Chicken tastes of fishy chicken for they are fed fishmeal. So yes, it tastes of chicken.
CERN catches a glimpse of Higgs-like boson
CERN boffins have finally hit paydirt with the Large Hadron Collider, finding a particle that is pretty much almost certainly the long sought-after Higgs boson. CMS event showing characteristics expected from the decay of the Higgs boson LOOK - THERE IT IS! IN THERE SOMEWHERE! Where before numerous findings of "strong …
-
Wednesday 4th July 2012 11:51 GMT Alan Johnson
W eknow the standard model is not the end
That theory (the standard model) describes the entire physical universe, every bit and piece that makes up everyone and every visible thing and the forces that act between them.
Actually it does not. It does not describe gravity, does not account for the dark energy and dark matter observations, does not account for the observed Neutrino oscillation (meaning Neutrinos have mass), has difficulties at high energies. It also does not explain why we see three families of particles identical apart from mass ,and why the families have the members that they do have.
All in all it is very clear that there is physics beyond the standard model, the problem is that we do not know what it is and desperately need new experimental evidence.
-
Wednesday 4th July 2012 11:52 GMT Alan Johnson
We know the standard model is not the end
That theory (the standard model) describes the entire physical universe, every bit and piece that makes up everyone and every visible thing and the forces that act between them.
Actually it does not. It does not describe gravity, does not account for the dark energy and dark matter observations, does not account for the observed Neutrino oscillation (meaning Neutrinos have mass), has difficulties at high energies. It also does not explain why we see three families of particles identical apart from mass ,and why the families have the members that they do have.
All in all it is very clear that there is physics beyond the standard model, the problem is that we do not know what it is and desperately need new experimental evidence.
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Wednesday 4th July 2012 12:03 GMT Anonymous Coward
What?
This is all complete rubbish, they've not seen the Higgs Bozon, it's all based on models these idiots don't know what they're talking about, how can a model show anything. etc. etc.
Oh, hang on, it's not a climate science article, we think that these scientists know what they're talking about, don't we?
This is despite the vast majority of commentators on the Reg knowing next to sod all about either sub atomic physics or climate science disciplines, let alone having phd or post-doc level qualifications in the subjects.
-
Wednesday 4th July 2012 15:31 GMT Fading
Re: What?
Erm I think you missed the point. The current standard model predicted a subatomic particle around the 125GeV level. The LHC has found evidence of such a particle to a 4.9 sigma confidence level (there's still a very small chance that what they are seeing isn't this predicted particle) . So to sum up. Theory makes prediction. Experiment designed and built (LHC) to test prediction. 4.9 sigma confident that experiment has worked successfully (need a 5 to call it a discovery). If we get a 5 then we can say the theory is validated. That is an example of science.
Climate science is invent thoery... something something... then profit. That is not science that is underpants gnomes.
-
Wednesday 4th July 2012 20:16 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: What?
How do you feel about measuring things with proxies, rather than actually seeing them?
The point I'm making and that you eloquently demonstrated for me, with your last paragraph, is that the vast majority of people have no idea about this level of science, they just know that something good has happened because the scientists say so. Now many people think that they can understand climate science, "cuz it's all clouds and you can see that", when in actual fact, they know nothing about any of the statistics, remote sensing, atmospheric physics/chemistry, quantum, etc. etc. and are totally prepared to slag it off. Somehow, subatomic physics is just accepted as always correct by these people.
-
Thursday 5th July 2012 07:18 GMT Fading
Re: What?
And you've managed to demonstrate an appeal to authority without understanding that "people" (sorry who are these mystical straw men you have invented to make a point) can smell BS a mile off even if it's hidden by a few scientific sounding words.
No I'm not denigrating atmospheric physics or atmospheric chemistry but I will slag of the state of "climate science" that allows "pal" review instead of peer review and pushes a "cause" ahead of science. Now back to real science instead of underpants gnomes (I will hence forth be using this terminology as it appears to have struck a nerve).
-
-
-
Friday 6th July 2012 15:23 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: What?
Why on earth are people even responding to this fairly obvious troll seriously? Unless he is presently sat at his PC wearing his tinfoil deflector hat I don't understand why he would think they had any good reason to lie for a moment. Have particle physicists demonstrated a tendency or predilection toward lying or incompetence that I am unaware of?
As is always the case their data will eventually be available for the rest of their field and anyone else who is interested to review. With a few notable exceptions competing scientists are not renowned for going easy on one another. Their data will be picked apart with a fine toothed comb by everyone with the interest and knowledge to properly interpret it because if there is one thing a scientist loves it is proving another scientist wrong. Many people seem to believe that the fact that scientists often disagree demonstrates that their conclusions are irrelevant. On the contrary, this is the very essence of how our knowledge advances; different people approach problems from different angles and predict how they think things are working. Then everybody tests it; the scientists that were correct are vindicated and those that were incorrect lick their wounds but are still pleased that we have inched a little closer to a comprehensive understanding of our world.
