Broadest set of results to date about the properties of the Higgs boson

Broadest set of results to date about the properties of the Higgs boson
New results from the CMS collaboration are pinning down the properties of the Higgs boson Credit: Maximilien Brice/CERN

With the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) preparing to restart in a few months, data from its first run has already been bearing fruit.

A recent publication by the CMS collaboration brings together the broadest set of results to date about the properties of the Higgs boson. The paper, submitted to The European Physical Journal C showcases what CMS physicists have learnt about the particle using data taken between 2011 and 2012 Together with another paper on the spin and parity of the boson, the results draw a picture of a particle that – for the moment – cannot be distinguished from the Standard Model predictions for the Higgs boson.

The Standard Model of is a theoretical framework that explains how the basic building blocks of matter interact, governed by four fundamental forces. Developed in the early 1970s, it has successfully explained almost all experimental results and precisely predicted a wide variety of phenomena – including the mass of the Higgs boson.

The CMS experiment recently combined measurements from different decays of the Higgs to extract the most precise measurement of its mass to date: 125.02±0.30 GeV, with a relative uncertainty of 0.2%. This uncertainty can be split into a systematic component (±0.15 GeV) and a statistical component (±0.26 GeV), which provides excellent prospects for Run 2 to yield an even more precise mass measurement, as more data will reduce the statistical component.

The Higgs boson is the final piece of the Standard Model – when it was discovered by the CMS and ATLAS experiments in 2012, it was the last particle predicted by the Model to be verified experimentally. But with all parameters now experimentally constrained, physicists can use the Model to make even more specific predictions. For example, having measured the mass of the Higgs boson, the Standard Model makes unambiguous predictions as to what the Higgs boson's other properties should be. Some, such as the boson's spin (zero), parity (positive), and electric charge (neutral) stem directly from the symmetries of the Standard Model. But others, such as the strength with which the Higgs boson interacts (or couples) with other Standard Model particles are harder to check.

The Higgs boson decays to many different particles, including photons, Z bosons, W bosons, tau leptons, b quarks and muons. Checking how the Higgs decays into these particles, and with what probabilities, will allow physicists to complete the picture and gain a better understanding of the Higgs.

Finding no significant deviations with the Standard Model has set the bar high for the LHC's Run 2. Theorists and experimentalists will continue working together to find a small wrinkle in the so far smooth Higgs boson picture. That small wrinkle that may point the way out of the Standard Model oasis, across the desert, and the as-yet unknown physics beyond. It's going to be an exciting Run 2.


Explore further

ATLAS sees Higgs boson decay to fermions

More information: "Precise determination of the mass of the Higgs boson and tests of compatibility of its couplings with the standard model predictions using proton collisions at 7 and 8 TeV. " arXiv:1412.8662 [hep-ex] arxiv.org/abs/1412.8662

"Constraints on the spin-parity and anomalous HVV couplings of the Higgs boson in proton collisions at 7 and 8 TeV." arXiv:1411.3441 [hep-ex] arxiv.org/abs/1411.3441

Journal information: arXiv

Provided by CERN
Citation: Broadest set of results to date about the properties of the Higgs boson (2015, January 27) retrieved 26 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-01-broadest-results-date-properties-higgs.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
83 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jan 27, 2015
Doug - I'm afraid that you're too far beyond most of the people that want to believe in science before they could possibly believe that all of this didn't come from a big bang.

All this talk about a Higg's Boson which merely means that the energy comes in finite quantum and that you can easily guess the next via nothing more than a mathematical set of rules. And that finding the Higg's Boson is exciting to mathematicians and physicists because it only proves their equations.

But the people reading here are the same people that think that we can colonize Mars and go faster then the speed of light.

Jan 27, 2015
Ahh, further validation of the standard model, still not falsifiable and the reliable tool of legions of witch doctors.

No, the standard moded is falsifiable. For example, if no Higgs had been detected, then that would have been evidence for it not being correct.

Jan 27, 2015
Doug - I'm afraid that you're too far beyond most of the people that want to believe in science before they could possibly believe that all of this didn't come from a big bang.

