Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Bounds On the Higgs Boson Mass

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the pulling-in-the-walls dept.

Science 173

As the LHC continues to run at half power for the next year+, the US-based Tevatron continues to crank out results. Reader hweimer writes "Three new papers in Physical Review Letters present the latest results for the Higgs boson mass coming from Fermilab's Tevatron. The new data mandates that the Higgs boson mass within the standard model lies between 115 and 150 GeV." A year back we discussed the Tevatron's previous shrinking of the search space for the Higgs "God particle."

cancel ×

173 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

first!!!!!! (-1, Redundant)

dezent (952982) | more than 4 years ago | (#31150532)

LOL!

Re:first!!!!!! (3, Funny)

blakelarson (1486631) | more than 4 years ago | (#31150562)

I'd say your place lies between first and eighth...

Re:first!!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31150628)

LOL!

Dear Fermilab's Tevatron,
    Thank you for announcing you got there first, and laughing in my face. You big jerk.
Sincerely,
    LHC

Conversion to mass in kg (0, Redundant)

cytoman (792326) | more than 4 years ago | (#31150552)

From Wikipedia, 1 GeV/c^2 = 1.783 × 1027 kg . I wish summary articles were written so that most people could understand the terms used.

Re:Conversion to mass in kg (4, Informative)

cytoman (792326) | more than 4 years ago | (#31150570)

1 GeV/c^2 = 1.783 x 10^-27 kg.

I didn't preview my previous comment and so it came out all wrong.

Re:Conversion to mass in kg (4, Funny)

mbone (558574) | more than 4 years ago | (#31151804)

You should consider cosmology. That's the only field I know of where errors at the 10^54 level might be acceptable.

Re:Conversion to mass in kg (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31151954)

how about chemical engineering reaction coefficients?

Re:Conversion to mass in kg (1, Funny)

daveime (1253762) | more than 4 years ago | (#31152124)

You should consider climatology. That's the only field I know of where errors at the 10^54 level is not only acceptable but believed as gospel by the world's governments.

FTFY

Re:Conversion to mass in kg (0, Flamebait)

damasterwc (1247688) | more than 4 years ago | (#31152402)

so true. too bad some guy with his head rammed deep into the sand downmodded you. i would mod u up if i had points.

Re:Conversion to mass in kg (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31152776)

Yes, one idiot modding another up. "u" really deserve each other.

Re:Conversion to mass in kg (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#31150572)

That is 10 to the power of -27 kg... /. is lame.

Re:Conversion to mass in kg (1)

Jonnty (910561) | more than 4 years ago | (#31150576)

Oh, 1.783 × 1027 kg! Thanks for clearing that one up!

Re:Conversion to mass in kg (1)

CorporateSuit (1319461) | more than 4 years ago | (#31150582)

So 150 GeV would be just over 50 elephants!

Re:Conversion to mass in kg (1)

CorporateSuit (1319461) | more than 4 years ago | (#31150674)

So 150 GeV would be just over 50 elephants!

Well, that certainly explains why the LHC has to be so big, but... oh wait, I see, it was a typo. In that case, it's slightly smaller than a sugar molecule, I think?

Re:Conversion to mass in kg (1)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | more than 4 years ago | (#31151124)

But yet not the mass of a single library of congress.

Re:Conversion to mass in kg (5, Funny)

ehrichweiss (706417) | more than 4 years ago | (#31151522)

Stop using these arbitrary units of measure. Just tell me how many station wagons of backup tapes this is..

I don't think that means what you think it means (1, Informative)

SteveFoerster (136027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31151874)

Troll? Seriously? It was a joke -- if you laughed then mod the guy funny, if not then leave him alone.

Re:Conversion to mass in kg (1)

kaini (1435765) | more than 4 years ago | (#31151520)

see sig!

Re:Conversion to mass in kg (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31152756)

African or Asian?

Re:Conversion to mass in kg (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31150600)

Don't you mean 1.6e-11 kg?

Re:Conversion to mass in kg (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31150632)

But how does the mass of the Higgs boson compare to the mass of Dolly Parton's bosom?

Re:Conversion to mass in kg (2, Funny)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 4 years ago | (#31151216)

Ah, yes, the old imperial to metric conversion. In the states, we still use the old "Library of Congress" standard unit system. I think the LoC to DPb conversion is 3.2x10^7 books / 40 DDs.

Re:Conversion to mass in kg (2, Insightful)

Interoperable (1651953) | more than 4 years ago | (#31150936)

I wish summary articles were written so that most people could understand the terms used.