-
Wednesday 4th July 2012 12:06 GMT Destroy All Monsters
Are the stats good enough?
I know what you’re thinking: “Did we find five sigma, or only four?” Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I’ve kinda lost track myself. But being this is the LHC, the most powerful collider in the world, and would blow your mind clean off, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: “Do I feel lucky?” Well do you, punk?
(Originally by Neil Bates)
-
Wednesday 4th July 2012 12:51 GMT Anonymous Coward
Why's the standard model so complicated, anyway? Think there's another universe out there, with a load of physists sitting around twiddling their thumbs, content that there's just one type of particle and force? What's the minimal complexity universe that could evolve to develop sentient life? Or if we simulate it on a computer and something running on the simulation achieves sentience, have we just created our own universe? That sounds fun... kinda like the idea of being a god. How long 'til computers get that powerful?
-
Wednesday 4th July 2012 13:07 GMT breakfast
Theoretically they could be that powerful already, as long as the simulation didn't run in anything close to real time. The computation could be performed by a Turing Machine, assuming it is computable at all. Obviously, time within the system would be subjective, so there would be no way to know from inside the simulation.
If this is possible, then it is likely that a civilisation capable of creating these simulations would create more than one. At that point, it becomes statistically far more likely that any universe is a simulation as a single "real" universe can have many simulations.
There's no way to tell, of course, so no point worrying about it really. But the probability that we are alife is quite high.
-
Wednesday 4th July 2012 16:43 GMT Nigel 11
Virtualities
There is absolutely no way to determine if the universe is really real, or is just a perfect simulation of its physical laws and an initial state running on a computer within a universe with completely different physical laws. This is pretty much by definition. The perfect virtuality hypothesis also has zero predictive value, so we apply Occam's razor to it.
Note "Perfect". The most dangerous thing physicists could do is to find the bugs in an *imperfect* virtuality, and then tickle them. (There's a variant which says this has already happened many times over).
There's a scarier possibility, that it's our brains and sensoria that are being simulated by distant descendants of real beings much like ourselves. The simulation is running in their university department of pre-digital history. Sometime soon a grad student is going to realize that the simulation has progressed past the dawn of the information age, and is therefore pointless, so he'll stop the run.
(Ever had the feeling that your life has suffered a subtle continuity error, usually simultaneous with the desire never to drink so much again? Now you know why. Both the continuity error and the getting drunk. One's the bug, the other's the fix).
-
-
Wednesday 4th July 2012 15:01 GMT Anonymous Coward
Making the difference between people
The work at CERN is differentiated when it is performed by westerners or by people from the East:
"The cost [...] has been evaluated, taking into account realistic labor prices in different countries. The total cost is X (with a western equivalent value of Y)" [where Y>X]
source: LHCb calorimeters : Technical Design Report
ISBN: 9290831693 http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/494264
Western discrimination is firmly in place there.
-
-
-
Friday 6th July 2012 00:26 GMT JeffyPooh
Re: Gives mass via drag... ...somehow...
It is not unreasonable to expect that sound-bite explanations offered up on internationally syndicated TV channels should be self-contained and make sense to the average viewer. If the explanation relies upon unmentioned and not-referenced YouTube documentaries so that it makes sense, they they completely fail as a sound-bite explanation. Might as well just provide the YouTube URL. A complete waste of expensive airtime and Brian Cox's otherwise valuable breath. Thus: Worst. Explanation. Ever.
My post stands. My point is valid. So there. :-P
-
-
-
Wednesday 4th July 2012 15:58 GMT Anonymous Coward
Forgive the yanks
Forgive them. They are just now starting to realise the latest scientific achievement of the world slipped them by because a US senator couldn't understand these things aren't about finding God.
That all modern society works thanks to these kind of experiments (Yes, your computer works because Quantum theory was proven using these kinds of experiments) or that they are the most vital part of the next step in our evolution as a specie is hard to grasp for them as well. After all, evolution's "just a theory"
-
Wednesday 4th July 2012 16:34 GMT Steve Knox
Re: Forgive the yanks
That all modern society works thanks to these kind of experiments
Incorrect. All modern society works because of the physical realities that these kind of experiments prove in greater and greater detail. We could do exactly the same things we have been doing, except not doing these experiments, and still have the same results. The majority of modern technology is based on principles so much simpler than these experiments that we were able to design the prototypes for modern systems decades before the sites these experiments were conducted in were even built.
(Yes, your computer works because Quantum theory was proven using these kinds of experiments)
No, my computer works because it was designed with principles of physics much simpler than quantum theory. The consumer technology closest to the bleeding edge of physics today is GPS, and as I understand it, that's affected primarily by relativistic, not quantum, effects.
or that they are the most vital part of the next step in our evolution as a specie
Are you alleging that these experiments are creating biological side effects, or just misusing the term evolution?
is hard to grasp for them as well. After all, evolution's "just a theory"
Evolution is just a theory. And it's a damned good one. And those of us who understand what a theory is recognize that it's the best one we've got for the question of development and differentiation of life on this planet.
