Kevin's Watch

Orlion wrote:As near as I can tell, the existence of the Higgs Boson (or the lack thereof) won't really affect 'quantum mechanics'. It'll essentially affect the 'Standard Model of Particle Physics' which, in of itself, would still have plenty of problems even with the discovery of the Higgs Boson... the discovery of the Higgs Boson would just lend it more credence.

Am I correct in thinking that the Standard Model predicted the existence of a number of particles, all of which have now been proven to exist with the exeption of the elusive Higgs Boson. If this is indeed the case and the HB is duly found, does that pretty much confirm the Standard Model as the last word in particle physics.

peter wrote:

Orlion wrote:As near as I can tell, the existence of the Higgs Boson (or the lack thereof) won't really affect 'quantum mechanics'. It'll essentially affect the 'Standard Model of Particle Physics' which, in of itself, would still have plenty of problems even with the discovery of the Higgs Boson... the discovery of the Higgs Boson would just lend it more credence.

Am I correct in thinking that the Standard Model predicted the existence of a number of particles, all of which have now been proven to exist with the exeption of the elusive Higgs Boson. If this is indeed the case and the HB is duly found, does that pretty much confirm the Standard Model as the last word in particle physics.

It'd give it a lot of credence. It still doesn't explain much (if anything) about interactions of particles with dark energy... or even why particles have mass! (As near as I can tell, it just explains why a couple particles have mass...)

Things just got a whole lot more complicated for me this morning. I read that by our best theory of how stuff works (The General Theory of Relativity) gravity does not even exist! It's all illusion. The writer (David Deutsch in 'The Beginning of Infinity') says of holding your arm out straight, that you are not experiencing gravity trying to pull it down but rather the upward force that you yourself are exerting to "Keep it constantly accelerating away from the straightest possible path in a curved region of spacetime". He further says "if with the force of gravity our best explanation denies that it exists then we must stop assuming that it does".

Now if mass and gravity are so closely linked together..... and the HB is responsible for mass in a couple of particles........but gravity does not exist...........

Oh dear..................

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:He is correct, though. The "force" we call "gravity" isn't really a force; instead, it is an acceleration vector that follows the path of least resistance in local spacetime. In our case, that vector happens to point towards the ground and is fairly constant (with small variations baesd on elevation).

In short, tt is a side-effect of mass that warps spacetime in such a way that it induces an acceleration vector.

That's an interpretation, yet it has its own problems. You still have to answer the question, for instance, of how mass interacts with the "material" of spacetime in order to warp it? And it has to do so by means other than a "force."
I've heard some say that mass isn't actually a property itself, either, that mass doesn't curve spacetime, curved spacetime is the thing/effect we call mass...but then you have to answer why it is curved, and why curved differently in different places.

Bit of a side question - the gravitational force was formerly (or mabe still) regarded as one of the four fundamental forces along with the strong and weak nuclear and electromagnetic forces. If it has now been efectively replaced with the 'acceleration vector' of distorted spacetime, is it likely that in the future the other three remaining forces will similarly be shown to be just simple representations of some as yet deeper and unknown situation.

Yet it's so weak that static electricity can overcome it.

(And agree with that last bit. )

--A

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:
I still think that physicists will be better off if the Higgs Boson is proven to be impossible to exist because this will force them to rethink their interpretations of reality. A different understanding of things could lead to fascinating discoveries.

Only very specific parts, though. At the beginning at least. Quantum Mechanics and Relativity won't be touched (in any fundamental way, anyway) by discovering this is wrong.

Frankly, a neutrino traveling faster than light would be a much more revolutionizing discovery.

A Higgs boson walks into a church. The priest says, "Thank God, we couldn't have mass without you!"

HaHaHa - now that was more fun than the mythical HB itself

(re Orlions neutrino - you heard the following one:-

The Barman says "I'm sorry we don't serve neutrino's in here."
A neutrino walks into a bar.

Murrin wrote:A Higgs boson walks into a church. The priest says, "Thank God, we couldn't have mass without you!"

That is just beautiful. I'm gonna be using it. Invent it yourself?

Nah, saw it elsewhere.

Religion seems finally to have found it's natural place alongside science in the Great Scheme of Things!

Avatar wrote:So, what exactly will this mean? Are there practical applications?

The possibility of creating a black hole in CERN seems like a practical application to me. Only problem being that not ONLY Switzerland is going to go

No one posting the big news in here yet?

A particle exists at a mass of around 126GeV.

Now it's time to work out what that particle is, exactly.

Yeah, they were being very non-committal about it.

--A

Murrin wrote:No one posting the big news in here yet?

A particle exists at a mass of around 126GeV.

Now it's time to work out what that particle is, exactly.

If the detected particle is of mass 126GeV, then doesn't it by definition have to *be* the 'Higgs Boson'. ie the HB was defined as a particle that exists at or around this mass, and the thing now it is found is to work out what it does,and how it does it.

Not to be too cynical, but I do remember many moons ago at college (in a history and philosophy of science module I think) being told that one should always view science stories that appear in the press with a certain degree of, not scepticism, but caution - particularly when they come out of the 'Big Science' stable. A great deal of money is needed to build stuff like the LHC and one of the best ways of getting politicians' attention is with a 'We're nearly at the point where we've nailed it' story. Thats not to say the story isn't true by any means - just that it represents (maybe) just one of those points in a long ongoing search at which it is politic to generate some lay interest by the judicious announcement of a well turned (and for the public, easily digestable) statement.