The trouble is that 10^-27 isn't a tremendously intuitive number. Even being extremely familiar with scientific notation, the magnitude is so small that it really defies any intuitive sense of scale. GeV may not be nearly as familiar as kg but eV (electron volts) are an appropriate unit when dealing with particle energies and so are used in most articles regarding accelerators. Given the choice, I would take eV so that people who are following the progress of the LHC and Tevatron colliders can compare between articles.

Re:Conversion to mass in kg (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31151254)

Some of the LHC/Tevatron articles I read us KeV, so yes, some standardization please.

Re:Conversion to mass in kg (1)

Eudial (590661) | more than 4 years ago | (#31151746)

I agree that GeV is the appropriate unit. Though it wouldn't hurt to have a paragraph explaining to people not well versed in physics how 1 GeV is roughly the mass of a hydrogen atom.

Re:Conversion to mass in kg (1)

GospelHead821 (466923) | more than 4 years ago | (#31152240)

Could somebody explain to me, then, how the Higgs Boson is supposed to be responsible for the existence of mass? Until reading this, I had always heard that the Higgs is responsible for mass and I just assumed that massive particles contained Higgs Bosons - that the Higgs was the mass quantum. If they're many times more massive than other particles we know to be massive, in what manner are they responsible for mass?

Re:Conversion to mass in kg (4, Informative)

TheEldest (913804) | more than 4 years ago | (#31152316)

The higgs is sort of the measureable side effect of the physics that 'give' particles mass.

Think of it this way. The Electro Magnetic field "gives" particles charge. (or the charge in a particle interacts with other charges through the EM field).

There are some particles that sorta 'show up' in the equations when you're dealing with the EM fields (photon, W & Z bosons).

The same sort of things happens with mass. Some physicists came up with an addendum to the current equations that would explain how the mass of particles interacts. These equations have in them (depending on version) 1 or more particles (Higgs bosons).

So it's not so much that the Higgs gives particles mass, but by detecting the Higgs, we prove the existence of the Higgs field which allows mass in particles to interact.

Re:Conversion to mass in kg (1)

daveime (1253762) | more than 4 years ago | (#31152132)

It's really really really tiny, but it would hurt like crazy if you touched it.

Simplistic enough for you ?

Re:Conversion to mass in kg (1)

Seto89 (986727) | more than 4 years ago | (#31151454)

On the contrary, everyone who has sufficient knowledge to understand the subject knows (and in this context prefers) these units. There is really no point in using kilograms in this context, unless you wanna account for the 11th grader creating a scale of mass...

Re:Conversion to mass in kg (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 4 years ago | (#31151850)

Not entirely true - suppose you wanted to estimate something on a macroscopic scale, such as the effects on a spacecraft or asteroid from absorbing a Ultra-high-energy cosmic ray (as do exist). Knowing that the biggest one yet detected carried about 50 Joules of energy is likely to be more informative than knowing it was 3 x 10^11 GeV.

wasteful (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31150584)

wasteful science at it's worst. trying to detect something we can't see, 99.999% (at least) of the worlds population wouldn't care if it was found and finding it would have zero impact on the worlds population. the world of physics and physicists needs to take a good long hard look at itself... and try and work out what it's going to do when the funding runs out... next year

Re:wasteful (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31150594)

Go rub some wood you nub.

Re:wasteful (1, Informative)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 4 years ago | (#31150620)

That's beyond his cranial capacity.

Re:wasteful (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#31150626)

I'm sure if the US cuts the funding, those scientists will get job offers elsewhere, and the United States will be well on the way to becoming a main provider of cheap labor for Mexico and Canada.

Re:wasteful (5, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31150664)

wasteful science at it's worst. trying to detect something we can't see, 99.999% (at least) of the worlds population wouldn't care if it was found and finding it would have zero impact on the worlds population. the world of physics and physicists needs to take a good long hard look at itself... and try and work out what it's going to do when the funding runs out... next year

I'm sure nobody technically gives a fuck about electromagnetic waves either, until we made radios and wireless and microwaves and cell phones
I'm sure nobody technically gives a fuck about electrons either, until we made TVs and computer monitors (and electricity itself)
I'm sure nobody technically gives a fuck about photons either, until we made lasers and optical fibers to be the backbone of the Internet

They're literally trying to understand what creates mass. If you don't think anything useful or cool can come out of that, you seriously lack imagination. But since you're ACing I assume you're trolling and I just bought it.

Re:wasteful (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31150766)

I'm sure nobody technically gives a fuck about electrons either, until we made TVs and computer monitors

Seriously, what planet are you fucking on? You reckon (laughing to myself) that nobody gave a fuck about electrons until 'we made TVs' ?!?

Re:wasteful (1)

dissy (172727) | more than 4 years ago | (#31150836)

Seriously, what planet are you fucking on? You reckon (laughing to myself) that nobody gave a fuck about electrons until 'we made TVs' ?!?

