Higgs Boson finally discovered?

[Bartholomeus Crane]

What do you mean 'finally'? From when Higgs stated his hypothesis? Or from when CERN fired up the collider? Because, honestly, I wasn't expecting it to be found so soon. Had they found it, or something similar to what they found a year from now I would have thought that to be quite soonish.

This is a massive technological achievement, especially when it comes to data analysis and signal processing techniques and methods. But no doubt the physicists will get the Nobels, with the computer scientists and mathematicians forgotten again.

It's the Nobel Prize for Physics, not the Nobel Prize for Computer Science.

Although having said that they did give Obama the Nobel Peace Prize and we're still waiting for him to promote peace...

There's no Nobel Prize for Computer Science, nor is there one for Mathematics (interesting story why that is BTW). But that's not the point. One of the main reasons that this discovery was made (possible) was because of the vast strides made in signal/information processing. The big machines look impressive (and are), but equally impressive is what happens after the collected data comes out of the big machines. And that's computer science and mathematics. But ofcourse, they'll never get the kudos or the prize.

[Rodj Blake]

What do you mean 'finally'? From when Higgs stated his hypothesis? Or from when CERN fired up the collider? Because, honestly, I wasn't expecting it to be found so soon. Had they found it, or something similar to what they found a year from now I would have thought that to be quite soonish.

This is a massive technological achievement, especially when it comes to data analysis and signal processing techniques and methods. But no doubt the physicists will get the Nobels, with the computer scientists and mathematicians forgotten again.

It's the Nobel Prize for Physics, not the Nobel Prize for Computer Science.

Although having said that they did give Obama the Nobel Peace Prize and we're still waiting for him to promote peace...

There's no Nobel Prize for Computer Science, nor is there one for Mathematics (interesting story why that is BTW). But that's not the point. One of the main reasons that this discovery was made (possible) was because of the vast strides made in signal/information processing. The big machines look impressive (and are), but equally impressive is what happens after the collected data comes out of the big machines. And that's computer science and mathematics. But ofcourse, they'll never get the kudos or the prize.

Strictly speaking the big stride was made by Peter Higgs back in the 60s. Nobel Prizes are generally given to people to have the idea, not the people who verify it.

[Bartholomeus Crane]

What do you mean 'finally'? From when Higgs stated his hypothesis? Or from when CERN fired up the collider? Because, honestly, I wasn't expecting it to be found so soon. Had they found it, or something similar to what they found a year from now I would have thought that to be quite soonish.

This is a massive technological achievement, especially when it comes to data analysis and signal processing techniques and methods. But no doubt the physicists will get the Nobels, with the computer scientists and mathematicians forgotten again.

It's the Nobel Prize for Physics, not the Nobel Prize for Computer Science.

Although having said that they did give Obama the Nobel Peace Prize and we're still waiting for him to promote peace...

There's no Nobel Prize for Computer Science, nor is there one for Mathematics (interesting story why that is BTW). But that's not the point. One of the main reasons that this discovery was made (possible) was because of the vast strides made in signal/information processing. The big machines look impressive (and are), but equally impressive is what happens after the collected data comes out of the big machines. And that's computer science and mathematics. But ofcourse, they'll never get the kudos or the prize.

Strictly speaking the big stride was made by Peter Higgs back in the 60s. Nobel Prizes are generally given to people to have the idea, not the people who verify it.

Fair enough ...

[NoirAvlaa]

Pre-order yours now!

http://www.ebuyer.com/390394-higgs-boson-higgs126

[Sparq]

How other particles and things get mass. They get it by interacting with the Higgs field of which the carrier is Higgs boson. So for example if you could find a way of lowering the amount of interaction with the field you could reduce an items mass.

#EDIT: This is my understanding so i might be off, not that much of a physic nerd any more to dwell into the core mechanic of it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't those particles already 'treacled' on the mass almost immediately after they're created. Isn't the Higgs boson used up in that process? It is not like those particles will keep gaining mass over their lifetime is it? The field and the higgs bosons are gone minute parts of a second after the creation of the particle. Right?

So if you reduce an items mass?

What? Lighter aircraft, boats etc but equally as strong, if not stronger?

Imagine if instead of needing a crane to lift a shipping container, you could attach a device that makes it light enough for two blokes to pick it up from each end and lift it onto a truck. Or to remove a large piece of rubble from the site of a disaster where heavy machinery can't get access? Or reduce the mass of the superstructure of an orbital elevator...

[Muffinsrevenger]

Hand-throwing stuff into space would be pretty boss

[Rodj Blake]

The best thing about the discovery is that it means that Stephen Hawking is $100 poorer.

[Aramendel]

"Lighter aircraft" is an understatement. If we can reduce the mass of objects enough we could make *everything* into an aircraft. People, cars, boats, cities.... Increasing the mass of objects can also advance the creation of new exotic matter and could be used for creating wormholes.

Mass manipulation is a key technology for a lot of sci-fi technologies.