Pfft. Evidence that there was a big bang, like the CMBR? Why can't I just be glib and think that physicists pull this stuff out of their asses like religious people do?
All this talk about a Higg's Boson which merely means that the energy comes in finite quantum and that you can easily guess the next via nothing more than a mathematical set of rules. And that finding the Higg's Boson is exciting to mathematicians and physicists because it only proves their equations.

And we all know that physicists' equations come from imagination, rather than decades of empirical observation. Right? Right? Oh wait...
But the people reading here are the same people that think that we can colonize Mars and go faster then the speed of light.

Why shouldn't we be able to eventually colonize Mars?

Jan 27, 2015
Exactly! The leap from detecting an energy vibration that lasted an insignificantly short duration, to the claim that this frequency is responsible for all of the mass in the universe,

Well, no, they don't claim that it is responsible for all the mass in the universe. According to Matt Strassler:
"What about the Higgs field being the source for all mass in the universe? This statement, though you will often find it in the press or in glib articles written for the public, is false."
See here:
http://profmattst...related/

The preoccupation with attempting to study energy vibrations which immediately decay into stable photons has preoccupied science for far too long.

Well energy is directly related to the hamiltonian operator, which governs the state of physical systems, so, I would say it's a perfectly good place to look for physical behavior.

Jan 27, 2015
• Economics can produce bubbles, and so can science. It appears to be a universal mechanism of human aspiration that, while following the seemingly obvious methods, can gradually slip into absurdity, leaving behind unresolved problems. In the sixteenth Century, Nicolaus Copernicus dared to go against the establishment by proposing that Earth rotates around the Sun. Today our Science to EGOcentric system with best PR. In Science Society it is impolite to not agree with their theories and present new revolutionary. Whatever Universe has in store for mankind, unpleasant as it may be, man has to understand, for ignorance is self-destruction, never better than knowledge. The theoretical physics has gotten lost in bizarre constructs that are completely disconnected from reality. More than ever, the world needs the competence of physicists no playing with fantasies more suited to science fiction industry. Dear Stephen do not start with BIG BANG, it is stupid!!!

Jan 27, 2015
Last I heard, the standard model did not precisely predict the mass of the Higgs, the mass was nailed down by the LHC.

If we truly understood physics, there would be no paradoxes, that understanding would precisely predict not only masses, but everything correctly. The standard model is a good approximation which is why the discovery of the Higgs was inevitable but it doesn't explain everything and can't predict a lot of what we know.

Jan 28, 2015
My focus is what is an electron, nothing against the Higgs ... I just don't think it's unique, it "decays" into ... that's enough for me so isn't that indicative of structural components? Thus is the Higgs a construction, not an entity?

Jan 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jan 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jan 28, 2015
Stable energy...yes.

No, all energy. The Hamiltonian contains all related energy operators.
Not the little "pieces" which have to "decay" into photons..

No, those too. Every energy operator must be included in the Hamiltonian.
they are useless

How do you know?
cannot be stabilized

Maybe. But, that has nothing to do with whether discovering them is useful.
and apparently hypnotize PHD's into believing they mean more than they do

Well no. They happened to confirm a longstanding hypothesis, so they definitely mean a lot more than you think they do.

Jan 28, 2015
If it can't exist on it's own in our universe, it is foolish to attach any significance to it

1) This is a strange criteria to use. The lowest temperature ever created couldn't exist on its own. High temperature superconductors can't exist on their own. Synthetic elements like Einsteinium can't exist on their own. Yet, these are all worth studying.

You might mean that something that's fleeting isn't worth studying, in which case, you should tell people to stop studying things like sonoluminescence, and short gamma ray bursts. Hell, if we ever encounter a signal from an extraterrestrial civilization, that might be fleeting too, but worth studying, nonetheless. Again, this seems like a strange criteria to use for whether something is worth studying.
2) The Higgs CAN exist on its own, just not for very long. The atmosphere is regularly bombarded with high energy particles, which have likely created a few Higgs particles.

Jan 28, 2015
In the REAL WORLD, unstable energy is useless, this is how I know that it is useless.

