What is Digg?48 Comments
- Tallon29, on 10/11/2007, -2/+53"So science is trying to prove something DOES exist, instead of trying to prove it doesn't exist."
I believe Science would tell you that it is impossible to prove something doesn't exist. - lavoie0ca, on 10/11/2007, -4/+39I'm in ur atomz, giving them massz.
- miles01110, on 10/11/2007, -0/+23Pingspike-
The black hole rumors were started by an erroneous comment by Frank Wilczek and a subsequent headline in the London Times. Once a person properly educated in the subject thinks about the problem for approximately 2 seconds, he/she will realize that these fears have no scientific basis. And it's spelled "hadron."
As for the article, it is almost a certainty that the Higgs boson has been produced multiple times at Fermilab. But since particle physics relies on statistical data, Fermilab's beam does not have sufficient luminosity to collide protons and antiprotons to make a Higgs "on demand" so to speak. In other words, they can't produce enough Higgs bosons to confirm its existence, much less its properties.
I should add that the Nobel Prize for discovering the Higgs is definitely not going to just one person. The LHC collaboration is one of the largest in history. Hundreds of member institutions and thousands of scientists all contribute(d) to this experiment. - sirloin, on 10/11/2007, -2/+21"So, if the rumor is true and the standard model Higgs has been found at the Tevatron, the LHC is in big trouble: Immediately, its "guaranteed" success—the final particle of the standard model, not to mention a couple of Nobel Prizes for European scientists—is gone."
LOL they really need to become familiar with the history of particle physics before making insanely dumb statements like that.
Even if it has been discovered, the first thing you really want to do, is verify it, preferably at a completely different location. Most particle discoveries take years and years before they are "proven"
In science, it may look like a duck and quack liek a duck, but it isnt a duck, untill we have performed a mirad of tests and then reperformed them and then make sure everyone agrees it is a duck and then when we are finally sure it is a duck, we label it a duck theory just to cover our asses. - geminitojanus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+17"What are all these particle physicists going to do after they find the last, smallest particle?"
Find out more about them, find ways of putting them together to make novel substances, find out more about how matter interacts with matter. The game isn't about the hunt for exotic particles, it's about understanding them. - Pseudorious, on 10/11/2007, -4/+19Not to be confused with the holy grail of physics - the Grand Unifying Theory
- FearlessFreep, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13It's a duck regardless of what we happen to think of it. All we are trying to do is find the duck and verify for our own interest that it is a duck, but the duck doesn't care.
- derkaas, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10Grand Unified Theory is essentially the attempt to unify three of the four fundamental forces of nature: electromagnetism, and the weak and strong forces. So far only the first two have been unified as what is known as electroweak.
The Theory of Everything would go one step further and unify all four forces by throwing gravity into the mix. This task has proven to be the most elusive. - geminitojanus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10I think that Pseudorious was thinking about the "Theory of Everything"; one theory to explain all of physics. GUTs are one class of the candidates for the "Theory of Everything", but there's still lots of holes in them, same with "Unified Field Theory", M-Theory, Super-strings, etc.
- feebes, on 10/11/2007, -8/+17Play some WOW
- gamekingjb, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8Wow this is cool. The guy who leads the team at fermilab and is rumored to have found the Higgs Boson is my Physics teacher at UC Davis John Conway. People in my physics department are saying that he will be up for a noble prize for it He hasn't officially published his work yet but it is cool to think I was taught Newtonian Physics by a Nobel Prize recipient.
- mb3581, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6I'm sure this is all very interesting, but it is WAY over my head. However, I enjoy learning about this kind of stuff and every time I see an article about it I try and read up on it and learn as much as I can. Thanks for keeping digg interesting.
- CatsAreGods, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6I already found one, but I forgot where I put it.
- RTFan52, on 10/11/2007, -5/+7Holy Grail ?