[Pattern]

Wouldn't the side effect of making something "mass-less" be that it would explode? As IIRC massless particles can only travel at the speed of light.


New doomsday machine in 4... 3... 2...

[Destoration]

Wouldn't the side effect of making something "mass-less" be that it would explode? As IIRC massless particles can only travel at the speed of light.


New doomsday machine in 4... 3... 2...

So point rocket in direction you want to go.....turn off mass on the lower part = profit? :P

[Rodj Blake]

A Higgs Boson enters a church, loudly proclaiming that the “God Particle has arrived!”.

The priest, angered at the particle’s arrogance, orders the particle to leave.

The particle responds "But without me, you can't have mass"

[Warmenhoven]

\o/

[Zeekar]

How other particles and things get mass. They get it by interacting with the Higgs field of which the carrier is Higgs boson. So for example if you could find a way of lowering the amount of interaction with the field you could reduce an items mass.

#EDIT: This is my understanding so i might be off, not that much of a physic nerd any more to dwell into the core mechanic of it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't those particles already 'treacled' on the mass almost immediately after they're created. Isn't the Higgs boson used up in that process? It is not like those particles will keep gaining mass over their lifetime is it? The field and the higgs bosons are gone minute parts of a second after the creation of the particle. Right?

Wrong, the field should be everywhere all the time.

http://profmattstrassler.com/article...ticle-matters/

[Fatyn]

Comments on German news sites reporting this are full of "BUT THAT MONEY COULD HAVE BEEN USED TO HELP STARVING CHILDREN IN AFRICA"

Or starving greeks :P

[Warmenhoven]

What do you mean 'finally'? From when Higgs stated his hypothesis? Or from when CERN fired up the collider? Because, honestly, I wasn't expecting it to be found so soon. Had they found it, or something similar to what they found a year from now I would have thought that to be quite soonish.

This is a massive technological achievement, especially when it comes to data analysis and signal processing techniques and methods. But no doubt the physicists will get the Nobels, with the computer scientists and mathematicians forgotten again.

It's the Nobel Prize for Physics, not the Nobel Prize for Computer Science.

Although having said that they did give Obama the Nobel Peace Prize and we're still waiting for him to promote peace...

There's no Nobel Prize for Computer Science, nor is there one for Mathematics (interesting story why that is BTW). But that's not the point. One of the main reasons that this discovery was made (possible) was because of the vast strides made in signal/information processing. The big machines look impressive (and are), but equally impressive is what happens after the collected data comes out of the big machines. And that's computer science and mathematics. But ofcourse, they'll never get the kudos or the prize.

as a minor counterpoint (I may be out of line here as it's just something i've thought of while reading, not something i've deliberated about): van Gogh and Picasso are given the credit of being great geniuses in their field, not the people who made the paints or canvases they used.

edit: actually just reading that back I couldn't help but chuckle at how inflammatory it is but what has been written cannot be unwritten!

[Ralara]

Sean Carroll, a physicist at California Institute of Technology, said there was the slightest sign of something unusual in the results.

"It's clear that the LHC has discovered a new particle. It's very much like the Standard Model Higgs boson – but there are just enough differences to be interesting. If the differences are real, they very possibly come from new particles interacting with the Higgs. The fun has just begun!"

Would anyone care to elaborate?

It's apparently been decaying into more photons than predicted.

"it's shiny" ?

[Bartholomeus Crane]

How other particles and things get mass. They get it by interacting with the Higgs field of which the carrier is Higgs boson. So for example if you could find a way of lowering the amount of interaction with the field you could reduce an items mass.

#EDIT: This is my understanding so i might be off, not that much of a physic nerd any more to dwell into the core mechanic of it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't those particles already 'treacled' on the mass almost immediately after they're created. Isn't the Higgs boson used up in that process? It is not like those particles will keep gaining mass over their lifetime is it? The field and the higgs bosons are gone minute parts of a second after the creation of the particle. Right?

Wrong, the field should be everywhere all the time.

http://profmattstrassler.com/article...ticle-matters/

Yes, the field should be everywhere, but wouldn't a particle interact with the field only upon creation? The field doesn't keep adding mass to the particle over its lifetime I don't think. Things would get pretty heavy over time ...

[Lowa [NSN]]

I was down in the LHCb chamber about two weeks ago. It was awesome!

[Hel OWeen]

Well to be frank they discovered a particle whose mass is in the region of a higgs boson and they discovered a new boson particle, but now they have to jump trough a couple of more hoops to prove its actually Higgs.

In German TV news, one of the involved scientists had the following to say (paraphrased), when asked if it is the Higgs boson or not. I found his answer quite interesting:

"We found a particle, that's for sure. If we found the Higgs Boson, which the data so far suggests, that would be the end of a 50 years search, but nothing spectacular, because we have exactly found what we were searching for and expecting to find. If, on the other hand, we found something else - which means a new particle, something no one has ever heard of or speculated about before, now that would be really exciting."

That's some true scientific spirit there.

[Adam C]

always knew i was a jedi