Well, if you are going to use it to generate power, then yes. But not everything's use is based on its ability to generate power. The Higgs is useful as a measuring tool. In the case of the Higgs, it's useful because it allows us, among other things, to measure the properties of the Higgs field itself, and if it is the thing that imparts mass to W, and Z Bosons, and quarks, and fermions, then it is very useful.
If you have a use, something that an energy frequency lasting a fraction of a femto second can accomplish to aid the human race, please, do tell.

Understanding why certain things have mass is very useful.
Exactly what is the hypothesis confirmed by their existence for such an insignificant duration?

That the Higgs mechanism actually exists.

Jan 28, 2015
Interaction between elementary particles and vacuum of spacedetermines their behavior and characteristics. There is no reason a separate specialized elementary particle to create mass of other particles, where each of them can interact in the same way as the the imaginary Higgs boson.

Jan 28, 2015
You're dying from dehydration...how much water can you drink in a femto second if that is how long it lasts?

This is a non-sequitor.
What frequencies WEREN'T discovered for a fraction of a femto second when the proton packets were smashed together?

It's not a question of whether a frequency is observed so much as whether we can easily distinguish it from background noise. The Higgs has been confirmed to at least 5 sigmas of evidence, and some reports place it at 7. That's a sharp contrast with anything that would arise from background noise.

Jan 28, 2015
There is no reason a separate specialized elementary particle to create mass of other particles, where each of them can interact in the same way as the the imaginary Higgs boson.

And yet our equations tell us that the Higgs Mechanism is required for the W and Z bosons to have mass, and we performed an experiment and found precisely that.

Personal preference has no bearing on reality. Deal with it, and move on--or come up with your own falsifiable theory, which does a better job at predicting reality.

Jan 28, 2015
In the REAL WORLD, unstable energy is useless
@reset
1- only in your opinion
2- don't we use atomic decay (unstable elements/energy) to generate power? https://en.wikipe..._battery
also not sure why you used this non-sequitor reference
how much water can you drink in a femto second
https://en.wikipe...on_decay
The problem is that you don't have an understanding of physics (go here: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm ) you said
How did you come to support a branch of science that has nothing but math as it's reality?
in this thread: http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
which demonstrates your lack of knowledge of physics in general (see: https://en.wikipe.../Physics for details)

this lack of knowledge is likely why you still support the debunked eu religion
I hope the above links teach you something and you can then join reality

Jan 28, 2015
The burden of proof is on you to prove that the Higgs actually does have a bearing on reality

What is 7 Sigmas of evidence and how does it work?
.in a way other than symbols scribbled on a chalkboard.

What is the experimentation done at the LHC, and how does it work?
As of right now you have a measured frequency and a claim that it means something.

Well, yes. It means that our best particle theory has not been falsified even though we just tried really hard to do so.
the math which describes ANYTHING is useful for as long as ANYTHING lasts.

Uh, no. It's useful for longer than it lasts because the Higgs is a quantum of the Higgs field, and that's what we're really interested in.
How much of an equation can you read in the amount of time the "Higgs" is stable?

Why do crackpots hate equations so much? I mean, have you discovered another means of precisely describing reality in a compact manner, because I sure would like to know about it.

Jan 28, 2015
Circular logic. If you were searching for a frequency other than the Higgs then IT becomes the background noise.

Um. No. That's not even remotely true. Of course, if you are a crackpot, you'd think that just like you, everyone else determines the nature of reality through confirmation bias, but since you are a crackpot, that's only how you do it. Do you understand what a sigma is?
Given the nature of the event in question I would be surprised if the entire spectrum wasn't covered.

What is frequency domain, and how does it work?
So again...were back to how does IT do what is claimed?

I told you how it does what is claimed. It is used as a tool for measuring the properties of the Higgs field, which was shown to be necessary in order for the W and Z bosons to have mass. It enables us to understand our own theories better, and maybe even give us clues into how to probe even deeper.

