‘God particle’ out of hiding places: CERN chief
August 25th, 2011 in Physics / General Physics
Enlarge
The director general of the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN), Rolf-Dieter Heuer, addresses a news conference at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR) in Mumbai on August 25. Heuer said the the elusive Higgs Boson, known as the “God particle”, was—if it exists—running out of places to hide.
The elusive Higgs Boson, known as the “God particle”, is—if it exists—running out of places to hide, the head of the mammoth experiment designed to find it said on Thursday.
“The window for the famous Higgs Boson… is getting smaller and smaller,” Professor Rolf Heuer, director-general of the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN), told a news conference in Mumbai, where the agency presented its latest data in the quest.
The Higgs Boson is a theoretical sub-atomic particle that is believed to confer mass. It is named after a British scientist who suggested its existence in the 1960s.
It has been dubbed the “God particle” because it is thought to be everywhere, but it has also proved agonisingly hard to find.
Scientists at CERN are trying to determine its existence in the world’s largest particle collider, located in a tunnel deep below the Franco-Swiss border, and believe they can come up with an answer by the end of 2012.
Heuer said the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) was working well but finding evidence of the enigmatic particle was difficult because they were looking at the lowest levels of mass, the last place where it may—or may not—lurk.
He likened the search to trying to find a snowy field during a blizzard, while Pier Oddone, director of the US Department of Energy’s Fermilab, said it was like looking for stars in daylight.
“It’s the hardest region because of the background… It’s more difficult to see what’s going on,” Oddone said.
On Monday, CERN research director Sergio Bertolucci said experiments had excluded with 95 percent certainty the existence of the Higgs boson at higher levels of mass.
The 27-kilometre (16.9-mile) Large Hadron Collider is designed to accelerate protons to nearly the speed of light and then smash them together where detectors in house-sized laboratories record the seething, sub-atomic debris.
The collisions briefly create temperatures 100,000 times hotter than the Sun, fleetingly replicating conditions split-seconds after the “Big Bang” that created the known universe 13.7 billion years ago.
The Higgs Boson is the missing cornerstone of the well-tested Standard Model of particle physics, a theory which explains how known sub-atomic particles in the universe interact.
Professor Rohini Godbole, particle theorist at the Centre for High Energy Physics at the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore, said the Standard Model had been put together like a house of cards over the last 70 years.
“We’re trying to put together the last two cards,” she added. “If the Higgs Boson is found, the two cards meet. If it’s not… the house of cards is going to fall down.”
Godbole said she was confident of a discovery.
“All that so far has been tested, whatever we have been predicting, has been found to be true,” she said.
(c) 2011 AFP
“‘God particle’ out of hiding places: CERN chief.”
August 25th, 2011. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-god-particle-cern-chief.html
Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek
===========.
#
God particle may not exist.
Thursday, 6 December, 2001, 13:13 GMT http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1695390.stm
#
- The mad CERN’s way.
14 Sep 2008 16:14 GMT
by Israel Sadovnik Socratus http://www.spacekb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/astronomy/13338/The-mad-CERN-s-project
====..
‘God particle’ out of hiding places: CERN chief
.............
The Higgs Boson is the missing cornerstone of the well-tested Standard Model of particle physics, a theory which explains how known sub-atomic particles in the universe interact.
Professor Rohini Godbole, particle theorist at the Centre for High Energy Physics at the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore, said the Standard Model had been put together like a house of cards over the last 70 years.
“We’re trying to put together the last two cards,” she added. “If the Higgs Boson is found, the two cards meet. If it’s not… the house of cards is going to fall down.”
............. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-god-particle-cern-chief.html
In my excruciatingly limited understanding, this is not correct. Mass is attributed to the Higgs mechanism which is behind the Higgs field, and other fields such as the electromagnetic field have associated boson particles such as the photon. If there is no Higgs boson, then modifications to the Standard Model would need to be made to explain this field without a boson, but it would not “fall down”.
Also, again in my excruciatingly limited understanding, the Standard Model grew out of theoretical work done in the ‘60s by Gell Mann and many others. There were considerable extensions and some modifications to it in the ‘70s. It is still being extended and modified to a limited extent. Observations of the predictions including new particles have continued to occur. Characterizing it as a “house of cards that has grown in the last 70 years”; where does that come from? It grew for a decade or so 50 years ago based on math that I consider very esoteric, but is internally consistent and has predicted many things that have been observed since then. Doesn’t seem we’re on the edge of a new paradigm here, whether they find it or not.
On Aug 26, 10:40 am, sadovnik socratus .. . wrote:
- Show quoted text - ———————————-
(:-)
they are ashamed to admit that they were idiots
physicists RIGHT FROM THE START !!
i brought many reasons why the Higgs
WAS DEAD BY ARRIVAL !!
