Boffinry bitchslap brouhaha: Higgs and Hawking head to head Famous retired physics prof Peter Higgs - of boson renown - has stingingly counter-poohpoohed the theories of his equally well known Nobel Prize rival, Stephen Hawking, who has already poohpoohed Higgs' particle concept. The clash of intellects is expected to be settled by particle-punishment results at the Large Hadron Collider …
I was explaining to the missus that, in a sense, it's more exciting if they *don't* find the Higgs boson, because then they'll have to re-draft the standard model.
So... she says, does that mean they'll have to spend another fifty billion?
No, says I, because all those years of data from CERN and Fermilab could be re-examined.
But hang on. There must have been monstrous amounts of data collected over the years. How much of it has been kept, and how much discarded because it was deemed not to show anything interesting?
Of course, there is the possibility that neither of these two "boffins" are correct. Scientists who treat theory like fact are no better than anyone who believes in a religion. It's not a fact if it's based on faith and flimsy rationalisation.
The last thing science needs is "My God's better than your God" type arguements.
Have been discovered when people were looking for something else/ accident.
I'm looking forward to my anti-gravity, zero-point powered, flying car with my sat-nav able to negotiate all 14(?) dimensions.
Hmm - time for a lie-down now..
hmm Paris, lie down
ttfn
To try and answer your question...
CERN have a very strange data retention policy. Basically they back up data using in-house software to tape and hope it gets saved. As they collect so much data the loss of one, or more, sample(s) isn't considered significant (unless it's the one with the Higg's Boson in it!!). Recovery is a word and nothing more...
They try and keep the data for many years so that as new data theories are developed they can re-analyse their data against the new theory.
One big problem is that tape technology is rapidly changing and they may not have the ability to recover all of the data they want. Also tapes deterioriate and CRC errors can occur effectively destroying a data stream. But, as mentioned, the loss of some data isn't considered significant so they don't really care...
If only life was so easy in the real world.
The Higgs Boson is supposed to be the "thing" that gives other particles their mass, begging the question... where does it get its mass from? Some other particle?
The standard model seems flawed to me for this reason alone, the idea that you need some special "particle" to give mass to thing just strikes me as an attempt to fill a hole in the model. A "god particle" of the gaps, you might say.
You know if they don't find it there'll be about half of them saying the thing is obviously even more elusive than we thought and that they need to build an even bigger accelerator to see it.
it seems to me far too trite and trivial that the Grand Theory Of Life The Universe And Everything is all tied up and a done-dusted deal by discovering but 1 particle. What would we do with the hordes of redundant beardie-weirdie particle physicists?? We need two more desktop PC maintenance techs here, but that's about it...
As I recall the torrent of data is so great that the detectors (or ancillary equipment) do event selection in hardware; only the tiny fraction of interesting looking events are logged. Presumably "interesting" is not too closely tied to any particular existing or proposed model, so there'd be a reasonable hope that the recorded data is still useful.
Disclaimer: I'm not a particle physicist.
I mean... some people think it exists... others not. So proton 1 hits proton 2, smaller particles go everywhere... assuming 'new' undiscoverd particle(s) pop up on the scanner... how will they know it is the one their looking for ? Will god vanish in a puff of logic ? will man be able to prove black is indeed white ? Just curious.
The anti-gravity invisible one...
True story: I once went for an interview (*) where the very first question I was asked was
"Do you find the Higgs mechanism esthetically pleasing?"
After a bit of fumbling around I basically said "no", and failed the interview. I've kinda resented it's potential existence ever since So imagine my delight to find that, albeit 20 years late, Prof Hawking has come out in public to back my point of view :-)
BTW, there is an icon here ( <-- ), it's just that you haven't yet got a monitor big enough to see it.
(*) The interview was for a a Particle Physics Phd place, so it was probably fair game although most people opened with the more friendly "so you found us alright?" :-)
Before the "big bang" there was nothing, not a single electron. Yesterday, the worlds best super-scientists "pretended" they were looking for a "god-particle". Unfortunately those super-scientists started with matter in this "so-called" experiment. RETARDED! It's ridiculous to think you can duplicate the big bang with matter, when in the beginning, there was no matter; I repeat: "not even a single electron".
Some scientists have no idea what they are looking for, because they don't know how to ask the 1st question. SAD REALLY!
This post has been deleted by its author
"Before the "big bang" there was nothing, not a single electron. Yesterday, the worlds best super-scientists "pretended" they were looking for a "god-particle". Unfortunately those super-scientists started with matter in this "so-called" experiment. RETARDED! It's ridiculous to think you can duplicate the big bang with matter, when in the beginning, there was no matter; I repeat: "not even a single electron".
Some scientists have no idea what they are looking for, because they don't know how to ask the 1st question. SAD REALLY!"
OK, yeah, whatever. I don't really know where to start...
