# [Wired] Physics Community Afire With Rumors of Higgs Boson Discovery



## redfroth

GO!!! GO!!! GO!!!


----------



## Sylence

Oh man, this is incredible if true!


----------



## royalflush5

Ill have the champagne on ice









Fingers crossed!


----------



## adventfred

MY "GOD"


----------



## Illusive Spectre

Awesome!!! GOOOOO!!! (I have no idea what this is all about).


----------



## Jibatsu

So close! keep it up guys, almost there!


----------



## andrews2547

I have no idea what the Higgs Boson is but after a quick look on Wikipedia it said something about understanding gravity. If this isn't a rumor and it is true does this mean that some time in the future anti-gravity/gravity machines will be invented? I've wanted some gravity machines for many years to make driving and flying simulators even more realistic.


----------



## adventfred

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Illusive Spectre*
> 
> Awesome!!! GOOOOO!!! (I have no idea what this is all about).


Check below








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *andrews2547*
> 
> I have no idea what the Higgs Boson is but after a quick look on Wikipedia it said something about understanding gravity. If this isn't a rumor and it is true does this mean that some time in the future anti-gravity/gravity machines will be invented? I've wanted some gravity machines for many years to make driving and flying simulators even more realistic.


Th "higgs" is the particle that gives all other particles "mass" it is and would be the most important scientific discovery ( when it comes to the universe lol )
It is the last particle to be discovered to complete the standard model


----------



## DuckieHo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *andrews2547*
> 
> I have no idea what the Higgs Boson is but after a quick look on Wikipedia it said something about understanding gravity. If this isn't a rumor and it is true does this mean that some time in the future anti-gravity/gravity machines will be invented? I've wanted some gravity machines for many years to make driving and flying simulators even more realistic.


The Higgs Boson explains gravity... proving it exists just validates that our understanding of the universe is correct. Mass is predicted to be due to this particle "clinging" to other particles.

Practical applications are very well removed from this type of fundamental research.


----------



## Fuell

I want to stop hearing they "might" have or "hope" to have found it. I hear that every month for the past several years now. Though this sounds promising and exciting, so did many in the past. I'll keep my fingers crossed, but I won't get my hopes up till they said they "HAVE" found it...


----------



## MagicBox

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fuell*
> 
> I want to stop hearing they "might" have or "hope" to have found it. I hear that every month for the past several years now. Though this sounds promising and exciting, so did many in the past. I'll keep my fingers crossed, but I won't get my hopes up till they said they "HAVE" found it...


It's called progress, none of those times those experiments reached a 4-sigma level, now they reached that with two independant experiements. It's homing in on formal validation of the theory, just as the little theory that R = U * I has been validated decades ago, the little theory that makes your computers work the way they do


----------



## Phaedrus2129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MagicBox*
> 
> It's called progress, none of those times those experiments reached a 4-sigma level, now they reached that with two independant experiements. It's homing in on formal validation of the theory, just as the little theory that R = U * I has been validated decades ago, the little theory that makes your computers work the way they do


Do you mean R = V / I ?


----------



## Pheatton

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DuckieHo*
> 
> The Higgs Boson explains gravity... proving it exists just validates that our understanding of the universe is correct. Mass is predicted to be due to this particle "clinging" to other particles.
> Practical applications are very well removed from this type of fundamental research.


If this is true why are we so obsessed with finding it?


----------



## DuckieHo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fuell*
> 
> I want to stop hearing they "might" have or "hope" to have found it. I hear that every month for the past several years now. Though this sounds promising and exciting, so did many in the past. I'll keep my fingers crossed, but I won't get my hopes up till they said they "HAVE" found it...


Being scientists, they will probably say "We have with a high degree of certainty found it!"

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pheatton*
> 
> If this is true why are we so obsessed with finding it?


If we do *not* find it... then our Standard Model is flawed.

If we do find it, then our current Standard Model continues to make sense.

A lot of assumptions and "zany stuff" are derived from the Standard Model.


----------



## drbaltazar

highly doubtfull they detected this!created?highly likly!wouldnt be the first time we create something!i dont believe aluminium exist in nature!but then take any material created by men that doesnt exist in nature lol!i always believed in a more complex ying/yang kind of thing!just add a gray line at all edge tho!and you got the idea!we are living in the gray line!we have been able to interact with the positive side!i highly doubt we have been able to interract with the negative side ,why?because we would need to not exist in order to do so ,if such a thing is possible!and if you dont exist how do you interract!but if we go back to the ying/yang logo!there would be infinitly small part of the negative side we could interract with on our side,sadly we are talking scaleIN ORDER OF UNIVERSE !it is like trying to find ONE intel 3d transistor in the whole universe!dam we ll need better search tool!

GOOGLE HELP US!


----------



## Nocturin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *drbaltazar*
> 
> highly doubtfull they detected this!created?highly likly!wouldnt be the first time we create something!i dont believe aluminium exist in nature!but then take any material created by men that doesnt exist in nature lol!i always believed in a more complex ying/yang kind of thing!just add a gray line at all edge tho!and you got the idea!we are living in the gray line!we have been able to interact with the positive side!i highly doubt we have been able to interract with the negative side ,why?because we would need to not exist in order to do so ,if such a thing is possible!and if you dont exist how do you interract!but if we go back to the ying/yang logo!there would be infinitly small part of the negative side we could interract with on our side,sadly we are talking scaleIN ORDER OF UNIVERSE !it is like trying to find ONE intel 3d transistor in the whole universe!dam we ll need better search tool!
> GOOGLE HELP US!












anyone wanna translate this translation?


----------



## andrews2547

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *drbaltazar*
> 
> highly doubtfull they detected this!created?highly likly!wouldnt be the first time we create something!i dont believe aluminium exist in nature!but then take any material created by men that doesnt exist in nature lol!i always believed in a more complex ying/yang kind of thing!just add a gray line at all edge tho!and you got the idea!we are living in the gray line!we have been able to interact with the positive side!i highly doubt we have been able to interract with the negative side ,why?because we would need to not exist in order to do so ,if such a thing is possible!and if you dont exist how do you interract!but if we go back to the ying/yang logo!there would be infinitly small part of the negative side we could interract with on our side,sadly we are talking scaleIN ORDER OF UNIVERSE !it is like trying to find ONE intel 3d transistor in the whole universe!dam we ll need better search tool!
> GOOGLE HELP US!