ATB
Y.Porat ————————————.
The Higgs or something like it is necessary for the conisitency of the Standard Model, which other wise is really pretty much of a parametric model—one that needs a lot of observational parameters and does not explain a lot. So if the Higgs does not exsit, it should send the particle physicists back to the drawing board.
There is a big difference between a basic theory liek quantum mechanics or Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism and something like the Standard model. One give-away is that if you put EM and QM together you need only one dimensionless constant (one unexplained number that has to come from observation) while for the Standard Model you need dozens of such numbers.
Characterizing it as a “house of cards that has grown in the last 70 years”;
where does that come from?
It grew for a decade or so 50 years ago based on math that I consider very esoteric,
but is internally consistent and has predicted many things that have been observed since then.
Doesn’t seem we’re on the edge of a new paradigm here, whether they find it or not.
=.
Question: Where we can find ‘a new paradigm’ ?
#
To find the ‘the famous Higgs Boson’ physicists need
not only High Energy but a Pure Vacuum too.
Without the Pure Vacuum the 27-kilometers (16.9-mile)
Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is an useless toy.
I ask: Where in the Universe we can find the Pure Vacuum ?
My answer: The Universe as whole is a Pure Vacuum.
Why?
Because the detected material mass of the matter in the Universe
( the cosmological constant / the critical density of Uuniverse)
is very small (the average density of all substance in the
Universe is approximately p=10^-30 g/sm^3 ) .
Because the Universe is filled with dark matter and dark energy :
‘ 90% or more of the matter in the Universe is unseen / dark.’
=.
Therefore I think that maybe we can find ‘a new paradigm’ in
the Cosmic Vacuum: the empty space between stars ( Galaxies )
And this Vacuum is not an empty space
The Vacuum is some kind of Cosmic background Energy.
The Vacuum is an Infinite Energy-time continuum.
The Vacuum is Dirac’s sea.
And according to Dirac and other physicists the
Vacuum Energy can generate particles.
The ‘God particles’ , the ‘virtual particles’ live there.
. . . .
====.
BTW .
Vacuum—the very name suggests emptiness and nothingness –
is actually a realm rife with potentiality, courtesy of the laws
of quantum electrodynamics (QED). According to QED,
additional, albeit virtual, particles can be created in the vacuum,
allowing light-light interactions. http://www.aip.org/pnu/2006/768.html
#
When the next revolution rocks physics,
chances are it will be about nothing—the vacuum,
that endless infinite void. http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18-nothingness-of-space-theory-of-everything
The Higgs or something like it is necessary for the conisitency of the Standard Model,
which other wise is really pretty much of a parametric model-
-one that needs a lot of observational parameters and does not explain a lot.
So if the Higgs does not exsit, it should send the particle physicists back to the drawing board.
There is a big difference between a basic theory liek quantum mechanics or
Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism and something like the Standard model.
One give-away is that if you put EM and QM together you need only one dimensionless constant
(one unexplained number that has to come from observation)
while for the Standard Model you need dozens of such numbers.
===.
EM and QM together you need only one dimensionless constant
(one unexplained number that has to come from observation)
while for the Standard Model you need dozens of such numbers.
/ Lerner /
==.
Can a finite space have infinite parameters ?
====.
I think the answer is ‘no’.
Why?
Because to create our finite world
( for example: our planet Earth and the life on it)
the Nature needs limited numbers of constants.
They are the values that cannot be derived from theory
of creation. Any infringement of these physical ( magic)
constants doesn’t permit this creation. ( for example:
the changing of electron’s charge or mass of proton
doesn’t permit creation of atom )
These limited ( magic) numbers of constants that needed
for our creation surprised scientists.
( For example, biologists know about 100 ( hundred - ! ) kinds
of amino acids. But only 20 ( twenty - ! ) kinds of amino acids
are suitable to produce molecules of protein, from which all
different cells created on our planet.)
There are many other examples about limited numbers
of constants that need for creation micro and macro worlds.
What are these concrete limited physical parameters
for Unlimited Infinity ?
====.
2.
Can an Infinite space have finite parameters ?
If Infinite Space has infinite parameters then it is some
kind of abstraction. If Infinite Space is some kind of reality
it must have finite parameters for creation our Material World.
==============.
The question of what gravity is made of - ....
Is equal to the questions:
What gives particles mass?
Where does the mass of the particle come from?
#
The physicists say that searching for the Higgs Boson –
- God particle - is needed vacuum
So, maybe, the vacuum gives mass to particles.
The cosmologist Rocky Kolb from University of Chicago wrote:
‘ Somehow, the energy is extracted from the vacuum and turned
into particles…Don’t try it in your basement, but you can do it.’
So!
