Higgs boson definitely found - probably . . .

[zinfamous]

I am pretty sure he is talking about Xray and penicillin, both of which are rather easy to produce/discover today but most probably weren't back when they were originally discovered.

No wonder nobody laughs at you guys' jokes.

:\

 

[werepossum]

OK, it's NOT the Higgs yet.

From Science Daily



It's a boson at 126 GeV but it's properties have not yet been determined. Could be something completely new and unexpected. That would be at least as cool.

A new, unexpected particle would be VERY interesting.

Assuming Higgs is correct, understanding the Higgs boson should help us understand gravity which would be very useful. Assuming it isn't a "you can't get there from here" understanding like superconductors where your solution only works for spherical chickens in a vacuum . . .

Since gravity propulsion will probably require high temperature superconductors which aren't currently on anyone's horizon, I suspect physicists will have lots of time to play with the Higgs boson and its properties. But assuming that the Higgs really is THE force conducting particle, we might not have to have the extremely high energy levels required for detection just to make use of it once we understand it.

 

[woolfe9999]

A new, unexpected particle would be VERY interesting.

Assuming Higgs is correct, understanding the Higgs boson should help us understand gravity which would be very useful. Assuming it isn't a "you can't get there from here" understanding like superconductors where your solution only works for spherical chickens in a vacuum . . .

Since gravity propulsion will probably require high temperature superconductors which aren't currently on anyone's horizon, I suspect physicists will have lots of time to play with the Higgs boson and its properties. But assuming that the Higgs really is THE force conducting particle, we might not have to have the extremely high energy levels required for detection just to make use of it once we understand it.

Admittedly I only understand this stuff very superficially. Are you saying that discovery of this particle could pave the way for a quantum theory of gravity, i.e. unifying quantum mechanics with general relativity?

On a side note, I must say that I am in awe of the intellectual firepower of those who research and understand quantum mechanics.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Admittedly I only understand this stuff very superficially. Are you saying that discovery of this particle could pave the way for a quantum theory of gravity, i.e. unifying quantum mechanics with general relativity?

On a side note, I must say that I am in awe of the intellectual firepower of those who research and understand quantum mechanics.

Primer:
The universe is set up in such a way that the qualities of particles come from fields which exist. Each field interacts with matter through an intermediatary particle and in the case of the Higgs field it's the Higgs boson. You might think as the Higgs particle as the result of the minimum energy applied to the Higgs field to induce a "vibration".

Each force or fundamental property has a unique field, so gravity and mass are not the same. Mass can be thought as the property whereby matter feels the force of gravity or resists change in uniform motion or inertia.

http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/traffic.libsyn.com/sciencefriday/scifri201207061.mp3

Try that link. It was a pretty good podcast.

 

[werepossum]

Admittedly I only understand this stuff very superficially. Are you saying that discovery of this particle could pave the way for a quantum theory of gravity, i.e. unifying quantum mechanics with general relativity?

On a side note, I must say that I am in awe of the intellectual firepower of those who research and understand quantum mechanics.

I think verification of the Higgs boson and observation of its properties are essential to developing an understanding of gravity. Even though our quantification of gravity is obviously far older than our quantification of other forces, our understanding of gravity lags far behind, and until we have that understanding we can't develop (or at least can't verify) a unified theory encompassing all forces. And I agree, I'm in awe of theoretical physicists and really, all quantum physicists. Studying quantum physics hurts my brain.

Primer:
The universe is set up in such a way that the qualities of particles come from fields which exist. Each field interacts with matter through an intermediatary particle and in the case of the Higgs field it's the Higgs boson. You might think as the Higgs particle as the result of the minimum energy applied to the Higgs field to induce a "vibration".

Each force or fundamental property has a unique field, so gravity and mass are not the same. Mass can be thought as the property whereby matter feels the force of gravity or resists change in uniform motion or inertia.

http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/traffic.libsyn.com/sciencefriday/scifri201207061.mp3

Try that link. It was a pretty good podcast.

I'll link that and try to find time to hear it. I agree though that there aren't really any particles, just field vibrations - although admittedly I'd just give a dirty look if asked for the math behind that. LOL

 

[soccerballtux]

No, the whole theory of semiconductors is quantum mechanics. For example, the band diagrams that define the energy gap between the insulating and conducting states are found from the solutions to the Schroedinger equation for the bulk materials. This isn't apparent because they have had over 60 years to refine and simplify the theory so that what is typically taught in high school or undergraduate solid state physics are simplified models that are derived from the quantum mechanical models. But that doesn't change the fact that semiconductors are not described by classical physics. The theory only came about due to application of quantum mechanics.

hm, I guess so, I just wouldn't describe uncertainty principle as making extensive use of quantum mechanics.