Well that is what YOU said after all. Your post, and the one the GP replied to, are both signed the same name.

You gunna change your mind yet again when you reply to me?

Re:wasteful (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31151054)

Seriously, what planet are you fucking on? You reckon (laughing to myself) that nobody gave a fuck about electrons until 'we made TVs' ?!?

He's posting on slashdot. Chances are, he's not fucking on *any* planet.

Re:wasteful (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 4 years ago | (#31152754)

Funny? I'd mod this insightful

Re:wasteful (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31151128)

You reckon (laughing to myself) that nobody gave a fuck about electrons until 'we made TVs' ?!?

Well to be quite specific I was thinking of electron beams like CRTs, things that'd require you to actually know something about electrons. You can do tons with say chemistry, but you don't really need to know about electrons to mix various compounds. Including making a battery and thus electricity, which predates the discovery of the electron.

Re:wasteful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31150918)

A serious lack of imagination indeed. The research into the "wasteful science" will probably lead us to zero-pollution energy on a scale we can use. Ahh, but that is not worth pursuing. Now, if you want to get rid of wasteful science, I would strongly consider delaying any manned attempts at Mars for the next 50 years at least. That is all a bunch of ego-driven nonsense.

Re:wasteful (2, Insightful)

harmonise (1484057) | more than 4 years ago | (#31150980)

you seriously lack imagination.

You misspelled "education."

Re:wasteful (1)

tyroneking (258793) | more than 4 years ago | (#31151144)

The only thing I think will be useful to come out of this is the coincidental visit of Lexx (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVshOOG2hcc)

Re:wasteful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31151734)

Um, electromagnetic waves are photons.

Re:wasteful (2, Funny)

annex1 (920373) | more than 4 years ago | (#31150676)

I actually had to read your post 3 times, just to see if I could detect sarcasm. The gene pool called and it would like you to GTFO.

Re:wasteful (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31150678)

Guess What - Your perfect world doesn't exist. whilst 99% of the population may not care (I disagree with this statistic also, by the way) the discoveries made will be beneficial to the future populations of this planet.

You may not care about that; however you would not be on the internet, you would not have electric power, you would not have a motor vehicle, you would not have a large market full of goods from around the globe, you would actually have a pretty terrible life if it wasn't for early greek mathematicians Pythagoras, Euclid, Archimedes, to name a (very small) few.

You owe your current lifestyle to these men; and our future generations will owe their lifestyle to our mathematicians and physists - only if they get the funding they need, ney the funding the DESERVE.

Re:wasteful (2, Informative)

dissy (172727) | more than 4 years ago | (#31150826)

and finding it would have zero impact on the worlds population

Do as you say, troll.

If you don't think computers are of any impact, then you should give yours away and get off the Internet. Both are technology that exists because of science which as you say is pointless.

I guess to a troll, that statement pretty much is true. One can be an asshole without the aid of any technology.

Re:wasteful (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31150840)

Hey bitch, just wanted to let you know you're a pathetic little shit and a cunt that will amount to nothing. The only thing you will probably accomplish in your life is get raped in your asshole by an elephant. You piece of fucking shit. Go fuck yourself you cunt.

Re:wasteful (3, Interesting)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#31151038)

As opposed to wasting trillions of dollars to destabilize the middle east? Yeah, that's a useful expenditure of tax payer dollars. Perhaps next year we can pay to remove all references to electrons from the chemistry text books while we're at it.

Seriously, the applications for a lot of this stuff doesn't become apparent until after it's been discovered, I'm not sure what people thought they'd be able to do with Maxwell's equations, but I doubt very much that they thought we'd get super colliders and computers out of it.

Re:wasteful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31151178)

I'm not sure what people thought they'd be able to do with Maxwell's equations, but I doubt very much that they thought we'd get super colliders and computers out of it.

I know Heavyside thought he could simplify them, and thus set back N-dimensional physics by 100+ years...

Oh, you must be young. (1)

Singularity42 (1658297) | more than 4 years ago | (#31151170)

Such idealism. Problem is, the young don't vote as much. They are also outnumbered by older people anyway. I don't see the democracies that support the collider dropping funding anytime soon. You'll grow up.

Re:wasteful (5, Insightful)

Ambitwistor (1041236) | more than 4 years ago | (#31151404)

From the Congressional Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, April 17, 1969, regarding the justification for funding the then-unbuilt Fermilab:

Senator John Pastore: Is there anything connected with the hopes of this accelerator that in any way involves the security of the country?

Robert Wilson: No sir, I don't believe so.

Pastore: Nothing at all?