Jan 28, 2015
Do you understand what a sigma is?
@theFurlong
in all actuality, i think you really nailed it with the following comment
if you are a crackpot, you'd think that just like you, everyone else determines the nature of reality through confirmation bias, but since you are a crackpot, that's only how you do it
reset still doesn't know what physics really is
you should read his comments that i quoted above regarding his belief about what physics is: i think it completely describes and defines why he cannot fathom actual physics and sticks to the crackpot theories

Thanks for continuing to share your knowledge here to those of us who are trying to learn

you are very much appreciated

Jan 28, 2015
@Captain
you should read his comments that i quoted above regarding his belief about what physics is: i think it completely describes and defines why he cannot fathom actual physics and sticks to the crackpot theories

Dear God! How did I miss this gem?
My favorite, so far is
There is no logic behind black holes as they are described by the science community. Their theorized existence is based on nothing more than the observation that the earths mass holds us here and runaway math based on this observation.

Yep, let's just ignore Kepler's laws, Mercury's precession, the fact that our GPS must account for gravitational time dilation, observed effects of frame dragging, and so on. Yes, it's all because we had a math paroxysm that kept us from actually physically testing our own theories. Yes, that's how it works.
Thanks for continuing to share your knowledge here to those of us who are trying to learn

No problem. I'm still have a lot to learn, myself.

Jan 28, 2015
@Moebius: It is a mistake to think that we can predict everything exactly even with full physics knowledge.

Measuring masses of particles is a perfect example, because the more shortlived they are the more observational (and so predictive) uncertainty increase. There is also phenomena like chaos that prevents this, and so on. This has been known for a century by now (as the first example was precisley quantum physics).

@tommo: What do you mean by "the Higgs"? There is a scalar particle field, the Higgs field, and its natural resonance ripple [ http://profmattst...re-they/ ], the Higgs particle.

Jan 28, 2015
I find it humorous when crackpots complain about "unstable energy", since it drives life (in the form of non-equilibrium thermodynamics) and communication/computers (in the form of finite signals).

Conversely, the Higgs field has been stable ever since cosmological inflation stopped and our universe emerged.

It may or may not be unstable, the question is open, since the Higgs and top masses place it precisely on the quasistable border between stability and instability. Not even the future upgrades of LHC should suffice to pinpoint the parameters enough to know, but we need the next gen accelerators. If one is curious about the fate of the universe, such an "unstable energy" (only 10^100 years or so) would be interesting to know more about.

But not for crackpots, they need to obey their useless confirmation bias.

Jan 28, 2015
I will stick to the physics of matter and energy that can be manipulated, studied in detail in a lab

I hate to break this to you, but the LHC is a lab. It's a very big lab, but a lab, nonetheless.
The stable stuff based on charge differential and magnetic fields.

So...basically, if it's physics that resulted from any of the myriad discoveries from the 20th century into the 21st, you're not interested. I am glad to see that you are so deeply curious about nature.
You guys have a blast working with and supporting the invisible

Well, most things are invisible.
undetectable,

Nope!
strictly theoretical,

Nay! What is experiment, and how does it work?
the stuff that lasts not long enough to say existed at all

NEIN! So, something needs to last for a minimum amount of time before it can exist? Which physical postulate demands that?
if psychotic dementia requires fulfilling.

Says the willfully ignorant crackpot.

Jan 28, 2015
It may or may not be unstable, the question is open, since the Higgs and top masses place it precisely on the quasistable border between stability and instability. Not even the future upgrades of LHC should suffice to pinpoint the parameters enough to know, but we need the next gen accelerators. If one is curious about the fate of the universe, such an "unstable energy" (only 10^100 years or so) would be interesting to know more about.

Thanks for that information. I didn't know that. I'll have to look it up.

Jan 30, 2015
A magnetic field is the only "invisible" thing in the universe...until energy interacts with it.

Energy doesn't interact, my crackpot friend. Particles interact through fields. Energy is a quantity (property of particles or fields) that is conserved. Not everything interacts with electromagnetism, so not everything is visible.
The invisible crap theoretical physicists claim exists but can't find is invisible because it actually doesn't exist.

And you know this because...?
First, I don't know what you mean by invisible. Do you You can't mean undetectable, since the things you have a beef with, like dark matter, are detectable. That's the whole point. We've detected them, and they present a mystery, and we're trying to figure out what they are. In the case of the Higgs, it isn't so much of a mystery, but still we've detected it through cross-sections. So, what do you mean?