 

[Howard]

hm, I guess so, I just wouldn't describe uncertainty principle as making extensive use of quantum mechanics.

Out of curiosity, what's your academic background?

 

[Synomenon]

Weren't there already physicists working on projects, etc. based on the assumption that the Higgs boson existed?

Now that they've found it, how does that change the work that's already being done (that was started under the assumption that the Higgs exists)?

 

[Miramonti]

Skeptics

 

[ichy]

Weren't there already physicists working on projects, etc. based on the assumption that the Higgs boson existed?

As I understand it the Standard Model depends on the Higgs particle existing, so yeah, they've been operating under the assumption that it's there.

One big thing this will change is that they now know the Higgs particle's mass. From what I understand there are a number of values in the Standard Model (I think mainly masses of elementary particle) that they were never able to derive, they simply had to discover them experimentally.

 

[woolfe9999]

Primer:
The universe is set up in such a way that the qualities of particles come from fields which exist. Each field interacts with matter through an intermediatary particle and in the case of the Higgs field it's the Higgs boson. You might think as the Higgs particle as the result of the minimum energy applied to the Higgs field to induce a "vibration".

Each force or fundamental property has a unique field, so gravity and mass are not the same. Mass can be thought as the property whereby matter feels the force of gravity or resists change in uniform motion or inertia.

http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/traffic.libsyn.com/sciencefriday/scifri201207061.mp3

Try that link. It was a pretty good podcast.

Thanks, I listened to the podcast. I'm also working my way through Leonard Susskind's series of physics lectures on youtube. I'm grasping things slightly better, but unfortunately, it's difficult to understand much of quantum mechanics without the higher math because it is nigh impossible to visualize these phenomena or to adequately describe them with words.

My understanding is that the Higgs is potentially responsible for giving mass to other particles by acting as mediator between the Higgs field and other particles. This verifies the Standard Model of particle physics. However, it does not necessarily contribute toward a quantum theory of gravity, as the Standard Model cannot explain gravity at the quantum level. So far it seems the only potential to do that is in string theory, which itself is next to impossible to experimentally verify due to the ulta high energy conditions necessary for such experiments.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

As I understand it the Standard Model depends on the Higgs particle existing, so yeah, they've been operating under the assumption that it's there.

One big thing this will change is that they now know the Higgs particle's mass. From what I understand there are a number of values in the Standard Model (I think mainly masses of elementary particle) that they were never able to derive, they simply had to discover them experimentally.

IIRC supersymmetry predicts 5 Higgs, and there is some suggestion that this might be a Higgs, but not the Standard Model particle, and that would be very interesting indeed. Also possible is that a standard Higgs was created but immediately interacted with dark matter, but that would be serendipity beyond all hope.

 

[silverpig]

hm, I guess so, I just wouldn't describe uncertainty principle as making extensive use of quantum mechanics.

It's like, on page 10 in most intro to QM text books.

 

[werepossum]

IIRC supersymmetry predicts 5 Higgs, and there is some suggestion that this might be a Higgs, but not the Standard Model particle, and that would be very interesting indeed. Also possible is that a standard Higgs was created but immediately interacted with dark matter, but that would be serendipity beyond all hope.

I wouldn't be surprised if the final judgment is that there isn't 'a' Higgs boson but rather a family of them, since (if I understand it correctly) the energy of the particle tentatively considered discovered is significantly lower than predicted theoretically.

Then again, I understand so little about cutting edge quantum mechanics that it's going to be hard to surprise me no matter what they conclude.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I wouldn't be surprised if the final judgment is that there isn't 'a' Higgs boson but rather a family of them, since (if I understand it correctly) the energy of the particle tentatively considered discovered is significantly lower than predicted theoretically.

Then again, I understand so little about cutting edge quantum mechanics that it's going to be hard to surprise me no matter what they conclude.

It would be shocking in the extreme if there weren't a family of Higgs. It would break supersymmetry on which the Standard Model depends. Leptons pretty much demonstrate SS, with the electron, muon, and tau particles (along with their anti particles) having pretty much the same qualities except for mass.

The Higgs should have 5 members with different energies and decay profiles. If this is the first partner of the SUSY family of Higgs, then the Standard Model Higgs (which would be of lower energy) should have already been found. Why hasn't it? Is there a reason it can't be produced perhaps through an interaction with an unknown virtual particle? There isn't an anti higgs so mutual annihilation wouldn't be an answer. I think this is more interesting than anyone expected.

