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:Higgs (Score:1, Interesting)
Isn't string theory dying? 25 years or so of intense research by the best brains in the field of physics, yet nothing remotely scientific has come out of it. It appears to be more of a religion than science. Nothing testable, no predictions, setting the background to coax out the result. Plus the "them and us" attitude the believers have these days all string theorist exhibit.
135 GeV seems very high... (Score:4, Interesting)
Okay, I only have a 4 year degree in Physics so maybe someone can help me out on this. If this particle gives the property of mass then shouldn't it have a mass less than that of the lightest particles? According to a quick Google calculation [google.com] this thing out-masses an electron by 5 orders of magnitude.
WTF?
Re:Higgs (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Higgs (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Higgs (Score:3, Interesting)
Mass actually measured in eV/c^2 (Score:4, Interesting)
Using units of 'GeV' for mass is actually very sloppy and technically wrong because energy and mass do not have the same dimensions and so cannot have the same physical units. The usual excuse is the use of natural units where c=1. However that '1' has dimensions associated with it and so to ensure that those dimensions are preserved you need to include it in the units. Hence mass is actually measured in 'GeV/c2' and not 'GeV'. Similarly momentum can me measured in units of 'GeV/c'.
Re:Higgs (Score:1, Interesting)
You're wrong. String theory as a class is "untestable" because, regardless of experimental outcome, subsets of string theory are constructable/exist; in other words, no matter what experiments show, the class "string theory" will not be wrong.
Poor string theorists will always construct voidable models which can be disproven--the good theorists however will always have an infinitude of models which can not.
Re:Higgs (Score:4, Interesting)
I remember reading somewhere that some astronomy students, out of perversity, decided to continue working on the Ptolomaic system, adding additional epicycles on top of the ones that were conventional at the time to improve on accuracy, and to add the new planets discovered since then. The end result was a complex system that fairly accurately predicted planetary positions. Of course, it was all done tongue in cheek, but it does demonstrate that certain systems can be tailored ad infinitum to greater levels of accuracy - even if they are wrong in principle.
I wish I could find a link to to this.
Re:Higgs (Score:3, Interesting)
If something, like sufficiently complex Ptolomaic explanation of solar system, matches reality to observational limit, then couldn't it be reduced to the more simple theory we know about (Newtonian or GR) with enough and suitable coordinate transforms, simplification of formulas etc?
If so, then it could be argued that the complex Ptolemaic explanation is equally valid because it is actually equal, just expressed in a needlesly complex way...
Higgs field is like ... (Score:3, Interesting)
There's a great analogy for this which will probably help, http://www.hep.ucl.ac.uk/~djm/higgsa.html [ucl.ac.uk] .
IIRC this was the result of a competition by Physics World (the magazine of the Inst. of Phys.).