In the past (when LHC was just LEP), all the data from recorded "events" was backed up on two copies of Cipher tape (3600 bpi). Each truck load of backup sets was stored in two off-site locations, one in the US and one in Gloucestershire, UK.
With the advent of the LHC plans were afoot to pick a different backup technology, but retain the same off-site storage locations; the chosen backup storage method was Toshiba’s HD-DVD technology and the two-off site storage locations were SecureVault Corp, floor 42 in World Trade Center Building No.2 and the underground storage facility at Tewkesbury.
These plan are now under revision.
Bill 'cause his head's so big, the LHC can just about fit on it!
"Before the "big bang" there was nothing, not a single electron. Yesterday, the worlds best super-scientists "pretended" they were looking for a "god-particle". Unfortunately those super-scientists started with matter in this "so-called" experiment. RETARDED! It's ridiculous to think you can duplicate the big bang with matter, when in the beginning, there was no matter; I repeat: "not even a single electron".
Some scientists have no idea what they are looking for, because they don't know how to ask the 1st question. SAD REALLY!"
You must have been reading the Vulture Central abridged description of the LHC. I'm pretty sure the unabridged version said the LHC is trying to simulate energy densities a short time AFTER the big bang. I'm no physicist, but I'm pretty sure the term AFTER is significant to the concepts involved.
Sarcasm warning: Do I need to define "after" verses "before"?
"The Higgs Boson is supposed to be the "thing" that gives other particles their mass, begging the question... where does it get its mass from? Some other particle?"
Simple:
http://www.phy.uct.ac.za/courses/phy400w/particle/higgs1.htm
Complex:
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0703280
Can't remember whether the neutrino masses are included in there or not. Also, most of the mass of hadrons (protons, neutrons, mesons) comes from their bound energy, namely the supposedly massless gluons gluing the quarks.
Ahem, the event under inspection is not big bang but the period shortly after; i.e. fractionally after big bang.
"The Universe started with a Big Bang – but we don’t fully understand how or why it developed the way it did. The LHC will let us see how matter behaved a tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang."
http://www.lhc.ac.uk/
The distinction matters.
"is to not turn on the LHC. Until we do both Hawking AND Higgs are both right. And my cat is both alive and dead."
Yes, but they are also both wrong...
By the way, I nominate the word "Deiton" to become the official term for it if they do find this so called "lynch-pin" of existence.
I note that both these very clever chaps showed just how smart they really are by responding to the pooh-poohing promptly.
"You know, if there's one thing I've learned from being in the army, it's never ignore a pooh-pooh. I knew a major: got pooh-poohed; made the mistake of ignoring the pooh-pooh -- he pooh-poohed it. Fatal error, because it turned out all along that the soldier who pooh-poohed him had been pooh-poohing a lot of other officers, who pooh-poohed their pooh-poohs. In the end, we had to disband the regiment -- morale totally destroyed ... by pooh-pooh!"
"Of course, there is the possibility that neither of these two "boffins" are correct. Scientists who treat theory like fact are no better than anyone who believes in a religion. It's not a fact if it's based on faith and flimsy rationalisation."
Which is, of course, why we've built the LHC in the first place--to look for the evidence.
That's the neat thing about science. We actually look for evidence to support our assertions.
I'd LIKE to believe in the mass-donating properties of a particle as an explanation about my own over-mass situation. It seems so elegant compared to the more mundane explanation of too much beer and chip molecules. And I bet there are physically tons of others who want to believe, too. CERN has just turned on the technology to remove the God-particle from protons and they're sitting on a gold-mine.
Assuming success, it's just a matter of time before late night TV marketers will be offering personal hadron colliders for effortless, in-home use for three easy payments of 29.95 per month (plus postage and handling). Can I order one in advance?
Oh yeah. The story was about Hawking and Higgs. I guess I just WANT to believe that Higgs finds his particle and proves the God-model and creates a market for in-home hadron colliders so I can have one.
Of course, if the particle isn't found that won't prove the Atheist-model is correct but it won't create a weight-loss product either.
Maybe like the SETI project they'll decide that hobbyists could collect and analyze data and they'll* offer in-home colliders to anybody who can cough up 6 easy payments of 39.95.month (plus postage and handling). Then I can have my toy anyway.
And meanwhile Hawking will have to devise a test device to prove the Atheist-model -- potential for a new toy in 10 - 20 years to replace the worn out the collider.
Anyway, I'd happily help Higgs and Hawking settle their bet, especially if I could lose a few God-particles in the process.
*It's hard to say specifically who "they" might be but we see their reps on infomercials.
Some time in the late 80s the Prof did a series of lectures at Cambridge, called "a short history of the universe". They were popular with the undergrads, and even I managed to attend one or two (unlike the ones that were actually essential to my getting something better than a third). The lecture course, as should be obvious, got turned into a book. The lectures were informal, but the moment the Prof cracked a "joke" about what he was going to do with his Nobel prize money, I thought "he's never going to get one".