These experiments are incredibly useful to help us understand how our universe works. They pave the way for amazing advancements in all sorts of fields. But the benefits of these experiments for the average man in the street are decades away. Over-hyping them now does nobody any benefit.
I guarantee that there are individuals (most likely some in high office) in your country who are even more ignorant than your stereotypical view of us "Yanks". From your post, it seems quite possible that you are one.
Oh, and by the way, the singular of species is species. Specie is a term coined by ignorant people who don't understand science or Latin.
-
Wednesday 4th July 2012 17:11 GMT Nigel 11
Lasers and some forgotten alternatives
We rely on Lasers for optical disk devices and for data-communications. The science of Lasers is definitely simple quantum physics. If someone had experimentally discovered a lasing medium in the 19th century, quantum theory would have had to follow along rapidly. As it was, Einstein got the theory right decades before anyone made a laser.
You can have fun imagining a future where computers still run on purely classical vacuum tube technology. (Yes, micron-scale vacuum tubes are possible, as is integrated circuitry containing millions of them! ) Or, you could try having the Babylonians or Romans discover pneumatic computers (clock speeds of 100kHz, logic element size a few mm - Rolls-Royce did actually once build one to embed in the hot end of a jet engine). If Babbage had known about pneumatics, today's world would have been quite utterly different.
-
Thursday 5th July 2012 04:36 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Forgive the yanks
Actually, yes, without quantum theory your computer would not work. Look it up. As for the rest, it's always hilarious to see someone not getting sarcasam. O, as for your personal attack on myself based on a simple gramar mistake, consider that english is my second language. How many do you speak?
-
Thursday 5th July 2012 12:53 GMT JDX
without quantum theory your computer would not work
Quantum theory we understood when building them, or quantum theory we discovered afterwards? Considering you can build a mechanic computer, or one using very simple school-level electronics, I think you're the one who is wrong. Electrical components might behave in a certain way due to quantum effects but that doesn't mean they were created/invented based on an understanding of those effects... often we invent something by discovering a certain behaviour without knowing why.
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 4th July 2012 16:29 GMT TheOtherHobbes
Possibly
the biggest and most expensive search for something really, really small in the entire history of the world.
Although technically, like all quantum fields, the Higgs Field fills the entire universe and particles are local-ish excitations. So I suppose that also makes it the smallest search for something really, really big.
Anyway - well done chaps and chapesses.
Can I have my anti-grav flying car now?
-
Wednesday 4th July 2012 18:37 GMT Scott Broukell
Ah! well .........
I've been keeping a half a jam jar of Phlogiston on the top shelf at the back of the shed for some considerable time now, you know, just in case that held the answer to what they've been looking so hard for at CERN / Fermilab. Sadly it looks very much as if this might all have been in vein and that the jar and it's miraculous contents are now redundant. Any offers ?
-
Thursday 5th July 2012 00:56 GMT CCCP
Higgs is a cannonball and it just hit
Using the reg as a weak shelter from the God botherers I posit the following. Religion is a 16/17th century warship, like the Mary Rose or the Vasa, and the Higgs cannonball (made of?) just hit the second plank below the waterline. The ship isn't gonna sink tomorrow, it probably got hit by a boson before after all, but she sure as hell is sinking faster than before. Christ, even the beeb extolls that the Higgs might explain the origin of the universe. Randomly, they also suggest we call it the Justin Bieber Particle (BBC World News) because if Justin walks through a room of teenagers he'd slow down and gain mass, whereas others wouldn't. Actually, that's not bad. Disclaimer: I grew up Christian but now am not.
-
Thursday 5th July 2012 12:56 GMT JDX
Re: Higgs is a cannonball and it just hit
Given that many physicists assumed Higgs existed, or at least built theories around its theoretical existence, and none of them have explained why the universe happened, finding Higgs does exist doesn't mean squat in the [non existent but perpetual] argument between science and religion.
I wonder if it can be scientifically proven that science can't explain WHY things are how they are. It would be a lovely circular field of study :)
-
-
Thursday 5th July 2012 00:58 GMT Anonymous Coward
More Catholic Arrogance!
Who is Fr. Higgs-Bosun and what right does he have to give mass to the whole Universe? Yet another Catholic diocesan land-grab IMHO.
And in any case, I couldn't care less about all this nerdplay in laboratories. I'll start caring when these elitist geeks allow companies like Tesco in to find real-world practical applications for the hadron collider, such as throwing a satsuma in one end along with a tangerine in the other until they collide to produce a satserine. Or let OddBins hurl in some white rum, sugar, lime juice, fizzy water and finely chopped mint.
Is true though, innit.
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