Sorry, all I could understand from that is that aluminum doesn't exist in nature (or at least that's what you think) and it does exist in nature, in fact it's one of the most abundant elements.
Quote:


> In the Earth's crust, aluminium is the most abundant (8.3% by weight) metallic element and the third most abundant of all elements (after oxygen and silicon).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium#Natural_occurrence


----------



## Pheatton

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DuckieHo*
> 
> Being scientists, they will probably say "We have with a high degree of certainty found it!"
> If we do *not* find it... then our Standard Model is flawed.
> If we do find it, then our current Standard Model continues to make sense.
> A lot of assumptions and "zany stuff" are derived from the Standard Model.


Ah.


----------



## drbaltazar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *andrews2547*
> 
> Sorry, all I could understand from that is that aluminum doesn't exist in nature (or at least that's what you think) and it does exist in nature, in fact it's one of the most abundant elements.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium#Natural_occurrence


it was an exemple!i did say use a material that is man made that doesnt exist in nature!the idea being ,it wouldnt be the first time men create something that doesnt exist in nature .in this situation :this could be a man made particle!who knows!we ll probably know in 5 year!


----------



## dioxholster

Forget the economy! this is more important! just kidding, but they cried wolf so many times already.


----------



## Phaedrus2129

Fundamental particles are different from elements. Not the same thing.


----------



## _02

GO standard model GO.

We still very much likely have plenty wrong, but here's to progress!

Edit - wired commentary........


----------



## DuckieHo

Fundamental particles make up elements, forces.... well, everything.


----------



## drbaltazar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DuckieHo*
> 
> Fundamental particles make up elements, forces.... well, everything.


so ?as far as todays science know,fundamental particules havent been created by human?and if human did?they dont know yet that they did create fundamental particle?

is this the meaning of your post or i miss understood?


----------



## Tadaen Sylvermane

If it's true it would be a major thing I suppose. But I think that man spends to much time trying to understand the universe, why don't these scientists put there heads together to fix some of the problems we have on this planet? I'm all for discovery and space exploration (huge star trek fan) but to me it only makes sense to take care of things we can take care of now instead of learning something that very well may not have any usefulness for many many generations if ever. As I understand it science in general knows more about physics, space, the universe in general than we know about our own oceans. That just seems wrong to me.


----------



## Nocturin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tadaen Sylvermane*
> 
> If it's true it would be a major thing I suppose. But I think that man spends to much time trying to understand the universe, why don't these scientists put there heads together to fix some of the problems we have on this planet. I'm all for discovery and such (huge star trek fan) but to me it only makes sense to take care of things we can take care of now instead of learning something that very well may not have any usefulness for many many generations. As I understand it science in general knows more about physics, space, the universe in general than we know about our own oceans. That just seems wrong to me.


I think you underestimate the scope of the scientific community.









Unlike the economy, "trickle down" knowledge in science is everywhere. Look to the most recent medical advancements and most of the origins for those ideas started with things like the LHC.

Science is HUGE!


----------



## Phaedrus2129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tadaen Sylvermane*
> 
> If it's true it would be a major thing I suppose. But I think that man spends to much time trying to understand the universe, why don't these scientists put there heads together to fix some of the problems we have on this planet. I'm all for discovery and space exploration (huge star trek fan) but to me it only makes sense to take care of things we can take care of now instead of learning something that very well may not have any usefulness for many many generations if ever. As I understand it science in general knows more about physics, space, the universe in general than we know about our own oceans. That just seems wrong to me.


If physicists hadn't spent time studying useless things like whether light is a wave or a particle we wouldn't have quantum mechanics, and without quantum mechanics we wouldn't have field effect transistors, and without those computers would still be room-sized vacuum tube-based monsters. Not to mention the rest of technology would still be based on around a 60s level.

Without fundamental research like this technology would stagnate within decades.


----------



## gelatin_factory

I know they've been looking for the Higgs boson for a while but I just realized, if they find it does that mean electrons and other particles have _no_ mass without a Higgs particle?

It boggles the mind. Anyways I hope they found it!


----------



## Nocturin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gelatin_factory*
> 
> I know they've been looking for the Higgs boson for a while but I just realized, if they find it does that mean electrons and other particles have _no_ mass without a Higgs particle?
> It boggles the mind. Anyways I hope they found it!


i have no idea, but here's another nonsensical thought - if they find the higgs, does that mean there's a negative-higgs out there and would it give something anti-gravity?


----------



## lordikon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *drbaltazar*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *DuckieHo*
> 
> Fundamental particles make up elements, forces.... well, everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so ?as far as todays science know,fundamental particules havent been created by human?and if human did?they dont know yet that they did create fundamental particle?
> 
> is this the meaning of your post or i miss understood?
Click to expand...

Humans don't create the fundamentals of the Universe, we are just trying to understand them.


----------



## decali

Awesome! This' pretty crazily exciting for research (and, man, physicists are hardcore: 0.000028 probability of it happening by chance? I wish biology could reach that level of certainty!)


----------



## Kappy03

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *adventfred*
> 
> Check below
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Th "higgs" is the particle that gives all other particles "mass" it is and would be the most important scientific discovery ( when it comes to the universe lol )


That's debatable.

1. What existed before the Big Bang?

2. What is dark matter? What is dark energy? We know that visible matter makes up only 4.6% of the universe.

3.How many dimensions are there?

4. Why didn't the universe disappear as soon as it formed? Because change-parity-symmetry says every particle must have an anti particle to cancel it out. Why aren't antimatter humans canceling out us, matter humans?

5. How did matter gather into galaxies?

6. Can anything escape a black hole other than Hawking radiation? And what the heck is a "black hole" really?

7. Are the laws of nature accidental? Why/how did life form in the first place in such a violent universe?

8. What lies beyond the know universe?

9. Did life originate in several places, or are we alone?

10. How will the universe end?

Granted, the Higgs Boson can help answer these questions, it's a stretch to say it's the most important scientific discovery because in my opinion, all are equally important. Some of the scientists who are working at the LHC may not be here if the flu-shot wasn't discovered.


----------



## Nocturin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kappy03*
> 
> That's debatable.
> *1. What existed before the Big Bang?
> 2. What is dark matter? What is dark energy? We know that visible matter makes up only 4.6% of the universe.
> 3.How many dimensions are there?
> 4. Why didn't the universe disappear as soon as it formed? Because change-parity-symmetry says every particle must have an anti particle to cancel it out. Why aren't antimatter humans canceling out us, matter humans?
> 5. How did matter gather into galaxies?
> 6. Can anything escape a black hole other than Hawking radiation? And what the heck is a "black hole" really?
> 7. Are the laws of nature accidental? Why/how did life form in the first place in such a violent universe?
> 8. What lies beyond the know universe?
> 9. Did life originate in several places, or are we alone?
> 10. How will the universe end?*
> Granted, the Higgs Boson can help answer these questions, it's a stretch to say it's the most important scientific discovery because in my opinion, all are equally important. Some of the scientists who are working at the LHC may not be here if the flu-shot wasn't discovered.


