dark matter neutrinoes which then cause vibrate sychonistically with the dense deep water ocean currents. This cross horizontally sychonissity reacts with the electrically charged curtain field, resulting in a transoperational diatem affecting the metric brane of the quantum duck particle releasing bisymetrical energy which we see cause seismic disturbance.
typicalguy
5 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2013
These are the same people that claim you don't need math to prove an idea in physics.
baudrunner
1 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2013
Here's what Higgs did. He made some calculations based on the empirical results of previous collision experiments which when plugged into quantum theory makes possible the prediction of the next energy levels required to extract discrete quanta of energy from the photon background. And he got a right answer. That's it. Beyond that he simply talks too much. "Confer mass on other particles..?" Ridiculous. "Without which other particles wouldn't exist..?" Even more ridiculous. I don't see any Higgs boson paving the way for the spontaneous generation of electron/positron pairs from the photon background, and that has been observed to happen. I don't see any Higgs particle determining the generation of photons during the Dynamical Casimir Effect experiments. The existence of those particles in itself is vindication of the existence of the photon background, isn't it?. Higgs was predictable, but we can't go blurting out what it does just like that.
vlaaing peerd
1 / 5 (1) Mar 11, 2013
If you want to fight against stupidity of mainstream physics, you should be smarter, not even more stupid.


There's the crux, I AM more stupid than "mainstream physics" perhaps others should accept that fact too.

although I stand by my point that the French and Swiss are stinky and untrustworthy...and don't know how to make cheese.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 11, 2013
Do they belong into mainstream physics?

Who cares? Since 'mainstream physics' doesn't exist - it's only a figment of your imagination - it doesn't really matter.

If anyone does good physics (theory and experiment) then that's all that counts.

EVERY scientist out there would like nothing better than to discover the next revolutionary theory that sheds new light on what we observe by looking at it from a different angle (much like Relativity or Quantum Mechanics did).

The second best thing for EVERY scientist would be if ANOTHER scientist came up with such a theory - because it always affords a fresh angle for your own work.

Why do you think scientists go to conferences? To hear the "same old - same old"? No. They're all hoping for that one guy/girl with that particularly neat idea (and there's always one or two at every conference that makes it worth your while being there and paying the enormous admission fees).
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 11, 2013
You needn't to develop any math for being able to argue logically.

But you need to be able to understand what you're arguing against (or for). Logic is a very subtle business, and the issues in nature are far from simple.

If you don't understand the math behind the issue then you can't argue about the issue. It's like arguing about what makes a good chess move without being able to play chess. Sure you'll be able to say "just put the king in checkmate" - but that's not a useful analysis for predicting whether a particular move is good or not (or even valid).

Intuition is all well and good - but it doesn't work like in Gallileo's day. His opbservations were still in the realm of what we experience every day. Intuition is an EVOLVED feature based on experiences of us and our ancestors. When you get to particle physics no such experiences are available. Going at it with 'intuition' alone will just cause you to fall flat on your face.
krundoloss
1 / 5 (4) Mar 11, 2013
The way I see it, creating theories without following mainstream methods is fully possible, as long as it is possible to conceive it. If it is beyond human understanding then only math, experiment and observation can confirm the theory. If it cannot be fully conceived and cannot be tested, then it is just quack science. I feel that at some level we will find that space somehow loops in on itself, or branches out infinitely. When I hear the description of string theory, I can't help but imagine that these strings are the same as the Cosmic Web, which is what our universe looks like at the largest of scales. Could not they be the same?
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 11, 2013
For example, cold fusion research involves thousands of physicists, who maintain their own conferences regularly.

Good for them. There's absolutley nothing wrong with that. They do what all other scientific disciplines do - get together and exchange data/experimental results and theoretical work. If they ever get something to work it'll be great.

I got my stuff published in journals on medical imaging and biomedical mechanics. Does that mean it was 'ignored by mainstream physicists'? Of course not. So where exactly would you see this 'ignoring' of LENR going on? In which journals should they have been published? LENR researchers have their own conference proceedings and journals (which are hopefully peer reviewed). So where exactly is the problem? They get published there. Anyone interested can read their stuff.

antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2013
At the moment, when we have wikipeda entry about fringe science, then you cannot deny the existence of non-mainstream science.

A lot of the 'science' in there isn't science but pseudo-science (like aether and whatnot). With no, or even refuted, theoretical basis.

'Fringe', in this context, is merly another word for "they call themselves are science, but they really aren't by any accepted definition of what a science is"

The way I see it, creating theories without following mainstream methods is fully possible

Definitely. Though one has to always remember that a new theory must not only explain new phenomena (and predict different phenomena than currently accepted ones) BUT ALSO mesh with all previously observed phenomena.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2013
Everything else is just stamp collection.

I think you should look up the context of the quote before using it.
He was saying this about 'scientific' endeavours like naming bird species. Putting names to things does not constitute science (as it does not add information - just labels). THAT is what he meant by 'collecting stamps'.

In the lack of replication attempts in mainstream press.

I think you don't get this. Other scientists aren't there to replicate your results. YOU are there to show results and demonstrate the theory.
If it sounds like it's worthwhile others MAY take it up and try somethnig of their own with it (which peole did with cold fusion. Plenty of times and with LOTS of funding - as has been shown to you at least 100 times on this forum alone)

If they don't you can still turn it into a product. Who cares if it gets published if you can find a real-world application?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (8) Mar 12, 2013
Well, I'm just saying, the center of mass of scientific research has returned back into garages of independent researchers working in Faraday/Thompson/Tesla style. I'm not talking about quantity measured with number of publications and citations here, but about quality as measured by its contribution for human civilization as a whole.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2013
Well, I'm just saying, the center of mass of scientific research has returned back into garages of independent researchers working in Faraday/Thompson/Tesla style. I'm not talking about quantity measured with number of publications and citations here, but about quality as measured by its contribution for human civilization as a whole.


Zephyr, this is simply not true. There may be some attempts at garage-style physics going on, but the vast majority of current research requires far more equipment than is available to a single individual. Or even a group of individuals.

That is not to say there isn't room for experimentation! But that's a whole lot different from what you're talking about.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2013
There may be some attempts at garage-style physics going on, but the vast majority of current research requires far more equipment than is available to a single individual.
But this majority will be all payed from findings like the cold fusion of hydrogen at nickel or magnetic motors and similar devices. And this is the point: who is paying who in this game.

This doesn't say, that the organized qualified research of professional scientists isn't important. But currently it seems for me, these professionals are just waiting, whether the laymans will develop something really useful for their safe life.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2013
Back to business: Mystery boson earns Higgs status thanks to W particle. IMO the Higgs observed is actually just a first member from line of another four bosons, which would exhibit charge and which are manifestation of AdS/CFT correspondence to dark matter. Illustratively speaking the geometry of energy scattering at the large scales is geometrically similar to scattering at short scales. It means that the Higgs boson is manifestation of nodes of quantum foam of dodecahedral geometry, which is quite similar to dark matter foam observable in CMBR power spectrum. Note that the largest nodes of that foam don't exhibit spin, whereas the other smaller nodes exhibit so-called dark flow. It sorta corresponds the SUSY model, which predicts five Higgses too - and we can actually see them already!

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 ...

Health care site flagged in Heartbleed review

People with accounts on the enrollment website for President Barack Obama's signature health care law are being told to change their passwords following an administration-wide review of the government's vulnerability to the ...

Airbnb rental site raises $450 mn

Online lodging listings website Airbnb inked a $450 million funding deal with investors led by TPG, a source close to the matter said Friday.