Jan 30, 2015
I hate to break this to you, but manipulate and study in detail doesn't mean look at data snapshots and infer

And I hate to break this to you, but most things in the universe cannot be directly manipulated. We can't for example, manipulate a distant star. But that doesn't mean we can't derive theories about it based on how we know matter to behave. All we can do, until we develop better technology, is use the technology we have to make the best guesses possible. And then we test these guesses by looking for what they predict. If what they predict reliably appears, then we've made a pretty good guess. There is no other way of doing this.

...in other words...remove a quark and do something with it outside a proton. Then you can claim that you understand it.

in other words, remove a core and do something with it outside the sun. Then you can claim to understand it. That's how it works, right?

Jan 30, 2015
Smashing protons into each other creates photons.

And quarks and gluons.
The "temporary" pieces have no function

Sure they do. They allow us to understand protons and fields better.
( other than bait for idiots who attach more significance to them than they actually have and make lavish claims about their functionality that can never be verified )

Blah, blah, blah. LOLI HAET MODERN PHYSICS. I don't know what you want from physicists. I have a suggestion. Instead of complaining in your armchair, learn about modern physics, and then start thinking about better ways to probe the deepest properties of matter. It's not like we found nothing. For God's sake, we just confirmed a major long standing hypothesis. It might NOT have turned out that way. We could have found no Higgs, and then what would you be doing?
You'd be sneering at scientists for wasting taxpayer dollars for not finding anything. Just shut up already.

Jan 30, 2015
The only thing left is the photonic information from the final unstable particle's demise. To those of us not brainwashed into thinking the pre-decay "particles" mean something...well, they just don't.

Well, apparently, they mean something, since it allows us to do things like accurately compute the properties of "larger" sub-atomic particles like protons. It also allows us to predict the expected value of how many protons will be present after a given interaction.

It just doesn't mean anything to you because you don't understand particle physics well enough.

Energy is a waveform bound by a field which stabilizes it.

Pseudoscience Gobbledygook.

http://hyperphysi...con.html
http://hyperphysi...ork.html

Educate yourself, and then come back a better person.

If it decays, then the field is unstable until the energy can reach a frequency where the field can stabilize again.

Energy doesn't decay.

Jan 30, 2015
@reset
Also, quark gluon plasma is a theoretical form of matter in which quarks are free particles, so, if we can figure out how to produce it, we might actually be able to directly study them.

Jan 30, 2015
@reset
Also, quark gluon plasma is a theoretical form of matter in which quarks are free particles, so, if we can figure out how to produce it, we might actually be able to directly study them.
QGP have been produced since at least 2005 at the RHIC and 2011 at the LHC. http://www.bnl.go...amp;t=pr & http://www.symmet...n-plasma

Jan 30, 2015
QGP have been produced since at least 2005 at the RHIC and 2011 at the LHC. http://www.bnl.go...amp;t=pr

Thanks, Techno. I don't think it's been independently verified, yet, though, I probably was wrong in the wording I used, indicating that we didn't have the technology to create it yet.

Jan 30, 2015
There is nothing to "compute" because we can only manipulate matter/energy on the electron/proton scale via photons or magnetic fields.

Ok, well, we can't manipulate the core of stars at all, so I guess there is nothing to compute...
Interpreting these interactions doesn't HAVE to be done from a mainstream particle physics standpoint

Ok, this is getting us no where.

You don't believe in the Higgs. But here's the thing: you don't have to believe in it.

Something that looks a whole lot like it has been found. And that indicates that the Higgs field exists.

Now, why is this useful? Well, you'd agree that it would be very useful to learn how to manipulate matter at a level deeper than we currently can.

So, here is how this helps us. There are two basic possibilities:

1) the Higgs Mechanism is actually correct.
2) It isn't correct.

Suppose 1) is true. Well, then, you have nothing to complain about. (tbc)

Jan 30, 2015
@reset
(continued)
In this case, science was successful, and you are wrong. Moreover, since the Higgs mechanism does work, then learning the properties of the Higgs enables us to learn exactly how the Higgs field, itself works. This will likely enable us to learn how to manipulate matter at a deeper level. It's possible, that the properties of the Higgs will reveal something about the Higgs field that we didn't expect, which will lead to technological breakthroughs. It's happened before several times.