I can answer all of your questions:


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



42


----------



## snaguoonkee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nocturin*
> 
> I can answer all of your questions:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 42


Well played sir.


----------



## tippy25

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kappy03*
> 
> That's debatable.
> 1. What existed before the Big Bang?
> 2. What is dark matter? What is dark energy? We know that visible matter makes up only 4.6% of the universe.
> 3.How many dimensions are there?
> 4. Why didn't the universe disappear as soon as it formed? Because change-parity-symmetry says every particle must have an anti particle to cancel it out. Why aren't antimatter humans canceling out us, matter humans?
> 5. How did matter gather into galaxies?
> 6. Can anything escape a black hole other than Hawking radiation? And what the heck is a "black hole" really?
> 7. Are the laws of nature accidental? Why/how did life form in the first place in such a violent universe?
> 8. What lies beyond the know universe?
> 9. Did life originate in several places, or are we alone?
> 10. How will the universe end?
> Granted, the Higgs Boson can help answer these questions, it's a stretch to say it's the most important scientific discovery because in my opinion, all are equally important. Some of the scientists who are working at the LHC may not be here if the flu-shot wasn't discovered.


1. We don't know.
2. We don't know. We don't know.
3. Last program on the science channel that I saw that dealt with this, the number was either 10 or 11 depending on which theory you subscribe to. I like the number 11. Also, it's a prime number.
4. We don't know.
5. Gravity & dark matter/energy. Gravity alone isn't enough, but including dark matter and energy, the simulations fall into place.
6. I highly doubt it. A black hole is a dead star that collapsed in on itself under its own gravity. Mathematically, it exists as a singularity, which drives scientists & mathemeticians crazy.
7. I think they more incidental than accidental. Life formation certainly hasn't been an efficient process in the history of this universe. The "how" is easy. We're currently working on the "why".
8. We're not certain, but possibly other universes. How many? Who knows.
9. We don't know for certain, but the universe is too big for us to be the only life in the universe. Will we encounter life from other planets in our lifetime? I'm going to venture a "no" on that one.
10. Several competing theories. Since the universe's expansion is currently accelerating, this acceleration could continue until until the universe gets so big that everything drops to absolute zero. Or the universe stops expanding, starts shrinking, falls back into a singularity and a new big bang starts the process all over again.


----------



## Escatore

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DuckieHo*
> 
> The Higgs Boson explains gravity... proving it exists just validates that our understanding of the universe is correct. Mass is predicted to be due to this particle "clinging" to other particles.
> Practical applications are very well removed from this type of fundamental research.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DuckieHo*
> 
> Being scientists, they will probably say "We have with a high degree of certainty found it!"
> If we do *not* find it... then our Standard Model is flawed.
> If we do find it, then our current Standard Model continues to make sense.
> A lot of assumptions and "zany stuff" are derived from the Standard Model.


So all of this is just to make sure that we've got it right.

If they do manage to find the Higgs, what will they do with all their fancy colliders? Work on new elements? Are there any pieces still missing, or will this have completely validated the standard model?

It does seem like a lot of effort just for the sake of validating what we already suspect to be true... but lets just let the physicists have their fun


----------



## Nocturin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Escatore*
> 
> So all of this is just to make sure that we've got it right.
> If they do manage to find the Higgs, what will they do with all their fancy colliders? Work on new elements? Are there any pieces still missing, or will this have completely validated the standard model?
> It does seem like a lot of effort just for the sake of validating what we already suspect to be true... but lets just let the physicists have their fun


the higgs problem is just one of the hundreds, if not thousands of theories that are being put to the test







.

The LHC will be used for many years to come for other scientific inquiries even after the higgs is proved/disproved.


----------



## BlackVenom

Hope they did. WE NEED THAT PART(icle)!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nocturin*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anyone wanna translate this translation?


LMAO, idk either, but I do want what he's smoking.

EDIT: To bad this didn't become just a waste of taxes...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider


----------



## DaClownie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nocturin*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Escatore*
> 
> So all of this is just to make sure that we've got it right.
> If they do manage to find the Higgs, what will they do with all their fancy colliders? Work on new elements? Are there any pieces still missing, or will this have completely validated the standard model?
> It does seem like a lot of effort just for the sake of validating what we already suspect to be true... but lets just let the physicists have their fun
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the higgs problem is just one of the hundreds, if not thousands of theories that are being put to the test
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> The LHC will be used for many years to come for other scientific inquiries even after the higgs is proved/disproved.
Click to expand...

I surmise the LHC will be extra busy if Higgs Boson is disproved


----------



## Nocturin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BlackVenom*
> 
> Hope they did. WE NEED THAT PART(icle)!
> LMAO, idk either, but I do want what he's smoking.
> EDIT: To bad this didn't become just a waste of taxes...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider


Quote:


> prevent the cancellation by asking Congress to continue "to support this important and challenging effort" through completion because *"abandoning the SSC at this point would signal that the United States is compromising its position of leadership in basic science".*[12]


Just wow.

That is a real shame. So this is what happened. Now I understand why NASA is a shadow of what it used to be, ,

That was a huge en devour for a single country to take on though. I'm sure that amount of expenditure is being used for something else, though.


----------



## SCollins

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DuckieHo*
> 
> Being scientists, they will probably say "We have with a high degree of certainty found it!"
> If we do *not* find it... then our Standard Model is flawed.
> If we do find it, then our current Standard Model continues to make sense.
> A lot of assumptions and "zany stuff" are derived from the Standard Model.


Gravity is a particle interaction behavior, they just refuse to accept this as it would throw out the model.


----------



## Rayleyne

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *drbaltazar*
> 
> highly doubtfull they detected this!created?highly likly!wouldnt be the first time we create something!i dont believe aluminium exist in nature!but then take any material created by men that doesnt exist in nature lol!i always believed in a more complex ying/yang kind of thing!just add a gray line at all edge tho!and you got the idea!we are living in the gray line!we have been able to interact with the positive side!i highly doubt we have been able to interract with the negative side ,why?because we would need to not exist in order to do so ,if such a thing is possible!and if you dont exist how do you interract!but if we go back to the ying/yang logo!there would be infinitly small part of the negative side we could interract with on our side,sadly we are talking scaleIN ORDER OF UNIVERSE !it is like trying to find ONE intel 3d transistor in the whole universe!dam we ll need better search tool!
> GOOGLE HELP US!