We try to understand ‘gravity’, ‘ Higgs Boson’, ‘black holes ‘,
‘dark mass / energy’ without know what vacuum is.
Do we have logic ?
==.
I have been thinking about this also in the last few years. In high energy reactions, matter-antimatter pair particles can be created, e.g. by powerful gammas, and so we do get new particles and new matter from energy. But generally, it seems the individual particles have been around for a long time. So why do we think all of the mass within the particles is coming and going out of existence through the vector-particles associated with the Higgs, when things generally stick around for so long? Maybe the whole deal is wrong. I wonder if the majority of the mass is not associated with particles at all. What if significant energy must be added to whatever protons and neutrons are made of in order to form them, but once over the hump as it were their insides stick together at a local minimum in the potential energy, and this energy is actually the source of the mass? Of course then they would explode if something disturbed them outside of this minimum, and they could tunnel out, but maybe this is countered by the strong interaction.
Guess I’m not being as philosophical as the main poster in this thread, just thinking in terms of non-philosophical simple physics stuff like potential energy, E=mc2, and so on. But all this philosophy and esoteric physics like vacuum particle creation is a little beyond me, at least for now.
Here’s an idea I’ve had to explain the physics details of the previous post.
In general, the strong interaction is taken to have a monotonic distance relation, as other forces do. It is taken to be become more strongly attractive as distance increases, which is not similar to other forces such as the electric force, but both are monotonic. However, the actual behavior of the strong interaction over any distance greater than about the diameter of a quark (small) is not really determinable, because the attraction becomes so strong so fast that enough energy is present in the attraction to create new particles, which would be closer than that. I have been told this is why there are no free quarks. Nobody has every observed a quark not in another particle. This also means nobody has ever observed the full strong interaction at larger distances. I understand the strong interaction contributes to forces that maintain the nucleus, and these forces are at larger distances than those of a single sub-nuclear particle, but those are secondary effects that I do not understand.
What if the strong interaction becomes repulsive for larger distances? Very strongly repulsive, just as it is very strongly attractive for short distances? This might require rewriting some of the physics around how sub-nuclear particles are bound in the nucleus, but is it fundamentally impossible? If this repulsion is large enough, then wouldn’t it impart a significant energy to the bound particles, possibly the majority of the mass?
What really got me to thinking about this was cosmic inflation. I hesitated to mention that in this forum, because personally anything before a couple of billions years ago is all fun and games to me; I think we have enough trouble really understanding the last couple billion years, so who really knows what happened before then. However, if all these particles (and i mean all these particles) existed back then in some kind of cosmic overlap in something the size of a single sub-nuclear particle, but then it got big enough for this strong repulsive force to come into play, wouldn’t you expect it to go “whoosh” in a major way, pdq?
I have been thinking about this also in the last few years.
In high energy reactions, matter-antimatter pair particles can be created,
e.g. by powerful gammas, and so we do get new particles and new matter from energy.
Guess I’m not being as philosophical as the main poster in this thread,
just thinking in terms of non-philosophical simple physics stuff like potential energy, E=mc2, and so on.
But all this philosophy and esoteric physics like vacuum particle creation is a little beyond me, at least for now.
========.
1.
I see that antimatter is not an esoteric physics for you.
Do you know that 90% or more of the matter in
the Universe is unseen dark matter-antimatter.
And nobody knows what antimatter is.
2.
For you vacuum is an esoteric physics .
And I ask: just thinking in terms of simple physics stuff,
what is vacuum ?
Today nobody gives answer to this question.
And answer to this question is the first step to Physics stuff.
This is first step to understand Nature.
If you ignore this step you fall into abstraction.
Of course you can debate about strong, weak, gravity . .
. . . etc interactions but all your reasonings are tautology.
===.
Strange esoteric physic’s contradiction
1
On the one hand :
The particles in the Universe are more than antiparticles
/ Baryon asymmetry /
2.
On the other hand:
Dark matter in the Universe is more than visual matter
Question :
Does one physic’s hand know that the other hand do ?
====== .
About antimatter, dark matter, anti and virtual particles.
About quarks and zoo of elementary particles.
About our simple logical thought.
Are they exist?
=.
One give-away is that if you put EM and QM together you need only one dimensionless constant (one unexplained number that has to come from observation) while for the Standard Model you need dozens of such numbers.
This tells me that a large paradigm shift will occur.. of the scale of Ptolemy to Kepler.
Carl Sagan said it best,
“Ptolemy showed us that you can be brilliant and still be wrong.”
What if we are too close to our own large gravity well for the interesting phenomena to manifest?
(eg: earth, sun, galaxy)
Then we may never detect a dynamic subspace, if that exists,
though we possibly could find beta decay modulation.
Focus Fusion Society 