Now, let's suppose you are correct, and there is no Higgs mechanism. Well, "properties" we examine from the Higgs (which turns out to be fake), will make predictions about the Higgs mechanism, which will, in turn, allow us to make predictions about the properties of fermions, and W and Z Bosons. At some point, we will find that these predictions no longer match up with reality. This will, again, lead us to new physics.

Either way, we win, by increasing our knowledge.

Jan 30, 2015
@reset
As for this:
Pseudoscience gobbledygook.
God is a theoretical being touted as respsonsible for existence but if we can produce just the right frequency of light and sound simultaneously, we can study him.


Well, we know exactly how to create QCG, assuming we can produce enough energy, and as TechnoCreed pointed out, we've probably created it already.

On the other hand, what you just argued is spurious because we don't know how to study God. I mean, do you have a proposed, theoretically sound mechanism, for studying God? One that we are confident would work if, say, we had enough energy? Because that would be pretty cool. Of course, in order to study God, you first have to define what God is, which is a problem, since God is kind of ill-defined. And before that, you'd have to have at least good physical reasons for why God might exist in the first place, which we don't have.

So, sorry, you are clutching at straws.

Jan 30, 2015
Only one of us is getting nowhere doing what we are doing. How many real world applications do we have for any "particle" produced from these collisions?

Well, you should ask yourself how often technology DIDN'T benefit from what was once the purview of science.

For a long time, for example, GR was considered just a theoretical peculiarity. Now, we use it routinely in GPS. Radioactivity, when it was discovered, was completely unexpected, and had no uses. In general scientific discovery translates to technological advancement.

The whole point of these particle experiments is to get at the deep properties of matter--and if we can understand those properties, the applications are that we will be able to manipulate energy and matter better.

We have no means of stabilizing any of these "particles" outside the structure of a proton.

Why are you so obsessed with stabilizing these particles? I already told you how they can be useful without it.

Jan 30, 2015
This lead some of us to consider that these aren't particles at all, that these lobes represent the field boundary structures.

Well, I don't know what you mean by field boundary structure, but it sounds like you are saying that quarks, and the like, are just epiphenomenon. Well, that could be possible. But it's not like we haven't gained tremendous insight by studying epiphenomena before.

For example, Maxwell's equations are epiphenomena stemming from QED. Studying them was very valuable, as you know, and allowed us to learn about what actually causes them.

If we know the epiphenomenon well enough, then we can figure out how to probe deeper into it and find how it really ticks.

The cost of investigating these things is negligible in the grand scheme of things. It cost us $13.5 B to search for the Higgs. You know how much money we spent on the Iraq war? $6 Trillion. We spend about $35 B A YEAR on sports.

Jan 30, 2015
Oh man...mainstream theoretical science is a hayfield dude. It is nothing BUT straw.

I vehemently beg to differ, and you have absolutely no justification for saying that. As I said, we could have failed to find the Higgs, and that would have arguably been a debacle.

But we did. And so, once again, physics, as far as we can tell, has proven successful. You have absolutely no reason for saying that modern physics is a hayfield when it has been NOTHING but successful.

My point about God was that as far as the world is concerned there are not different levels of theoretical...you have verified and you have not verified.


Your point about God was spurious PERIOD. Don't compare God, a concept that has absolutely no physical justification, with quarks, which at least overwhelmingly SEEM to exist.

Jan 30, 2015
@reset
The sad thing about 21st century physics is that all the data is collected and stored electronically renderring it 'virtual' but all the particles of the standard model are physical objects and were then visualized in bubble chambers. In other words we were taking picture of them just like we can take picture of your face on a silver film. Are digital pictures invalid because you need electronics to read them? This is what you are proposing. http://history.fn...#Drickey

Feb 01, 2015
A recent publication by the CMS collaboration brings together the broadest set of results to date about the properties of the Higgs boson. The paper, submitted to The European Physical Journal C showcases what CMS physicists have learnt about the particle using data taken between 2011 and 2012 Together with another paper on the spin and parity of the boson, the results draw a picture of a particle that – for the moment – cannot be distinguished from the Standard Model predictions for the Higgs boson.