My head hurt trying to read this, on topic yay for progress


----------



## Nocturin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *drbaltazar*
> 
> highly doubtfull they detected this!
> 
> created?
> 
> highly likly!
> 
> wouldnt be the first time we create something!
> 
> i dont believe aluminium exist in nature, but then take any material created by men that doesn't exist in nature lol.
> 
> i always believed in a more complex ying/yang kind of thing.
> 
> just add a gray line at all edge tho and you got the idea!
> 
> we are living in the gray line!
> 
> we have been able to interact with the positive side!
> 
> *i highly doubt we have been able to interract with the negative side.*
> 
> why?
> 
> because we would need to not exist in order to do so ,if such a thing is possible.
> and if you dont exist how do you interract!
> 
> but if we go back to the ying/yang logo there would be infinitly small part of the negative side we could interract with on our side,sadly we are talking scale
> 
> IN ORDER OF UNIVERSE!
> 
> it is like trying to find ONE intel 3d transistor in the whole universe!
> 
> dam we ll need better search tool!
> GOOGLE HELP US!












Now that I can read it, google only finds 42 when we search for the answer, unfortunately.

I liked the illustration with the ying-yang. That was interesting.

Well, I'm glad I'm not the only one that thought there sould be a negative charged particle out there, but I don't really understand fully how it works. They talk about this particle being the attractive force, so I'm assuming in that the inverse of the higgs-boson would indeed be a negative higgs-boson? If so, would this particle have inverse properties, too?

edit: batman got the wall of text, people!


----------



## vikingsteve

this thread makes me want to learn physics


----------



## Nocturin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vikingsteve*
> 
> this thread makes me want to learn physics


me too. It's absolutely facinating, but I'll never understand past the verbal aspects because I am *terrible* with advanced math.


----------



## Mach 5

First of all, im not even going to pretend I have a good understanding of physics, so the following might come across as complete nonsense:

From what ive read here, all scientific theories are based on this "standard model" - so if we confirm the higgs does exist, surely nothing will change and scientists will just continue on as normal, coming up with more theories? For example, im going to pick the only "theory" that I can think of, "string theory" - would finding the higgs boson directly change this from being a theory to it becoming a fact?

Also, if this is confirmed false - scientists arent going to stop making assumptions based on the standard model, they'll just assume that the experiment to find it was wrong - and again, they'll carry on assuming it exists - Are there any theories based on science that assumes a different model from the "standard model" - and if so, how are they working? Surely if there was such a theory and they turned out to be true - wouldnt that disprove the higgs boson theory anyway? Why wouldnt that be a better way of going about it?

My head hurts...


----------



## StormX2

yay Science!

Crazy when you think about it.

I guess we have Newton to thank for this crazy mad hatter quest lol

Well, maybe thats more like The Scientist Class Quest with a side quest that led us to the invention of the super coliders.


----------



## Fear of Oneself

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kappy03*
> 
> That's debatable.
> 1. What existed before the Big Bang?
> 2. What is dark matter? What is dark energy? We know that visible matter makes up only 4.6% of the universe.
> 3.How many dimensions are there?
> 4. Why didn't the universe disappear as soon as it formed? Because change-parity-symmetry says every particle must have an anti particle to cancel it out. Why aren't antimatter humans canceling out us, matter humans?
> 5. How did matter gather into galaxies?
> 6. Can anything escape a black hole other than Hawking radiation? And what the heck is a "black hole" really?
> 7. Are the laws of nature accidental? Why/how did life form in the first place in such a violent universe?
> 8. What lies beyond the know universe?
> 9. Did life originate in several places, or are we alone?
> 10. How will the universe end?
> Granted, the Higgs Boson can help answer these questions, it's a stretch to say it's the most important scientific discovery because in my opinion, all are equally important. Some of the scientists who are working at the LHC may not be here if the flu-shot wasn't discovered.


http://ww3.tvo.org/video/173839/nothing Check this out, it should help you a bit. (won't answer all those questions though)

And I believe there are 10 dimensions based on my extremely limited knowledge of super string theory.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCQx9U6awFw


----------



## Phaedrus2129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mach 5*
> 
> First of all, im not even going to pretend I have a good understanding of physics, so the following might come across as complete nonsense:
> From what ive read here, all scientific theories are based on this "standard model" - so if we confirm the higgs does exist, surely nothing will change and scientists will just continue on as normal, coming up with more theories? For example, im going to pick the only "theory" that I can think of, "string theory" - would finding the higgs boson directly change this from being a theory to it becoming a fact?
> Also, if this is confirmed false - scientists arent going to stop making assumptions based on the standard model, they'll just assume that the experiment to find it was wrong - and again, they'll carry on assuming it exists - Are there any theories based on science that assumes a different model from the "standard model" - and if so, how are they working? Surely if there was such a theory and they turned out to be true - wouldnt that disprove the higgs boson theory anyway? Why wouldnt that be a better way of going about it?
> My head hurts...


Nope, you don't get science.

Science is built from the top down. We start with simple observations; when you push something it moves and it keeps moving until something stops it. When you drop something, it falls. We build observations like that, quantify them, and then try to find the patterns. We pick out the patterns, then make predictions based on those patterns. If those predictions are borne out then the pattern is more likely to be true. And we keep making more observations, picking out more patterns, testing those patterns, and, occasionally, bringing patterns together into a larger pattern.

The Standard Model of Particle Physics is a pattern that explains particle physics exactly to the limits of our observational capabilities. But there are a couple of things it should explain, like dark matter and energy, but it doesn't. There's no space for those things in the Standard Model. And that means that it is either incomplete or wrong.

But it still makes useful predictions that are usually correct, or close enough as makes no difference, just like Newton's Laws or Maxwell's Equations.

But if we want to find out the truth we need to find _where_ the Standard Model is wrong. Once they find that they might have a clue as to where dark matter and dark energy fit in. If they don't find the Higgs Boson, they have their starting point. If they don't find it that means the theory is even better than they thought, but they still have to find where dark matter and dark energy go.

