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.

 

Physicists Get Closer Than Ever to God Particle

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:23 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


I doubt VERY MUCH that what they will discover will be a Particle that they have described or does what they think it does. This is not to say there is no such thing as a Higgs-Boson Particle...but just that it most likely like as Toy demonstrated on TV...lives up to expectations.

The only problem is that they have a 5 sigma level of confidence a new particle has been found, and I think 4.9 that it is the Higgs Boson. The only way they know it is the Higgs Boson is because it acts like they "described". If it didn't it would be simply a new particle. Now there are some inconsistencies with the way it acts, but that could be due to the small amount of data they are using, or it could be because it acts differently because other assumptions are wrong. They appear to have found the particle they described, and it appears to either live up to or EXCEED expectations.




posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


I doubt VERY MUCH that what they will discover will be a Particle that they have described or does what they think it does. This is not to say there is no such thing as a Higgs-Boson Particle...but just that it most likely like as Toy demonstrated on TV...lives up to expectations.

The only problem is that they have a 5 sigma level of confidence a new particle has been found, and I think 4.9 that it is the Higgs Boson. The only way they know it is the Higgs Boson is because it acts like they "described". If it didn't it would be simply a new particle. Now there are some inconsistencies with the way it acts, but that could be due to the small amount of data they are using, or it could be because it acts differently because other assumptions are wrong. They appear to have found the particle they described, and it appears to either live up to or EXCEED expectations.

The latest issue of Nature is more cautious than you, asking whether the new particle CERN has discovered is really the Higgs boson!
www.nature.com...
The statistical deviation from chance for its signals is LESS than five sigma, so the discovery falls short of an official discovery. We do not have proof yet that the resonance that has been detected is the Higgs boson. According to Prof. Veltman, who shared the 1999 Nobel Prize for his work on the Standard Model: "“Fine, there is something there — a resonance. Now we have to find out if it has all the properties that the Higgs is supposed to have.”

What if the particle is simply a resonance state of a spin-0 meson that is part of the Standard Model? Or - horror! - a spin-0 meson created by physics lying outside the Standard Model? For example, a bound state of a subquark and its antiparticle?



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 

You correct it is short of a 5 sigma level of confidence. It's a 4.9. So a 1 in 2 million chance it is not the Higgs. where do you want to place your money? Stephen Hawking already paid $100 for a bet he lost over this being the Higgs and has called for Higgs to get the Nobel Prize. The issue as to whether this acts like the Higgs is less on whether it is the Higgs and whether it acts EXACTLY as predicted or if there are some surprises waiting.

Or do you want to take me up on a wager, 1 in 2 million, I'll take those odds.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


I doubt VERY MUCH that what they will discover will be a Particle that they have described or does what they think it does. This is not to say there is no such thing as a Higgs-Boson Particle...but just that it most likely like as Toy demonstrated on TV...lives up to expectations.

The only problem is that they have a 5 sigma level of confidence a new particle has been found, and I think 4.9 that it is the Higgs Boson. The only way they know it is the Higgs Boson is because it acts like they "described". If it didn't it would be simply a new particle. Now there are some inconsistencies with the way it acts, but that could be due to the small amount of data they are using, or it could be because it acts differently because other assumptions are wrong. They appear to have found the particle they described, and it appears to either live up to or EXCEED expectations.

The latest issue of Nature is more cautious than you, asking whether the new particle CERN has discovered is really the Higgs boson!
www.nature.com...
The statistical deviation from chance for its signals is LESS than five sigma, so the discovery falls short of an official discovery. We do not have proof yet that the resonance that has been detected is the Higgs boson. According to Prof. Veltman, who shared the 1999 Nobel Prize for his work on the Standard Model: "“Fine, there is something there — a resonance. Now we have to find out if it has all the properties that the Higgs is supposed to have.”

What if the particle is simply a resonance state of a spin-0 meson that is part of the Standard Model? Or - horror! - a spin-0 meson created by physics lying outside the Standard Model? For example, a bound state of a subquark and its antiparticle?


This is exactly why we need caution in declaring it the Higgs.

We could be creating a precedent that knee caps advancement in physics for hundreds (if not thousands) of years if we're wrong.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


Except it WAS a 5 sigma discovery, and was then downgraded to a 4.9 sigma, meaning a 1 in 2 million chance it is not the Higgs. So explain how your statement holds much water.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by chr0naut
 


Except it WAS a 5 sigma discovery, and was then downgraded to a 4.9 sigma, meaning a 1 in 2 million chance it is not the Higgs. So explain how your statement holds much water.


What they have a 4.9 sigma confidence in is that they have detected a previously unknown fundamental particle.