 

[bfdd]

BTW I love this thread, thanks for keeping it "smart" fellas.

 

[werepossum]

It would be shocking in the extreme if there weren't a family of Higgs. It would break supersymmetry on which the Standard Model depends. Leptons pretty much demonstrate SS, with the electron, muon, and tau particles (along with their anti particles) having pretty much the same qualities except for mass.

The Higgs should have 5 members with different energies and decay profiles. If this is the first partner of the SUSY family of Higgs, then the Standard Model Higgs (which would be of lower energy) should have already been found. Why hasn't it? Is there a reason it can't be produced perhaps through an interaction with an unknown virtual particle? There isn't an anti higgs so mutual annihilation wouldn't be an answer. I think this is more interesting than anyone expected.

I thought prevailing theories call for only one Higgs boson?

One very interesting failure of super symmetry is the lack of symmetry in energy/mass. When we understand why, we'll probably have a whole new field of science. (I'm assuming that physicists don't already understand why - which may be a bad assumption since quantum mechanics hurts my brain and I'm not up on it.)

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I thought prevailing theories call for only one Higgs boson?

One very interesting failure of super symmetry is the lack of symmetry in energy/mass. When we understand why, we'll probably have a whole new field of science. (I'm assuming that physicists don't already understand why - which may be a bad assumption since quantum mechanics hurts my brain and I'm not up on it.)

It's not a failure really. SUSY came to the rescue of the Standard Model which had apparent fatal flaws. I need to make a correction about leptons. I shouldn't try to do this and ten other things. If I implied that lepton families are example of Susy partners that would an error.

Heres an article about what I was thinking of and it's interesting in itself.

http://m.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/10/hints-new-physics/

 

[soccerballtux]

It's like, on page 10 in most intro to QM text books.

exactly. It's not a complex principle.

 

[Born2bwire]

hm, I guess so, I just wouldn't describe uncertainty principle as making extensive use of quantum mechanics.

Uncertainty principle? What are talking about?

 

[silverpig]

exactly. It's not a complex principle.

That's kind of like saying addition doesn't make much use of math...

 

[ichy]

Here's a question for all you clever physics types that I've been wondering about for a long time. If the US had gone ahead and built the Superconducting Supercollider in the 1990s what could it probably have achieved by now? If I remember correctly it could have achieved collision energies nearly three times higher than the LHC's.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Here's a question for all you clever physics types that I've been wondering about for a long time. If the US had gone ahead and built the Superconducting Supercollider in the 1990s what could it probably have achieved by now? If I remember correctly it could have achieved collision energies nearly three times higher than the LHC's.

Yep, it's given that we're finding things we would have a decade ago just now. What lies beyond? Who knows? Maybe verification of SUSY. Maybe a verification of whether we live in a holographic universe. Perhaps a clue to The Theory of Everything, dark matter, M-Theory. Almost certainly surprises. Canceling the project was one of Clintons greater regrets.

 

[ichy]

Hayabusa:

What I was wondering is what specific benefits (if any) do we know we would have gotten from the SSC's much greater collision energies? I believe that Tevatron would probably have eventually found the Higgs particle if it had been able to continue operating, does that mean that the SSC would've simply produced data faster than the LHC or are there any predicted discoveries that the LHC simply isn't powerful enough for?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Hayabusa:

What I was wondering is what specific benefits (if any) do we know we would have gotten from the SSC's much greater collision energies? I believe that Tevatron would probably have eventually found the Higgs particle if it had been able to continue operating, does that mean that the SSC would've simply produced data faster than the LHC or are there any predicted discoveries that the LHC simply isn't powerful enough for?

.
There is something called the hierarchy problem. Greatly oversimplifying, it's the problem of explaining why the Weak force is 10^32 times stronger than gravity and the strong CP parity problem which I won't go into but which wreck the Standard Model, which you may recall is a patchwork system intended to explain the relationship between three of the four fundamental forces of nature (gravity being the exception since its beyond current theories)

An extension called supersymmetry fixes these problems by proposing that bosons have &fermionic partner. These solve huge problems associated with the Higgs mass since the positive contribution by a boson is exactly canceled out by the negative component of the supersymmetric fermion partner. One might expect partners to have similar masses but it's a broken symmetry which results in SUSY particles being far more massive than the standard partner.

The problem is that no SUSY particle has ever between observed. It's a likeable construct. It's thought that the least massive one would be the partner of the top quark, the stop squark. That ought to be detectable by the upgraded LHC, but we would want more than that. The SSC would have been a better tool for this purpose.