So they've been looking for the Higgs Boson for over a decade now. It took a long time to get equipment powerful enough and precise enough to find it, and once they started looking they had three possible "places" it could be and dontcha know it was in the last one they looked. Now they're just refining their measurements enough to make sure that it is in fact there and not something else, or a fluke.

Finding the Higgs Boson means that the Standard Model is descriptive of reality... except for dark matter and dark energy and a couple other issues that we haven't resolved. Which means it's actually _more_ of a headache for scientists than if it hadn't been found.


----------



## StormX2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fear of Oneself*
> 
> http://ww3.tvo.org/video/173839/nothing Check this out, it should help you a bit. (won't answer all those questions though)
> And I believe there are 10 dimensions based on my extremely limited knowledge of super string theory.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCQx9U6awFw


and future scientists may not be here because of invention of Flu Shot after Super Immune Virus spreads and knocks 5 billion people out of the equation.

Just sayin


----------



## Fear of Oneself

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *StormX2*
> 
> and future scientists may not be here because of invention of Flu Shot after Super Immune Virus spreads and knocks 5 billion people out of the equation.
> Just sayin


I'm sorry?


----------



## Mach 5

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Phaedrus2129*
> 
> Nope, you don't get science.
> Science is built from the top down. We start with simple observations; when you push something it moves and it keeps moving until something stops it. When you drop something, it falls. We build observations like that, quantify them, and then try to find the patterns. We pick out the patterns, then make predictions based on those patterns. If those predictions are borne out then the pattern is more likely to be true. And we keep making more observations, picking out more patterns, testing those patterns, and, occasionally, bringing patterns together into a larger pattern.
> The Standard Model of Particle Physics is a pattern that explains particle physics exactly to the limits of our observational capabilities. But there are a couple of things it should explain, like dark matter and energy, but it doesn't. There's no space for those things in the Standard Model. And that means that it is either incomplete or wrong.
> But it still makes useful predictions that are usually correct, or close enough as makes no difference, just like Newton's Laws or Maxwell's Equations.
> But if we want to find out the truth we need to find _where_ the Standard Model is wrong. Once they find that they might have a clue as to where dark matter and dark energy fit in. If they don't find the Higgs Boson, they have their starting point. *If they don't find it that means the theory is even better than they thought,* but they still have to find where dark matter and dark energy go.
> So they've been looking for the Higgs Boson for over a decade now. It took a long time to get equipment powerful enough and precise enough to find it, and once they started looking they had three possible "places" it could be and dontcha know it was in the last one they looked. Now they're just refining their measurements enough to make sure that it is in fact there and not something else, or a fluke.
> Finding the Higgs Boson means that the Standard Model is descriptive of reality... except for dark matter and dark energy and a couple other issues that we haven't resolved. Which means it's actually _more_ of a headache for scientists than if it hadn't been found.


Wow, my head hurts even more but I think I get the gist of it, so IF it turns out they have found it, where does science begin trying to understand where dark matter and dark energy fit in?

Regarding the part ive highlighted, if the standard model is based on the higgs existing, and it turns out it doesnt exist, how does that make the model better? Would it be considered better because it leaves more "room" for dark matter and dark energy to be factored in? If so, wouldnt the higgs not existing mean other parts of the model, parts which we think are correct, are wrong?


----------



## Phaedrus2129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mach 5*
> 
> Wow, my head hurts even more but I think I get the gist of it, so IF it turns out they have found it, where does science begin trying to understand where dark matter and dark energy fit in?
> Regarding the part ive highlighted, if the standard model is based on the higgs existing, and it turns out it doesnt exist, how does that make the model better? Would it be considered better because it leaves more "room" for dark matter and dark energy to be factored in? If so, wouldnt the higgs not existing mean other parts of the model, parts which we think are correct, wrong?


Sorry that was a typo.

If they DO find it that means the theory is more sound, but there's no room for dark matter and dark energy so they have lots of work to do finding where exactly it's flawed.

If they DON'T find it that means the theory is not self-consistent which means they have lots of work to do to fix it, but they know where to start to fit in dark matter and dark energy.


----------



## Mach 5

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Phaedrus2129*
> 
> Sorry that was a typo.
> If they DO find it that means the theory is more sound, but there's no room for dark matter and dark energy so they have lots of work to do finding where exactly it's flawed.
> If they DON'T find it that means the theory is not self-consistent which means they have lots of work to do to fix it, but they know where to start to fit in dark matter and dark energy.


Ah good, im glad I at least understood that...+ rep for you for making my head hurt.

Edit, I cant rep you, so heres a thumbs up


----------



## Nocturin

Thanks Phae, I learned something.


----------



## DuckieHo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Phaedrus2129*
> 
> Nope, you don't get science.
> Science is built from the top down. We start with simple observations; when you push something it moves and it keeps moving until something stops it. When you drop something, it falls. We build observations like that, quantify them, and then try to find the patterns. We pick out the patterns, then make predictions based on those patterns. If those predictions are borne out then the pattern is more likely to be true. And we keep making more observations, picking out more patterns, testing those patterns, and, occasionally, bringing patterns together into a larger pattern.
> The Standard Model of Particle Physics is a pattern that explains particle physics exactly to the limits of our observational capabilities. But there are a couple of things it should explain, like dark matter and energy, but it doesn't. There's no space for those things in the Standard Model. And that means that it is either incomplete or wrong.
> But it still makes useful predictions that are usually correct, or close enough as makes no difference, just like Newton's Laws or Maxwell's Equations.
> But if we want to find out the truth we need to find _where_ the Standard Model is wrong. Once they find that they might have a clue as to where dark matter and dark energy fit in. If they don't find the Higgs Boson, they have their starting point. If they don't find it that means the theory is even better than they thought, but they still have to find where dark matter and dark energy go.
> So they've been looking for the Higgs Boson for over a decade now. It took a long time to get equipment powerful enough and precise enough to find it, and once they started looking they had three possible "places" it could be and dontcha know it was in the last one they looked. Now they're just refining their measurements enough to make sure that it is in fact there and not something else, or a fluke.
> Finding the Higgs Boson means that the Standard Model is descriptive of reality... except for dark matter and dark energy and a couple other issues that we haven't resolved. Which means it's actually _more_ of a headache for scientists than if it hadn't been found.


Good write up Phaedrus2129... what science does is provide explanations for testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable phenomenons. Based on these explanations, science can sometime predict things.