...that you can't prove the non-existence of anything. So there are two possible outcomes: either the Higgs boson exists and Hawking loses his money, or we can't tell and he keeps it (but doesn't win any). So his expected loss is in the region of $50.
I don't see how someone that smart can be so bad at making bets.
What I don't understand is if the LHC *doesn't* find the HB, how does that prove it doesn't exist? It just proves their experiments didn't find it. Finding it is the only sure result, not finding leaves us in exactly the same position.
Not to mention of course that if they do find it, they will then need to work out what *it* is made of!
seems like a really convenient explanation for anything that cannot be explained.
So, how did that happen, well it just sort of blew into existence.
Yeah, there was nothing and then poof there was something :)
I have a theory, unfortunately Pratchett came up with it first, but his was a fantasy setting, mine is high tech, the universe didn't start with a bang but a bootstrapping, and the static you hear is just residual noise left over from version 1 drivers.
I will have my Nobel prize now, no need to wrap it.
"The lectures were informal, but the moment the Prof cracked a "joke" about what he was going to do with his Nobel prize money, I thought "he's never going to get one"." .... By Anonymous Coward Posted Thursday 11th September 2008 22:03 GMT
AC,
You wouldn't happen to have a Perfect ReCollection of that Particular "joke" ? In a Quiet Lonely Place is Darkness Oft a Blessing and Mischief an Unnecessary Vice in Sins SuperSubAtomic NEUKlearer EMissions.
Blame IT on the LHC for the Buzz they have Created for dDelivery of SpinWAIted IntelAIgent Discourse..... Future Matters in the State which Matters ..... Tempestuous Control for FAIR Weather Fare Further Friends.
If they Deny Responsibility and Accountability, you could always Waste your Time and Everybody's Money Suing. Far better Filling a Fund to Found an Alternate Reality Game Exercising XXXXtraOrdinarily Rendered Control of Multiple Games Scenarios....... 11 Dimensions and Beyond.
Hawking has already lost one notable bet, over whether black holes destroy information (he had to give the winner an encyclopedia of baseball). Based on his past record, I'd bet against him (although I really don't want an encyclopedia of baseball).
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6193-hawking-concedes-black-hole-bet.html
..of all this kerfuffle on the BBC Breakfast Show coverage of the turning-on of the LHC.
I know because I watched it all with the assumption that one of the bemused couch-monkeys hosting the show would be bound to accidentally call it a "Large Hardon Collider" but I was sorely disappointed (and late for work).
Paris because she certainly understand the turning-on of a large hard..
..on second thoughts I'll just get me jacket.
They are both wrong. Dr. Tom won't find what his looking for, or evidence thereof. Dynamic Mass is a Hypervector, as is Extension and Time Flow. Each Hypervector works in combination with the others, each Hypervector has available to it 4 degrees of freedom of rotation. This means, in Linear terms, that there is 4 dimensions of Extension, 4 dimensions of Time Flow, and 4 Dimensions of Dynamic Mass, with all four linear dimensions perpendicular to each other. Neutrinos do for Protons, what photons do for electrons, help them change energy levels relative to something larger. As nice and well thought out of a design that the LHC is, it still is configured wrong to 'see' what it is that for which they are looking. They need to be able to determine the angle and momentum induced on a sensor pixel, not just count the particles of a particular energy, they need to include the geometry of the sensor array, 100,000,000 data collectors (if I recall correctly), to see if they get 'bent'. Genertaing an image based on the sensor geometry, and tracking the paths, IMHO, will gain them more and better data with which they would better be able to see what it that for which they are seaching.
Actually, black holes don't destroy information as such, but as they appear to be infinite entropy objects, they simply reduce the data to a very disorganised state (a bit like a Microsoft database product).
Apparently, if Hawking radiation theory is correct, eventually as they evaporate they will re-emit the data in the form of a collimated stream of radiation — veeeerrrry slowly.
This way, little problems like conservation of energy and thermodynamics all balance out at the end of time (as soon as that, huh?) and everything will coalesce back to its original state!
The Higgs particle doesn't have mass per say - it's the Higgs field that particles travel though that coveys mass (allegedly). The standard Model of particle physics says that for every field there must be a commensurate particle - hence the Higgs Boson.
BTW:
@ Scott
In this case the absence of proof is proof. The Standard Model predicts that the LHC should see the reminant particles of the Higgs as it is so short lived. If the predicted particles aren't there the theory is wrong.
Personally I agree with Hawkins...
Einstein's Relativity is beautifully elegant, whilst the Standard Model maths runs at 30+ pages of horribly inelegant equations full of kludges fixes & assumptions.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
