The Higgs discovery

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from AppDev. Show AppDev's posts

    The Higgs discovery

    Physicially, the Higgs boson is top of the top, coupling both strongly and weakly interacting particles. It was mainly expected to be found as condensation of a t, t-bar resonance but has other, probably less likely channels. Identifying it and measuring its mass caps a six-decade effort in high-energy physics. [ Dennis Overbye, CERN physicists may have discovered Higgs boson, New York Times, July 5, 2012, at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/05/science/cern-physicists-may-have-discovered-higgs-boson-particle.html ]

    The success is also the problem. With the excitement of the long-sought discovery over, there is little reason to continue spending on an expensive scientific plaything that has never yielded even a scintilla of practical benefit. The U.S. began to wind down its "big science" with cancellation of the Superconducting Supercollider project in Texas--deep-sixed early during the first Clinton administration--progress that most recently extended into abandonment of the Space Shuttle after the last flight this April.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from topaz978. Show topaz978's posts

    Re: The Higgs discovery

    Actually the idea of the higgs boson was a fundamental basic discovery by an unrecognized indian physicist. This particle or rather the observation of its interaction is a true basic discovery. The energy levels of the theorized particle were all over the map. This pins the energy level at a far narrower range.
     The problem now is the higgs boson the only particle/energy responsible for mass in an atom? Why is this a basic and important issue? Because we need to understand in truth and practice the fundamental portions of the world that we can observe, to the best of our ability.
     Just the idea that cause of mass in an atom was in question, as to what things made mass in the atom thus made mass that exerts a fundamental but not understood force that is critical to our daily lives called gravity. The idea of mass is still unquantified as to its parts involved with gravity in something the cosmologists call dark matter/energy. So My idea is that the fundamental concept of knowing what can be observed is worth the effort, few of the attempts get any money at all. This experiment facility can provide other critical answers as to the nature of high energy particles that we could not do before. This is a starting point in fundamental research not the end of an expensive project.
     So we still do not understand what causes mass to attract over long distances. This force we measure but there is no observed cause for gravity.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from AppDev. Show AppDev's posts

    An old story

    Had reader "topaz978" actually read Prof. Weinberg's article in the NY Review, previously referenced and free of charge on the Web, the reader would have seen that at least six physicists predicted the Higgs boson at about the same time. The name of Prof. Peter Higgs stuck, though, so that's what we call it.

    The notion that the Higgs "gives mass" to other particles is purely theoretical and practically useless, since the Standard Model remains unable to predict what the values of those masses are. That's an element of why all the "big science" has yet to add an iota of basic insight. None of the properties that physicists can ordinarily measure directly have been predicted.
     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from AppDev. Show AppDev's posts

    Welcome to charity research

    The previous reader is entitled to any scientific enterprise he might like, run as a private charity. The previous question was whether the U.S. government should continue paying billions of dollars a year of public money into efforts that, after about sixty years, have failed to deliver useful knowledge.

    A key decision by a Democratic Congress, reached early in the first Clinton administration, was to end funding for the SSC--then the world's largest "big science" project--as a waste of taxpayers' dollars. Since then the Energy Department has closed Fermilab and scaled down SLAC--the largest remaining "big science" laboratories in the U.S.--as fruitless, panned-out enterprises.

    Currently the NSF is funding a small amount of new work but gives it relatively low priority, compared to projects likely to contribute visibly to public benefit. In South Dakota, T. Denny Sanford, owner of First Premier Bank, put up a fund of $70 million, as a private charity, to finance advanced physics research being conducted at the former Homestake Mine deep underground site.

    That kind of opportunity is entirely open for the previous reader, too, who would doubtless find an able and grateful community of researchers--if he is willing to come up with around $30 billion to resurrect the SSC. How about it, now?
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from topaz978. Show topaz978's posts

    Re: An old story

    Well Prof higgs used the idea from paul dirac who named the boson after an indian fellow named BOSE.
    "The name boson was coined by Paul Dirac commemorative of the contribution of Indian physicist Satyendra Nath Bose". So the theory of the particle was named in recongnition of the first (so far clearly) to understand the concept of a boson. And rightly so. Sorry Appdev you just cruized the top google links , You need to dig more.
    The framework of the experiment excludes Appdevs notion that the boson is not involved with the property of mass. It is just that there are some who don't believe that it is. And lots of folk do not believe in god as well. Some do not believe in law and kill others until law finds them!
    To say that knowing the energy range of the interaction is pointless is simple ignorance on appdevs part. Every high energy interaction is a good data point. It just happens to twist the noses of some in science who cannot explain the clear evidence. They will expound on how this does not fit their model until they shutup. Because they have no observable evidence of their own!
    Last time I checked physicist measure almost nothing "directly". They use various statistical measures but no real scales, rulers, or anything that could be called a "direct" measurement.

    In Response to An old story:
    [QUOTE]Had reader "topaz978" actually read Prof. Weinberg's article in the NY Review, previously referenced and free of charge on the Web, the reader would have seen that at least six physicists predicted the Higgs boson at about the same time. The name of Prof. Peter Higgs stuck, though, so that's what we call it. The notion that the Higgs "gives mass" to other particles is purely theoretical and practically useless, since the Standard Model remains unable to predict what the values of those masses are. That's an element of why all the "big science" has yet to add an iota of basic insight. None of the properties that physicists can ordinarily measure directly have been predicted.
    Posted by AppDev[/QUOTE]
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from AppDev. Show AppDev's posts

    Histories of discovery

    Well, probably not so much is likely to appear novel to this reader as to reader "topaz978." Satyendra Bose, who died in 1974, did, of course, develop the ideas for ensembles of quantum-indistinguishable particles, extended into a full-fledged theory by Einstein, so it must have seemed fitting to Paul Dirac to link Bose's name with a class of integer-spin particles, of which the best known examples until the 1960s were light atomic nuclei with even mass numbers, such as helium-4. The previously referenced article by Prof. Weinberg would have made it clear to reader "topaz978," who still seems not to have read it and apparently lacks background in the field, that Satyendra Bose had no major role in predicting the Higgs, although several physicists other than Peter Higgs clearly did.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from AppDev. Show AppDev's posts

    The Higgs discovery

    Physicially, the Higgs boson is top of the top, coupling both strongly and weakly interacting particles. It was mainly expected to be found as condensation of a t, t-bar resonance but has other, probably less likely channels. Identifying it and measuring its mass caps a six-decade effort in high-energy physics. [ Dennis Overbye, CERN physicists may have discovered Higgs boson, New York Times, July 5, 2012, at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/05/science/cern-physicists-may-have-discovered-higgs-boson-particle.html ]

    The success is also the problem. With the excitement of the long-sought discovery over, there is little reason to continue spending on an expensive scientific plaything that has never yielded even a scintilla of practical benefit. The U.S. began to wind down its "big science" with cancellation of the Superconducting Supercollider project in Texas--deep-sixed early during the first Clinton administration--progress that most recently extended into abandonment of the Space Shuttle after the last flight this April.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from topaz978. Show topaz978's posts

    Re: The Higgs discovery

    Well how do you like that. No reference to the fundamental issue just the guys that built on it. Not a nice way to do busness. Bose actually predicted higher numbers that were poos pooed by the establishment. So what. Bose did accurately describe the issue and was proven correct. Predicting the higgs would never have happened without the idea of a boson.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share