A good example would the be "Periodic Table of the Atomic Elements". Mendeleev noticed patterns and was able to predict the existence of certain elements based on these patterns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendeleev's_predicted_elements

A good example of where a scientific theory "failed" was relativistic motion. Scientists realized that Newtonian physics was failing as motion approached the speed of light. So scientists enhanced and expanded their knowledge.... it turns out that Newtonian physics is actually a subset of quantum physics and relativity.

Newtonian Kinetic Energy = 1/2 m*v^2
Relativistic Kinetic Energy = (m*c^2) / sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)) - m*c^2

If v (velocity) is much much less than c (speed of light), then the equation just becomes the Newtonian equation of: 1/2 m*v^2


----------



## StormX2

well its true, Super Flu of the future will suck, because we kill our bodies ability to naturally defend against it.

Cause and Effect lol

he was saying our current scientist wouldnt exist if nor for the discovery of Flu Vaccine, but the same cure can be a death sentance for future humans

Anyway - Huge fan of this Wild Goose chase personally, but 2 different projects may have found the indicators of its existance is quite exciting.

when it is truly found I will throw a house party yay!


----------



## StormX2

A Higgs-Boson walks into a church, the priest says “We don’t allow Higgs-Bosons in here.” The Higgs-Boson says “But without me how can you have mass?...


----------



## Scorpii

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Phaedrus2129*
> 
> Finding the Higgs Boson means that the Standard Model is descriptive of reality... except for dark matter and dark energy and a couple other issues that we haven't resolved. Which means it's actually _more_ of a headache for scientists than if it hadn't been found.


Not sure I'd agree with this part. The standard model works extremely well with the majority of physics. It's only really large scale astrophysics (where dark energy and dark matter come into play) that it doesn't fit. If we do find the Higgs, then the standard model will be even better and that gap that's been around a while will be filled. If the standard model is wrong, there aren't really any good competing theories that fit.

From most of the guys (and gals) I've talked to/worked with in the astrophysics department, we're still hoping that the standard model is correct, and we just need to find a way for dark matter/energy to fit, as it'll require less of a 'rewrite' of physics!


----------



## DuckieHo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scorpii*
> 
> Not sure I'd agree with this part. The standard model works extremely well with the majority of physics. It's only really large scale astrophysics (where dark energy and dark matter come into play) that it doesn't fit. If we do find the Higgs, then the standard model will be even better and that gap that's been around a while will be filled. If the standard model is wrong, there aren't really any good competing theories that fit.
> From most of the guys (and gals) I've talked to/worked with in the astrophysics department, we're still hoping that the standard model is correct, and we just need to find a way for dark matter/energy to fit, as it'll require less of a 'rewrite' of physics!


Yeah.... really big physics and really small physics still have that gap...

Noble prize to anyone who can explain it entirely!









...and more than one gal in your astrophysics department?!


----------



## drbaltazar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fear of Oneself*
> 
> http://ww3.tvo.org/video/173839/nothing Check this out, it should help you a bit. (won't answer all those questions though)
> And I believe there are 10 dimensions based on my extremely limited knowledge of super string theory.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCQx9U6awFw


sadly the first video might have been acurate back then ,but it isnt anymore.nasa found out when their prope reached the surface of our solar buble(for lack of better word)surface of our solar bubble is basicly the sun interaction via its magnetic field etc product some kind of protection for us,we are mooving inside the universe at such a speed its insane,and the sun is basicly protecting us from the majority of particle,this means a lot of info we go doesnt take into account the rest of the universe,what are those particle made of etc etc!

anyway good video ty for link!quantum field theory ?i like it!

yep sadly we are in a enormous solar bubble so a lot if not all reading we get are flawed!(yep we re back to the earth is flat all over again!)


----------



## ArchLinuxFTW

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *drbaltazar*
> 
> sadly the first video might have been acurate back then ,but it isnt anymore.nasa found out when their prope reached the surface of our solar buble(for lack of better word)surface of our solar bubble is basicly the sun interaction via its magnetic field etc product some kind of protection for us,we are mooving inside the universe at such a speed its insane,and the sun is basicly protecting us from the majority of particle,this means a lot of info we go doesnt take into account the rest of the universe,what are those particle made of etc etc!
> anyway good video ty for link!quantum field theory ?i like it!
> yep sadly we are in a enormous solar bubble so a lot if not all reading we get are flawed!(yep we re back to the earth is flat all over again!)


Source(s)?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DuckieHo*
> 
> Yeah.... really big physics and really small physics still have that gap...
> Noble prize to anyone who can explain it entirely!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and more than one gal in your astrophysics department?!


That gap between the two was one of the reasons why Einstien had such a big problem with accepting quantum physics. It is a counter intuitive concept that, say light (which can be described as photons), has momentum, but no mass. People who have taken any sort of physics formally will say, "But, momentum is described by the formula P=mv in classical physics! How can light, with a mass of 0, have momentum? It makes no mathematical sense!". It doesn't, according to Newtonian physics. But, with quantum theory it can be explained.

(don't ask me to explain it, my knowledge of quantum physics is poor at best. I am merely explaining the examples that can give people an idea of just how strange quantum physics is).


----------



## Scorpii

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *drbaltazar*
> 
> sadly the first video might have been acurate back then ,but it isnt anymore.nasa found out when their prope reached the surface of our solar buble(for lack of better word)surface of our solar bubble is basicly the sun interaction via its magnetic field etc product some kind of protection for us,we are mooving inside the universe at such a speed its insane,and the sun is basicly protecting us from the majority of particle,this means a lot of info we go doesnt take into account the rest of the universe,what are those particle made of etc etc!
> anyway good video ty for link!quantum field theory ?i like it!
> *yep sadly we are in a enormous solar bubble so a lot if not all reading we get are flawed!(yep we re back to the earth is flat all over again!*)


I don't think you understand how a lot of this works.

The heliosphere does block the majority of interstellar particles, but it doesn't do anything noticeable to the light, which is where we get almost 100% of our extrasolar observations from.


----------



## Twinnuke

Someone asked about how come the universe didnt disappear jnstantly. Well first, for a few million years the universe was a soup of forces until it was cool enough for matter to form. During this time scientists theorize that a charge on some particles that only exist in a super condensed form caused he imbalance.


----------



## Nocturin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scorpii*
> 
> I don't think you understand how a lot of this works.
> The heliosphere does block the majority of interstellar particles, but it doesn't do anything noticeable to the light, which is where we get almost 100% of our extrasolar observations from.


might of he been mis-translated the "space-time" bubble I've seen described when talking about the "4th deminsion"?

edit: nvm, looked up what heliosphere meant was/is

edit edit: freaking tenses.