"We've already got one" - emiles, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3One thing this author doesn't understand is that experimental particle physics is conducted by extremely large (1000+) teams of profs, post docs and grad students. Deciding who would receive the Nobel for an experimental discovery of the Higgs boson would be very tough. They may give it to Anderson and Higgs, though.
- tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@sweet
What? - miles01110, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2No, actually they don't have mass.
And "only according to special relativity" is not a statement to be used lightly. - MatthewWilkes, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3This is a very bad article. It mentions "guaranteed" success, as well as implying that finding the Higgs Boson would prove the standard model. Both utter nonsense. Personally, I reckon the approx. €2 milliard cost Wikipedia states for the LHC is more than worth finding the Higgs. We're at the limits of what we can learn about highly energetic particles at Tevatron. Not finding Higgs at very high potentials would be almost as interesting as finding it. We might even find micro-black holes or (if we're INCREDIBLY lucky) create a magnetic monopole when using it in ion mode (some theories suggest they could be used to create alternate universes).
In short, unless somebody comes up with the GUF and proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt before the LHC opens, it'll still do some very cool work. - tybris, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3There's really no point in finding it once. We'll have to find it over and over and over again before we can even begin to think we've proven it's existence. Getting a Nobel prize for finding it is nonsense, it may go to Peter Higgs though.
- miles01110, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I think you're missing the point. There is no other "entirely different source." There are no "different teams." The Higgs will be verified by either ATLAS or CMS (or ideally, both) at LHC and LHC only. Tevatron would need to operate for decades to verify the Higgs, and their time is measured in months at this point.
"Until then, I refuse to even consider it science."
If this is your position then you don't believe in mathematics. Which means you don't believe in physics. And so on down the line.
In short, you're an english major...so why are you even posting here? - tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@crab
We've made antimatter before.
@tallon
You can't technically "prove" anything. - gamekingjb, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2http://eggheadblog.ucdavis.edu/?p=289
Go UC Davis... nothing ever happens here so I guess I am excited that my professor might receive a noble prize. - tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1This has an interesting intro to particle physics:
http://www.particleadventure.org - tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The what?
- HayString, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1@Pingspike,
is this the video you're talking about http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fJ6PMfnz2E "Large Hadron Collider - The Search For The Higgs"
I think the actual name of the BBC show was "The Six Billion Dollar Experiment." I did have a link to the full vid on google vids but it doesn't seem to work anymore - raid517, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3This guy ain't so smart. You generally need verification from two (or more) entirely different teams and peer review from a large number of entirely different sources before a discovery as big as this can be considered 'confirmed'. That is why the idea of 'repeatability' is at the heart of the scientific method.
He seems to view science as a 'competition' - and also implies that there will be 'winners and losers' - when in reality if the Higgs is found it will be due to a massive collaboration of international researchers and physicists from around the world. There are just as many Europeans (with full European nationality), working at Tevatron as there undoubtedly will be Americans working at the HLC.
How would it fly with this guy I wonder if it transpires that it was a European researcher who used the Tevatron to uncover the Higgs and a Nobel prise was awarded to him for his work? Going by his logic everyone who is American would consider this a disaster.
At the very least it is far to early to call. Let's wait for the experimental data to emerge through the correct channels (i.e. through properly peer reviewed scientific journals) and then let's wait for confirmation from the LHC, rather than relying on the rumour mill that is the Internet and on the (often uneducated) blogosphere. Until then, I refuse to even consider it science. - swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2The Holy Grail of Particle Physics? We'll tell him, but we dont think he'll be interested...you see, we've already got one!
- g0nzilla, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2I want to finger the big ring!
- Rethcir, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Actually, the most powerful particle is the M. Boson.
- Topher06, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Agreed. Every now and then you read an article like this about theoretical physics being put to the real life test, say holy f*ck they can do that, and then go back to our mundane lives knowing that maybe, just maybe, they will invent the transporter beam and transparent aluminum.
- raid517, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2OK now let's watch all the petty brainless morons of digg dig me down for the typo. JHC I was one letter out!
