It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hint of Elusive Higgs Boson: An Update from the Large Hadron Collider

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Hint of Elusive Higgs Boson: An Update from the Large Hadron Collider


www.sciencedaily.com

The physics world was abuzz with some tantalizing news a couple of weeks ago. At a meeting of the European Physical Society in Grenoble, France, physicists -- including some from Caltech -- announced that the latest data from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) might hint at the existence of the ever-elusive Higgs boson.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   
This is absolutely fascinating news as the scientific community continues to push forward. I'm not sure what I find the most fascinating about this, that we are close to finding the particule that endows mass to everything else, or that we can actually measure these events that happen so fast its almost as if they never existed.

www.sciencedaily.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by FSBlueApocalypse
This is absolutely fascinating news as the scientific community continues to push forward.



As news of possible suggestive hints at the Higgs Boson continue to come out of Fermilab and CERN, its almost dissapointing that they've actually found what they're looking for.
The history of this field suggested that they'd actually find evidence of something even more unexpected and weird.
My god, are we actually reaching the end of the search for basic particles?



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   
I'm sure whenever they find it, that door will open to a dozen new ones we never imagined before.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Optimally chosen words:

"might hint"....

To the scientific community, you might as well claim that Santa Claus really exists, you'll get about as much consensus. Here are a few more examples of similar phrasing:

"Aliens may really exist"...

"Signs point to the fact that"...

"All evidence shows that"...

This is how media dumbs you down. You have to pay attention to how things are worded because chances are, 99% of what you read is misleading without a complete drill-down, almost to the point of calling the CERN scientists directly.

Good find OP, just pointing out how words can cause excitement without truly delivering anything of substance.

~Namaste



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   
I would send out hints of possible progress occasionally too if I was trying to justify an 8 Billion dollar project.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
if this is the same thing im thinking about.. i know that although they have has some excellent results from tests.. there is a massive amount of data to go through, which will take a long time..
they have ordered scientists and physicists not to speculate about possible results of tests until all the data has been analysed..

maybe someone spilled the beans as it were?



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   


According to the Standard Model, the remarkably successful theory of how all the fundamental particles interact..


The standard model needs to heavily revised because numerous experiments have contradicted its predictions such as Neutrinos having mass when the Std. Model says they don't have mass. Also the Standard model is inconsistent with general relativity and it fails to describe/incorporate Gravity.
en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 16-8-2011 by CasiusIgnoranze because: .



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by CasiusIgnoranze
 


True about the standard model. It's a usefull easy to understand generalization, but it dosent cover the entire truth.

an electron must be described using quantum mechanical rules rather than the classical rules which govern planetary motion. According to quantum mechanics, an electron can be a wave or a particle, depending on what kind of measurement one makes. Because of its wave nature, one can never predict where in its orbit around the nucleus an electron will be found. One can only calculate whether there is a high probability that it will be located at certain points when a measurement is made.

the quantum mechanical wave equation, as developed by Schrödinger in 1926, gives an excellent description of how the microscopic world is observed to behave, and we must admit that while quantum mechanics may not be precise, it is accurate.





It could lead to a technological revolution. (To watch all 6 parts of the series go YouTube).




And new's about the Higgs existence is great news.



edit on 16-8-2011 by Mimir because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse
 


The goddamn elusive particle


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
When I think of the higg boson what comes to mind is the dimension 0 the particle that started it all. If that is the case, dimension 0 1st dimension 2nd dimension 3d dimention (which is where we are) 4rth dimetion (time) 5th dimention etc. I have to wonder why scientist would go after 0. What would be the point?



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


Agreed, and what annoys me is that LHC and Fermilab seem to be coming out with one of these press releases every few months. Perhaps in the current financial state they're concerned about funding?

Aside from the other releases, haven't there already been 'hints' at the existence of the Higgs Boson? Isn't that why we're searching in the first place?



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by CasiusIgnoranze
Also the Standard model is inconsistent with general relativity and it fails to describe/incorporate Gravity.]


While the standard model has some problems with consistency, its' inconsistencies with relativity is not one of them. General relativity is inconsistent/incompatible with quantum mechanics as is.



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join