Assuming the finding is correct it isn't terribly useful. As I understand it, some theoretical physicists were actually hoping it was wrong and they'd find some weirdo properties in order to make it easier to explain things like dark matter and dark energy.

Once you close the holes in the standard particle model, it leaves few mechanical tools left to probe dm and de, whatever they are.

The known laws apparently forbid temporal beings from knowing all the laws.

Feb 01, 2015
The cost of investigating these things is negligible in the grand scheme of things. It cost us $13.5 B to search for the Higgs. You know how much money we spent on the Iraq war? $6 Trillion. We spend about $35 B A YEAR on sports.

@reset
In addition, there are technology spinoffs from CERN and other physics experiments that have paid for their cost many times over (for example, you mention using your tablet - presumably this has a touch-screen, invented at CERN, and connects to various web sites, the underlying technologies for which were invented at CERN; there are others but you ought to visit the CERN and other physics sites to find out more).
That one day my tablet will run on Quark power?

And how do you know it won't? Ok, probably not but nevertheless who would have predicted 50 years ago that electron tunneling would be used in the real world (that you are so fond of quoting) to enable mobile reception from GPS satellites? To your tablet too.

Feb 03, 2015
All technology/biology/chemistry either works off of charge differential or EM radiation.

For now.
Since we are, and always will be physically unable to manipulate or control ANY of the "particles" inside a proton or neutron

Only based off of current technology.
functionality of these particles is and always will be nothing more than claims "verified" by math.

Wrong. In their absence, we would not observe certain configurations of photons and the EM field. They DO have a very measurable effect.
the final description of a particle collision at CERN is that the post impact results ENDED UP as a shitload of EM radiation

Umm, no. They also produce neutrinos and anti-neutrinos (via the production of kaons and pions). Oh hey! Those are also stable--and they only interact with the weak force.

Nope, you still don't know what you're talking about.

Feb 03, 2015
he first thing WIKI says about the Pion is that it isn't stable

Well, yes, but my point wasn't about Pions.
Neutrinos I'll give you...neat little things those are.

But we can't detect them, though, except for collisions with atomic nuclei, which produce bursts of radiation, or through conservation of momentum/energy. So, basically, you have a double standard.
which is quanta of energy that can only exist when inside a nucleus

Oh, except when the temperature reaches billions of degrees, and you get quark gluon plasma.
you can claim an infinite number of things are going there,

Well, then claim something else. Remember, it has has to be CONSISTENT with everything we've already observed. For example, according to modern theory, the quarks in a proton have mass less than the binding energy of the proton. So, you would have to explain where some of the mass goes when a proton explodes. (tbc)

Feb 03, 2015
(continued)
According to current theory, the extra mass of the proton is due to the binding energy of the color force holding the quarks together. But, what you suggest is that quarks don't actually exist, and that instead, protons are just a really complicated ATOMIC (as in inseparable) oscillation. But then, where does the extra mass go? So, it isn't as easy as you think it is to just claim "an infinite number of things" going on in there.

Also, please learn to use quotes directly. "open bracket-q-close bracket" followed by text followed by "open bracket-slash-q-close bracket" does the trick. Your comments are difficult to read otherwise. Thank you.

Feb 10, 2015
It is impossible to determine the 3D properties of any object by studying a picture
@reset
do you really believe this bullsnot? seriously?
in Aerial photography, The standard formula for scale is [(H-h)/f] = PSR. Where H is altitude above sea level (MSL) h is ground elevation... then there is forensic photography, which allows for accurate measurement of background products to produce a 3 dimensional scale for the picture (multiple angles given to reduce parralax) as well as the forulas here http://rscc.umn.e...7-5.html plus there is the cosmography ( http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0091 ) methods to determine scale

do i need to go into detail about multiple pictures from a stationary point w/established timing to determine motion and velocity?

and you call US dumb as shite? you don't even know the basics that are shown on almost ANY freakin cop program and modern TV show worldwide!

glad i've been away ... you are too stupid

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