OK for your benefit only, it should be LHC and *not* HLC.
Happy? - 0crabby0, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1No problem ! Just put the Large Hadron Collider to work making anti-matter...
- shovel24, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1The article is wrong in one respect. Photons do have mass, but it's practically nothing. The whole confusion has something to do with it travelling as both a wave and a particle (most likely). They say it has 0 mass when at rest, only according to special relativity that never happens.
- Godlike, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0Does this mean we can have like, a starship enterprise soon? I'd like to take that to work.
- RealmDown, on 10/11/2007, -8/+4Don't you mean, "Quark like a duck?"
- ElwoodHerring, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1Ducks are only a theory - they have never been proven. Therefore they don't really exist. (statement from the Church of the Anti-Duckites.)
- tuzziel, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1On the side line: they wasted precious 8 billions of EU tax money on this non-sense, primary objective ? as the article suggest to hunt Nobel prizes. We need transparent goverment badly, then the general public would be enlightened and probably astonished where the tax money are actually burned.
- HayString, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1String Theory FTMFW!
;) - dansy, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1Unlike WMD in Iraq where american presidents can invent stuff without being ever held responsible, there is a very clear procedure in physics (and in science in general) so I doubt that such rumors will mean anything ...
- sockpuppets, on 10/11/2007, -8/+2"Honestly, TURN THE THING ON FIRST, before coming to conclusion, as far as we know that thing might be the biggest failure and waste of money in the whole history of science!"
Honestly, RTFA BEFORE COMMENTING FIRST, before looking like an Rtard. - norman619, on 10/11/2007, -7/+0Is this the same as the Unified Field Theory?
I remember way back when I was in college (90's) that's all my physics prof would talk about. - sweetser, on 10/11/2007, -9/+2I've got a rank 1 unified field theory. It is not "grand", more like obnoxious. For example, it works in 4 dimensional spacetime, meaning all that bunk about 10 or 11 dimensions is bunk. It can be tested by looking at bending of light around the Sun to the next level (2nd order PPN accuracy), predicting 0.8 microarcseconds more bending than for the Schwarzschild metric. Quantizing the theory is already written in most quantum field theory books under the section for a relativistic treatment of a 4D wave, but instead of just a spin 1 field, there are 2 spin fields, one for EM, one for gravity. And because it is rank 1, not rank 2 like GR, the entire house of cards built on rank 2 theory collapses: GR, loop quantum gravity, black holes. Physics can be nasty like that because the cards are all in the math.
Best yet: there is a explanation WHY this all works. Basically, everything in the Universe wants to do nothing. Everything could get away with that if it was the only thing in the Universe. Yet that is not the case. So we have to figure out what is the closest thing to doing absolutely nothing. That would be a simple harmonic oscillator. The math gets a bit tough because this is a 4D SHO, but thems the breaks.
doug - TubaTechno, on 10/11/2007, -10/+2Should I blame Digg or it's users for not being able to pick up on sarcasm? Cause you know, it's never MY fault.
- Pingspike, on 10/11/2007, -14/+6Theres a video of the LHC (large hedron collider) online somewhere. Think it was done by the BBC or similar UK production group.
Bah i cant find the URL but it was very interesting to watch.
They were anticipating the posibility of whitnessing mini-black-hole phenomenon and the likes. slightly scary but very interesting all the same. - vfrex, on 10/11/2007, -9/+0Miles dugg down for proper spelling and usage of punctuation...this is digg you idiot. And shouldn't have something better to do?
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -14/+2What are all these particle physicists going to do after they find the last, smallest particle?
- raskalz, on 10/11/2007, -17/+2Honestly, TURN THE THING ON FIRST, before coming to conclusion, as far as we know that thing might be the biggest failure and waste of money in the whole history of science!
:-) - TubaTechno, on 10/11/2007, -28/+1So science is trying to prove something DOES exist, instead of trying to prove it doesn't exist. Nice.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is