Although candidates are small for exactly what particle theoretically could sit at that mass, it could still be another fundamental particle and NOT the Higgs.

We only know its mass and that we are confident that it is not an experimental error. This doesn't follow that it automatically must be the Higgs.

It could ALSO be more than one particle close together in mass, and none of these may be the Higgs either, making our ability to discern the individual particles out of the group difficult.

Or, from a theoretical stand point, perhaps the Higgs field is somehow mediated by more than one particle. We just don't know yet.

The whole Higgs mechanism is a bit of a kludge to add mass to an essentially massless standard model.

We really need to gather mare specific evidence to see if other properties line up with the Higgs.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Sorry Guy's....especially the ones out there who are hoping this discovered particle is ALL THAT HAS BEEN ADVERTISED...but...I actually do things with my 174 IQ despite playing music to very young PRETTY GIRLS! LOL!

The concept of a Higgs-Boson Particle doing EXACTLY AS ADVERTISED and actually existing is at a PROBABILITY that even I do not dare to contemplate in favor of it's existence. In my opinion...and I actually hope I am WRONG as this discovery event would sure as Hell make things alot easier!....by in my CALCULATED OPINION....NO SUCH PARTICLE EXISTS.

There is a Higher Probability that current Models of Universal Reality are just plain WRONG! This probability exceeds that of a particle as what is described as a Higgs-Boson...does and represents actually existing. THAT IS THE SIMPLE MATH BOY'S AND GIRL'S so I would not excited YET! Now if this thing actually pans out...HELL! I will be the first person Happily Screaming....I WAS WRONG! But that is a VERY remote possibility....I wish it was not.

The entire concept of a Higgs-Boson Particle existing as advertised goes against every FIBER OF MY BEING as far as it being that simple or contained to within ONE UNIVERSAL REALITY. THIS is what I KNOW DEEP IN MY SOUL to be the deal breaker...the fact that such a particle is conceived to exist for the purpose of allowing certain other particles to OBTAIN MASS. If a particle was needed for anything to obtain MASS...then we would not have PHOTONS...a QUANTUM PARTICLE...OBTAINING A MICRO MASS as they pass within Space/Time Warping created by any Celestial Body of Sufficient Quantitative Measurable amount of Matter or Mass as well as Celestial Bodies such as Black Holes which can be Super Small like those created at a Particle Accelerator or those created by Stellar Radiation impacting Earths Atmosphere...or Large such as Cygnus X-1 or SUPER MASSIVE such as Sagittarius A*....which is the Super-massive Black Hole that dominates the Heart of our Milky Way Galaxy weighing in at 3 Million Solar Masses.

We are aware enough to understand that Photons during a simple Light Disbursal Pattern...by cutting a few ruler length Half Inch Horizontal Slits in a piece of card board and shining a light at the slits and watch what appears on a wall behind the cardboard as Photons act in a Manner which goes against ALL OF OUR UNIVERSAL PHYSICAL RULES...that QUANTUM MECHANICS is not confined to a singular Universal System of Reality. To believe so is FOLEY!

As I said...if this turns out to be the Higgs-boson as advertised...I will put on a Cheer Leading Outfit and jump for joy...but I DOUBT THIS IS WHAT THEY THINK IT IS....as what they think it could be and what they believe it could be...is really....STUPID! I don't think the MULTIVERSE is arranged Stupidly.

Then again...people like that song...I think it's called...Oh...My Achey Breaky Heart! SO WHAT THE HELL DO I KNOW! LOL! Split Infinity



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 

O.R...you should really explain to the folks out there what a Big Deal the Scale Differential is as well as how it pertains to whether or not this thing is what they are looking for...the downgrade itself is enough to PROVE IT'S NOT WHAT THEY THINK IT IS...but it may help some people to get a better grasp on what this downgrade really means.

I can think of no one better to explain it than you. Split Infinity



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by eywadevotee
 


Yep. Well said.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueMule
reply to post by eywadevotee
 


Yep. Well said.


Excuse me for interjecting but...how can what he has said....BE WELL SAID? They have already downgraded the discovery to 4.8 now on the scale so that is a VERY BIG IF!

You could have said what you said if it remained 5 on the scale but 4.9 or 4.8....which ever is the truth...it is STILL NOT A 5! This means it is but one in multiple MILLIONS of chance of PROBABILITY that they have discovered what was advertised.

The sad part is that they may have discovered EXACTLY what they theorized existed but it just is not what they thought it was and it does not do what they thought it would do. I believe this is HIGHLY LIKELY!
Split Infinity



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
Excuse me for interjecting but...how can what he has said....BE WELL SAID? They have already downgraded the discovery to 4.8 now on the scale so that is a VERY BIG IF!


