First Definitive Higgs Result In 7 Years 197
PhysicsDavid writes "In a suite of new results about the Higgs boson, Fermilab presents the first new definitive evidence on the (lack of) existence of the Higgs boson since the Large Electron Positron collider shut down in 2000. Fermilab hasn't found the Higgs, but can rule out a certain range of masses for the particle that is believed to create mass for all the other particles of nature. Other Higgs news suggests a new likeliest mass range of 115 to 135 GeV for the Higgs. These results were among those presented at the ICHEP 2008 conference currently wrapping up in Philadelphia."
Re:Newbie question (Score:2, Insightful)
eV is a measure of "energy", the E in E=mc^2
1 GeV = 1.783Ã--10^â'27 kg
When you're dealing with things that are really tiny, it's easier to use GeVs than 10^-27 kgs.
Re:Higgs (Score:4, Insightful)
In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:135 GeV seems very high... (Score:3, Insightful)
I took the entire undergrad QM sequence at my school, we covered Liboff cover to cover so I know a little. I am aware that the electron is not the least massive particle, however it is the least massive particle that I know of Google having built into its calculator function.
Re:135 GeV seems very high... (Score:2, Insightful)
You missed the point. His point was that they are saying the elementary mass particle has more mass than a non-elementary mass particle. If a Higgs boson has more mass than an electron, what gives the electron its mass?
Re:Higgs (Score:5, Insightful)
The 'worst' case is that we find the higgs exactly where we expect it to be, confirming what we pretty much knew already, without adding any new real information.
Why is that the worst case? Science is the search for truth. Nature and reality don't change based on what we wish. That's the difference between science and magic/religion. We shouldn't care which theory wins out or what we gain from the knowledge. We should only care about which model most resembles what is real and measurable. Since we're talking about deductive reasoning, if we find that what we already know is correct, that still invalidates/eliminates entire other branches of enquiry. That means we don't have to waste time on those branches (unless there are other reasons to do so - and intellectual curiosity and the possibility of finding the unexpected might be reason enough - or we want further confirmation)
What I'm trying to say is that any definite result is a good result and we shouldn't let our emotional biases get in the way of actually doing the science.
Re:Higgs (Score:5, Insightful)
We shouldn't care which theory wins out or what we gain from the knowledge. We should only care about which model most resembles what is real and measurable.
Yes, that's what scientists should care about.
But if you've built a life and well-known career based on something that appears to just have been invalidated, the typical human reaction isn't to accept it, and say, "oh well, time to cancel all my grants, give up my professorship, and start over, even though I'm 50 and have spent 1/2 my life 'studying' string theory".
Re:Newbie question part deux (Score:5, Insightful)
The SSC in Texas was 40 TeV, and the LHC at CERN will be 14 TeV when fully operational. They're about to turn on now, but will make their first run at the lower 10 TeV. Fermilab runs at 2 TeV.
Yes, we would have had the answers to all these questions and more 10 years ago, if the SSC hadn't been scrapped.
<soapbox>
The US is at a significant disadvantage when it comes to "big science". Every year, every project must come back to congress and beg for funding, justify their existence, rather than spend that time doing science. As a consequence, funding in the US is extremely volatile. Look at the budget crisis of DOE in December, the zeroing of the ITER budget, and the canceling of the SSC in 1993 for a few examples. Big science is worthwhile. We should figure out how to give scientists some measure of job security, so they can concentrate on science. This is a miniscule portion of the budget.
</soapbox>
Re:Higgs (Score:5, Insightful)
You're missing the point. This isn't about merely discovering random facts. Yes, it will be nice to know the facts, no matter what, but science is more than a random collection of unanalyzed facts. Some results will do more than merely give us another random truth to add to our collection; some results will allow us to falsify certain theories and not waste time on them any more, which is better than a result that leaves us just as confused as we are now.
And in response to Nutria, who also commented: you have it exactly backwards. A result which eliminates more theories is a better result from a scientific POV. If this were about scientists clinging to their pet theories, then a result which left more theories open would be better (since it would allow more scientists to cling to their favorites), but that's pretty much the opposite of what JohnFluxx was suggesting.
Re:Newbie question part deux (Score:3, Insightful)
While religious nuts are an easy scapegoat, that's not the problem. As I understand it, it comes down to the fact that no congress can bind any future congress. So no congress can set budget policy in any future year. They can make recommendations (and do), but this isn't guaranteed.
I don't think this problem is insurmountable. I would think that the creation of a certain kind of "scientific trust fund" could enable the use of a pot of money over a long time span.
Re:Higgs (Score:5, Insightful)
A great philosopher described that best:
"Alright!" bawled Vroomfondel banging on an nearby desk. "I am Vroomfondel, and that is not a demand, that is a solid fact! What we demand is solid facts!"
"No we don't!" exclaimed Majikthise in irritation. "That is precisely what we don't demand!"
Scarcely pausing for breath, Vroomfondel shouted, "We don't demand solid facts! What we demand is a total absence of solid facts. I demand that I may or may not be Vroomfondel!"
"But who the devil are you?" exclaimed an outraged Fook.
"We," said Majikthise, "are Philosophers."
"Though we may not be," said Vroomfondel waving a warning finger at the programmers.
"Yes we are," insisted Majikthise. "We are quite definitely here as representatives of the Amalgamated Union of Philosophers, Sages, Luminaries and Other Thinking Persons, and we want this machine off, and we want it off now!"
"What's the problem?" said Lunkwill.
"I'll tell you what the problem is mate," said Majikthise, "demarcation, that's the problem!"
"We demand," yelled Vroomfondel, "that demarcation may or may not be the problem!"
"You just let the machines get on with the adding up," warned Majikthise, "and we'll take care of the eternal verities thank you very much. You want to check your legal position you do mate. Under law the Quest for Ultimate Truth is quite clearly the inalienable prerogative of your working thinkers. Any bloody machine goes and actually finds it and we're straight out of a job aren't we? I mean what's the use of our sitting up half the night arguing that there may or may not be a God if this machine only goes and gives us his bleeding phone number the next morning?"
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"