----------



## majin662

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tadaen Sylvermane*
> 
> If it's true it would be a major thing I suppose. But I think that man spends to much time trying to understand the universe, why don't these scientists put there heads together to fix some of the problems we have on this planet? I'm all for discovery and space exploration (huge star trek fan) but to me it only makes sense to take care of things we can take care of now instead of learning something that very well may not have any usefulness for many many generations if ever. As I understand it science in general knows more about physics, space, the universe in general than we know about our own oceans. That just seems wrong to me.


I like your sentiment, because it makes sense, but to me I'm glad that there are fields of scientists out there that are going "back to the beginning" We have thus far not been able to answer the 1st question and that is like a thorn in the side of all existence for us. What are we,where do we come from, what does all this mean? Well technically 3 questions but I'm sure ya get my point. If finding this gets them one step closer to putting to rest some of the "fairy tales" out there, then go GO GO!!! Cause those "fairy tales" are destroying us.


----------



## DuckieHo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Twinnuke*
> 
> Someone asked about how come the universe didnt disappear jnstantly. Well first, for a few million years the universe was a soup of forces until it was cool enough for matter to form. During this time scientists theorize that a charge on some particles that only exist in a super condensed form caused he imbalance.


Are you talking about the matter / anti-matter imbalance?


----------



## Ironcobra

Great video from someone who doesnt believe there is a "god particle"



His theory that everything is small black holes tying everything together with gravity makes alot more sense then the higgs particle to me


----------



## drbaltazar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ArchLinuxFTW*
> 
> Source(s)?
> That gap between the two was one of the reasons why Einstien had such a big problem with accepting quantum physics. It is a counter intuitive concept that, say light (which can be described as photons), has momentum, but no mass. People who have taken any sort of physics formally will say, "But, momentum is described by the formula P=mv in classical physics! How can light, with a mass of 0, have momentum? It makes no mathematical sense!". It doesn't, according to Newtonian physics. But, with quantum theory it can be explained.
> (don't ask me to explain it, my knowledge of quantum physics is poor at best. I am merely explaining the examples that can give people an idea of just how strange quantum physics is).


http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/index.html
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2012-177

I probably shouldnt have but here it is. Might be over kill but you asked for info


----------



## MagicBox

The thing about dark matter and dark energy is that these two phenomenans are nothing but _place holders_ for stuff we don't understand. Phaeddrus talked about making observations and logging patterns allowing us to craft theories that can eventually precisely predict an outcome and this is no different.

We observe things in the universe, we calculate and figure.. there's a large missing, gaping hole here - the results don't add up. For those situations we create things like constants or other concepts to temporarily describe the holes we can't explain yet. Dark matter and dark energy are concepts to describe mass in the universe we measure without actually observing the stuff that should be responsible for the mass. So we call it dark matter.

Recently, a number of ground based telescopes were hooked up together to produce an even more detailed observation of a certain piece of sky and what they revealed was that the galaxy they were eyeing had a lot of gas matter floating about, previously unobserved. This means, that this new observation took away mass from the 'dark matter' mass constant in that area. The mass of the newly observed gas however was not enough to explain the additional mass for the area, beyond the matter observable.

Personally I don't think dark matter to be a unique substance, but rather, it's nothing but matter-to-be-discovered. Another reason is that today's measurements would be clunky junk by tomorrow's standards and even current methods may be too low-res to accurately interpret the actual observations.


----------



## Mach 5

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *StormX2*
> 
> A Higgs-Boson walks into a church, the priest says "We don't allow Higgs-Bosons in here." The Higgs-Boson says "But without me how can you have mass?...


Brilliant...


----------



## Carniflex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nocturin*
> 
> me too. It's absolutely facinating, but I'll never understand past the verbal aspects because I am *terrible* with advanced math.


It's matter of training. I was really really crap at math so Pythagoras Theorem was way over my head. It was in some low level class in basic school. Then I got the radio tech papers but as they kept telling us that this is how you calculate it but in reality its just a simplification then I went out and got into uni for physics. In retrospection what you need for advanced math is a right way of thinking which can be trained. Humans "out of the box" as they come have certain limitations when dealing with different levels of abstraction. With some training certain abstractions like "zero" and "infinity" can be mastered, just takes some more training (about four years or so I would say) and higher level abstractions like Tensors and dealing with curved and/or higher dimensional space feel like finding the limit of a series, i.e., pretty normal.


----------



## StormX2

The Higgs boson has not been discovered yet, but its mass is 125 billion electron volts.


----------



## cubanresourceful

YES!


----------



## Kappy03

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DuckieHo*
> 
> Are you talking about the matter / anti-matter imbalance?


Yeah that's what I was referring to. I know a lot about all the questions I asked in my previous post, my point is we don't know THE answer to them. I know fermilab did an experiment in 2010 that created 1% more muons than antimuons, but the reason is unknown, even more so the reason it happened in the universe.


----------



## thx1138

I really hope this doesn't turn out to be a mistake or miscalculation like the "greater than speed of light" fiasco. This is pretty big news if true though, I'm very excited.


----------



## Twinnuke

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kappy03*
> 
> Yeah that's what I was referring to. I know a lot about all the questions I asked in my previous post, my point is we don't know THE answer to them. I know fermilab did an experiment in 2010 that created 1% more muons than antimuons, but the reason is unknown, even more so the reason it happened in the universe.


There is a term for it, a reason and some understanding of it. For the life of me i cannot remember the term. But somewhere ot there, there is an article explianing the imbalance. And it makes a lot of sense. Both mathmatically and logically.


----------



## drbaltazar

According to the linked video all anti mather was consumed. I believe this is wrong.why?black hole thats why!what would have happened if for some reason there was a mecanism that prevented mather and anti mather interaction from happening? There would be pocket of anti mather all over the galaxy? This could explain the huge difference in mass!if we can find out if it is possible to buffer (prevent)the mather anti mather colision and destruction this would reveal a lot of potential possibilities!


----------



## Kappy03

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Twinnuke*
> 
> There is a term for it, a reason and some understanding of it. For the life of me i cannot remember the term. But somewhere ot there, there is an article explianing the imbalance. And it makes a lot of sense. Both mathmatically and logically.


I believe there is a way to explain it but I don't think it's been discovered yet, in a way that fits into the current Standard Model that is. It's just around the corner though.


----------



## drbaltazar

If Almost all logic don't make sense then the illogic is probably the reality, as improbable as it may sound!