Well excuuuuuuuuusssssse meeeeee, but the actual combined statistical significance is almost 7 sigma = sqrt(5^2+5^2). Unless you are the kind of person who thinks when you see something twice, it only counts as seeing it once, because you saw it two different times (here is a random textbook found by googling the correct catch phrase: books.google.com... sq972Cedc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=T8H3T76rFOnE2wX_rt3NBg&ved=0CFsQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=add%20in%20quadrature%20standard%20deviation&f=false)

Also, 7 > 5. In case you didn't know.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


How many times have you read the Bhagavad Gita? Just curious.


edit on 6-7-2012 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueMule
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


How many times have you read the Bhagavad Gita? Just curious.


edit on 6-7-2012 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)


NOT ONCE! No time! I do find time to watch sports though. I also found the time to disprove one of my Professors Widely Accepted Theories because the Guy was charging His Students $375 per book. Greedy Bastard!
Split Infinity



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


First, your IQ claim is meaningless, unless you are saying your IQ is so much greater than those who postulate the existence of the Higgs that you are far beyond them, is this true?

You can call us "boys and girls" asserting your superiority, but the greatest minds in the field use the Standard Model, so I guess they are all just ignorant as well. Maybe you should tell Stephen Hawking how far superior you are to him as he already has come forth saying Higgs should get the Nobel Prize. Oh and Hawking already paid Gordon Kane $100 after reviewing the evidence for this being the Higgs, because Kane bet him the Higgs would be found in their lifetime. Why even bet on something that is statistically so improbable as you claim?

Now start looking for that cheer leading outfit, and it can't be worn for halloween.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 

O.R...you should really explain to the folks out there what a Big Deal the Scale Differential is as well as how it pertains to whether or not this thing is what they are looking for...the downgrade itself is enough to PROVE IT'S NOT WHAT THEY THINK IT IS...but it may help some people to get a better grasp on what this downgrade really means.

I can think of no one better to explain it than you. Split Infinity



Ok, it's an easy explanation. The CMS team combined two sets of data which put this just past the discovery mark of 5 sigma, equivalent to 1 in 3.5 million this is NOT the Higgs. Further analysis revealed they are not at 5 sigma, they are at 4.9 sigma. This means there is a 1 in 2 million chance that this is NOT the Higgs.

So while you go around saying this is statistically almost impossible to be the Higgs, the ACTUAL statistics are that this is near impossible to NOT be the Higgs.

This is not even considering the fact that ATLAS released it's own information which EXCEEDS the 5 sigma level of confidence. The real question is shifting from is this the Higgs, to does this Higgs have any special properties that were not theorized. So it is less does this have the properties we thought, and more does this have properties we didn't imagine.

Did I nail it? What's your retort?



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by chr0naut
 


Except it WAS a 5 sigma discovery, and was then downgraded to a 4.9 sigma, meaning a 1 in 2 million chance it is not the Higgs. So explain how your statement holds much water.


Actually in fact it was nearly 5 sigma for the two independent experimental groups (Atlas and CMS), so it's stronger than that.

Remember, the '1 in X million' chance refers to statistical fluctuations assuming each group's assumed model for background. There is always systematic error (i.e. somebody making a mistake or inaccuracies in the model) so you shouldn't take the interpretation of X sigma too seriously. The reason they use a 5 sigma criterion and not 2.5 sigma (what you would usually use for say p



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
You could have said what you said if it remained 5 on the scale but 4.9 or 4.8....which ever is the truth...it is STILL NOT A 5! This means it is but one in multiple MILLIONS of chance of PROBABILITY that they have discovered what was advertised.


Hmmm, I'm not sure if you are ignorant or trolling. You have it reversed. A 4.9 sigma means it is 1 in 2 million chance of NOT being true. So 1,999,999 out of 2,000,000 odds that it is as advertised.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 


That is by combining the data sets from ATLAS and CMS? Even ATLAS standing on it's own is 5 sigma, which is a discovery, I am unsure if the data can be combined between the teams.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity

Originally posted by BlueMule
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


How many times have you read the Bhagavad Gita? Just curious.


edit on 6-7-2012 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)


NOT ONCE! No time! I do find time to watch sports though. I also found the time to disprove one of my Professors Widely Accepted Theories because the Guy was charging His Students $375 per book. Greedy Bastard!
Split Infinity


What theory out of curiosity, you are very self congratulatory in this thread. Bragging about your IQ .. and being better than a professor.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


I am aware, I think the data is much more supportive than 5 sigma, but I am going with worse possible scenario in which each set of data must stand on its own. I have yet to see a statistiscal analysis done combining the two independent teams, so I only want to go with what is known, not probable.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join