Red
Paranormal Adept
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/biology_evolution/article6879293.ece
I don't subscribe to this theory, but I found it interesting.
I don't subscribe to this theory, but I found it interesting.
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
The Higgs Boson doesn't want to be found?
- Thread starter Red
- Start date
Xylo
Paranormal Adept
I read something a few years back that stated something to the effect of "looking for a particular result in effect nullifies that result due to the observation."
In layman's terms: "A watched pot never boils."
My own opinions are that they don't know how to observe that which we are seeking, or that the probability of the creation of the Higgs-Boson is so small that it will be a long while before it is observed.
In layman's terms: "A watched pot never boils."
My own opinions are that they don't know how to observe that which we are seeking, or that the probability of the creation of the Higgs-Boson is so small that it will be a long while before it is observed.
Yestopia
Skilled Investigator
10 Billion dollars spent on one theoretical particle? I think not. There must be much more to this than this particular goal.
One thing that shocked me was that , according to the CERN newsletter, we have had a particle beam device since 1959! It is still in use to "produce beams".
If the HB is found does it support or fail to support string theory?
One thing that shocked me was that , according to the CERN newsletter, we have had a particle beam device since 1959! It is still in use to "produce beams".
If the HB is found does it support or fail to support string theory?
Yestopia
Skilled Investigator
Here we go again:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/02/lhc_power_failure_again/
I have no rational reason to posit, yet I feel that this has the potential to be a pandora's box. Maybe they already know that.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/02/lhc_power_failure_again/
I have no rational reason to posit, yet I feel that this has the potential to be a pandora's box. Maybe they already know that.
PointLess
Paranormal Novice
The Higgs Boson is an ordinary particle like any other particle, and only someone called it 'the God particle' there is no need to fear it.
Its mass is roughly expected to be about 100 times higher than the proton mass (~ 1GeV/c^2).
The Higgs Boson is needed to explain why the seen particles in detector experiments have mass. Usually the field theories in physics only work in the massless limit, and only then an union of the 4 known forces is possible (currently 3 of 4 forces are combined in the famous 'Standardmodell'). So to explain afterwards why there is mass (like for electrons, protons...) there was a mechanism established which is called 'Higgs Mechanism' (even better: spontanous symmetry breaking mechanism). You would laugh about that method if you would have seen this method working. It is as simple as ingeniuos.
BTW: The HB neither proves or disproves String Theory. At first the HB is the only missing part of the very succesful 'Standardmodell'.
BTW2: Strangely enough my post vanished after submitting it...
Its mass is roughly expected to be about 100 times higher than the proton mass (~ 1GeV/c^2).
The Higgs Boson is needed to explain why the seen particles in detector experiments have mass. Usually the field theories in physics only work in the massless limit, and only then an union of the 4 known forces is possible (currently 3 of 4 forces are combined in the famous 'Standardmodell'). So to explain afterwards why there is mass (like for electrons, protons...) there was a mechanism established which is called 'Higgs Mechanism' (even better: spontanous symmetry breaking mechanism). You would laugh about that method if you would have seen this method working. It is as simple as ingeniuos.
BTW: The HB neither proves or disproves String Theory. At first the HB is the only missing part of the very succesful 'Standardmodell'.
BTW2: Strangely enough my post vanished after submitting it...
Yestopia
Skilled Investigator
The Higgs Boson is an ordinary particle like any other particle, and only someone called it 'the God particle' there is no need to fear it.
Its mass is roughly expected to be about 100 times higher than the proton mass (~ 1GeV/c^2).
The Higgs Boson is needed to explain why the seen particles in detector experiments have mass. Usually the field theories in physics only work in the massless limit, and only then an union of the 4 known forces is possible (currently 3 of 4 forces are combined in the famous 'Standardmodell'). So to explain afterwards why there is mass (like for electrons, protons...) there was a mechanism established which is called 'Higgs Mechanism' (even better: spontanous symmetry breaking mechanism). You would laugh about that method if you would have seen this method working. It is as simple as ingeniuos.
BTW: The HB neither proves or disproves String Theory. At first the HB is the only missing part of the very succesful 'Standardmodell'.
BTW2: Strangely enough my post vanished after submitting it...
Thanks .
If the HB is NOT found, what then? Does the standard model implode?
PS: posts only have a "tendency to exist" lol
PointLess
Paranormal Novice
There are some other mechanism which could explain the mass of the particles without having something like the 'Higgs particle'. But at the moment I think the most probable version is the above Higgs mechanism. The LHC should be able to clear this issue once and for all because beyond the energy of 1.4 TeV this Higgs Mechanism is not consistent any more.
BTW: The Higgs can not be seen directly. It would decay into unstable particles, these again would then decay further into other unstable/stable particles. These additional particles can be found in the detectors, and these particles would then point into the direction of an existing HB.
Ja, maybe we need some time reversel operations here to undo such annoying losing-posts-behaviour
Yestopia
Skilled Investigator
There are some other mechanism which could explain the mass of the particles without having something like the 'Higgs particle'. But at the moment I think the most probable version is the above Higgs mechanism. The LHC should be able to clear this issue once and for all because beyond the energy of 1.4 TeV this Higgs Mechanism is not consistent any more.
BTW: The Higgs can not be seen directly. It would decay into unstable particles, these again would then decay further into other unstable/stable particles. These additional particles can be found in the detectors, and these particles would then point into the direction of an existing HB.
Ja, maybe we need some time reversel operations here to undo such annoying losing-posts-behaviour
Once again, thanks for your help understanding this.
This is truly mind blowing stuff and I am shocked at how little attention it is getting in mainstream circles.
Recreating the conditions of the 1st trillionth of a second of the universe---wow to 10th configuration.
Red
Paranormal Adept
I found a NY Times article that has a little more background on the guy who is putting forth the theory. The article indicates he is one of the founders of string theory, so this guy is no whacko coming in from left field.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/science/space/13lhc.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/science/space/13lhc.html
PointLess
Paranormal Novice
Read this blog:
Not Even Wrong
entries:
Nielsen-Ninomiya and the arXiv
and
Embarrassing Crackpottery
Like this 'black hole thing' with the LHC its all about advertisement and some additional childish games...
Red
Paranormal Adept
Perhaps the Higgs Boson doesn't want to be found by the LHC.
http://www.newscientist.com/article...ce-orbiting-telescope-could-beat-the-lhc.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article...ce-orbiting-telescope-could-beat-the-lhc.html