----------



## BlackVenom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nocturin*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> prevent the cancellation by asking Congress to continue "to support this important and challenging effort" through completion because *"abandoning the SSC at this point would signal that the United States is compromising its position of leadership in basic science".*[12]
> 
> 
> 
> Just wow.
> That is a real shame. So this is what happened. Now I understand why NASA is a shadow of what it used to be, ,
> That was a huge en devour for a single country to take on though. I'm sure that amount of expenditure is being used for something else, though.
Click to expand...

Yup, we really aren't headed anywhere fast, 'cept maybe the slippery slope.


----------



## cdawwgg

Quick, someone tell Sheldon!


----------



## HowHardCanItBe

The next person to post an OT remark WILL get infracted.Please get back on topic.


----------



## Nocturin

What did I miss?

Oh well.

Go physics. Does anyone know about when the next experiment will be to further hone down the cone of discovery?


----------



## Nebel

Any update on this?


----------



## DuckieHo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nebel*
> 
> Any update on this?


It will take many more months for evaluation and then peer review. Check back in Dec?


----------



## StormX2

no one wants to throw hypothetical application of this find out ? not even some wacky things like some wacko ray gun that could do something nifty from a SciFi book?


----------



## DuckieHo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *StormX2*
> 
> no one wants to throw hypothetical application of this find out ? not even some wacky things like some wacko ray gun that could do something nifty from a SciFi book?


This is fundamental research.... application of this pretty far removed at this point. For example, are there any consumer practical applications for neutrinos or quarks?

It just confirms our physics works... there is a still a lot to learn.


----------



## StormX2

yes I know that this is to confirm age old questions and theories

but

with all discoveries there comes potential application

Like what happens if you Negate the effects that the Higgs-Bozon represents?


----------



## kriss super boy

lol some people are getting it wrong,proving the existence doesnt so ,much as help understanding gravity as help fill a hole in the standard model.u see we already understand gravity quite proficiently thanks to einstien and general relativity.granted quantum gravity still eludes us,finding higgs boson does little to help us in that regard.the need for higgs boson arises to explain how matter aquired mass.because you see if matter possessed mass at the time of rapid inflation or the big bang the rapidly expanding universe would contain enough mass to create a gigantic singularity and gobble up our universe before we ever get a chance to be.what appears to be the solution is that briefly after inflation matter passed through the higgs field and interacted with the higgs boson and acquired mass.The existence of the Higgs boson is predicted by the Standard Model to explain how spontaneous breaking of electroweak symmetry (the Higgs mechanism) takes place in nature, which in turn explains why other elementary particles have mass. it interacts with other particles through weak interaction and Yukawa interactions.


----------



## flamingoyster

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DuckieHo*
> 
> Yeah.... really big physics and really small physics still have that gap...
> Noble prize to anyone who can explain it entirely!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and more than one gal in your astrophysics department?!


My astrophysics dept had two gals!


----------



## OwnedINC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kappy03*
> 
> Yeah that's what I was referring to. I know a lot about all the questions I asked in my previous post, my point is we don't know THE answer to them. I know fermilab did an experiment in 2010 that created 1% more muons than antimuons, but the reason is unknown, even more so the reason it happened in the universe.


Because in particle physics occasionally 2 wrongs DO make a right!


----------



## Contagion

CERN is announcing their findings from their data and data collected at Fermilab tomorrow, the 4th.
This is really exciting. I think the future of supersymmetry is fated with the mass of the Higgs. If the Higgs is everything the standard model predicts, I think supersymmetry will be passed tweaking. Unfortunately.


----------



## aweir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Contagion*
> 
> CERN is announcing their findings from their data and data collected at Fermilab tomorrow, the 4th.
> This is really exciting. I think the future of supersymmetry is fated with the mass of the Higgs. If the Higgs is everything the standard model predicts, I think supersymmetry will be passed tweaking. Unfortunately.


Unfortunately?

That's like saying "scientists discovered the origin of the universe, unfortunately."


----------



## drbaltazar

on a side note,why is there a transparent (ok very old,but still transparent)pyramid at 10000 feet deep sea of the bermuda triangle.from the gossiper,it might be related to quantum physic.isnt higgs and all that related also to sub atomic particle?


----------



## Nocturin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aweir*
> 
> Unfortunately?
> That's like saying "scientists discovered the origin of the universe, unfortunately."


To some following a specific path of discovery, it might be







.


----------



## ve1ocity

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *drbaltazar*
> 
> on a side note,why is there a transparent (ok very old,but still transparent)pyramid at 10000 feet deep sea of the bermuda triangle.from the gossiper,it might be related to quantum physic.isnt higgs and all that related also to sub atomic particle?


Total conspiracy theory.

I think that was almost a troll post, there, apologies if not.

What I've read recently is CERN physicists have "substantial evidence" that the higgs exists. last I checked they had 2, 4 sigma calculations "proving" it's existence, however 5 sigma is needed to call it a discovery.

I believe they will be announcing this (above statement) @ fermilabs the 4th.

this is a awesome time in our history.

I've heard particle physicists quoted saying, "this is the holy grail of particle physics."


----------



## Contagion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aweir*
> 
> Unfortunately?
> That's like saying "scientists discovered the origin of the universe, unfortunately."


I think you misunderstood what I was saying. If the Higgs Boson's mass is as the Standard Model predicts, then the theory of supersymmetry will be almost completely pushed away which would be unfortunate because I'm rather fond of supersymmetry.
That said, there's still much that supersymmetry can put on the table, as far as ideas go. I'd say this is the perfect time to find the Higgs. We have the rest of 2012 to mess around with it, and then 20 months to mess around with theories, then 14TeV collisions in 2014.


----------



## Nocturin

I knew you were fond of supersymmetry.

Now if I only understood what supersymmetry was...


----------



## DuckieHo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ve1ocity*
> 
> Total conspiracy theory.
> I think that was almost a troll post, there, apologies if not.
> What I've read recently is CERN physicists have "substantial evidence" that the higgs exists. last I checked they had 2, 4 sigma calculations "proving" it's existence, however 5 sigma is needed to call it a discovery.
> I believe they will be announcing this (above statement) @ fermilabs the 4th.
> this is a awesome time in our history.
> I've heard particle physicists quoted saying, "this is the holy grail of particle physics."


Fermi is at 2.9 sigma.... CERN has two approaches that are at least 3 sigma... I think.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nocturin*
> 
> I knew you were fond of supersymmetry.
> Now if I only understood what supersymmetry was...


Read: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/07/higgs-boson-breaks-physics/


----------