Wilson: Nothing at all.

Pastore: It has no value in that respect?

Wilson: It has only to do with the respect with which we regard one another, the dignity of men, our love of culture. It has to do with: Are we good painters, good sculptors, great poets? I mean all the things we really venerate in our country and are patriotic about. It has nothing to do directly with defending our country except to make it worth defending.

Re:wasteful (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31151770)

Well said. Fundamental knowledge about the most basic building blocks of reality are useless and a waste of money. That money should have gone to the banking or auto sector.

Re:wasteful (4, Funny)

daveime (1253762) | more than 4 years ago | (#31152174)

The banking sector aren't that dissimilar from quantum physicists ... they deal with gigantic magnitudes of imaginary "wealth" that ceases to exists as soon as someone actually scrutinizes the figures and collapses the waveform, causing it all to disappear.

Still at least we've managed to capture the Madoff Particle.

Fermilab Bastards. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31150592)

The more I hear about Tevatron's new discoveries - and the slowing progress of the LHC; the more I think Fermilab had something to do with LHCs 'demise'

Re:Fermilab Bastards. (1)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | more than 4 years ago | (#31151160)

[obligatory xkcd reference]"I can sell you an accelerator that goes to 14 TeV"[/obligatory xkcd reference]

Re:Fermilab Bastards. (1)

cduffy (652) | more than 4 years ago | (#31152144)

[obligatory xkcd reference]"I can sell you an accelerator that goes to 14 TeV"[/obligatory xkcd reference]

If you're referring to the XKCD I think you are, I hope you realize that it in turn was a pop culture reference itself.

Half power? Crank it up!!! (0)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 4 years ago | (#31150616)

More power Egor, more power!!! Yes, Yeesssss. ****maniacal laughter***

To be clear what this means. (5, Interesting)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 4 years ago | (#31150630)

These are bounds for the mass of the Higgs boson assuming it exists. If it doesn't exist, this data is meaningless. What will presumably eventually happen is that we'll narrow the mass down to a very tiny bound (if it exists) which would be strong evidence for its existence. Or we might detect the Higgs boson using some other methods and higher energies, such as those at the LHC. Alternatively, if the Higgs boson doesn't exist then we may end up narrowing the upper and lower bounds until they cross each other. In that case the Standard Model will be wrong and we'll have an interesting day.

Re:To be clear what this means. (1)

JamesP (688957) | more than 4 years ago | (#31150672)

And by the way, does it makes sense to talk about the mass of a particle that seems to be implicated in the origins of mass itself?!

(Ok, maybe it does, still...)

Re:To be clear what this means. (5, Informative)

dr_tube (115121) | more than 4 years ago | (#31150856)

It makes sense. It 'gives' mass to other particles by interacting with them, 'knocking them back' when they start to move (simplified, but that's the basic idea). It also interacts with itself, giving itself mass in the exact same way it gives mass to other particles.

Re:To be clear what this means. (0, Offtopic)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 4 years ago | (#31150934)

Why is that post at -1?

Re:To be clear what this means. (1)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 4 years ago | (#31151260)

Bad Karma.

Re:To be clear what this means. (2, Insightful)

Requiem18th (742389) | more than 4 years ago | (#31151446)

Maybe he made an intelligent, informed comment on Apple or some other heinous sin.

Re:To be clear what this means. (1)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | more than 4 years ago | (#31151180)

So if that interaction gives the Higgs boson mass, then the Higgs boson responsible for that also has a mass, which has a Higgs boson...

Ye gods, I think I found the set of all sets in nature! :P

Re:To be clear what this means. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31152162)

So it accounts for inertial mass, not active or passive gravitational mass (which is done by gravitons?)? Does it interact with zero rest-energy particles?

Re:To be clear what this means. (4, Funny)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 4 years ago | (#31150778)

These are bounds for the mass of the Higgs boson assuming it exists. If it doesn't exist, this data is meaningless.

Film narrator: Remember, it's up to us. Bigfoot is a crucial part of the ecosystem, if he exists. So let's all help keep Bigfoot possibly alive for future generations to enjoy unless he doesn't exist. The end!

Re:To be clear what this means. (1)

telomerewhythere (1493937) | more than 4 years ago | (#31151426)

I have a question for you. A real honest to goodness question that I didn't find a clear answer to in Wikipedia. Are Supersymmetry and the Standard Model competing theories or complementary? Or put another way, Do they describe the same thing differently or can both be true? Thank you.

Re:To be clear what this means. (1)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 4 years ago | (#31151650)

My understanding (with the disclaimer that I'm a mathematician not a physicist) is that the analogy between the Standard Model and most supersymmetric extensions is similar to that between Newtonian physics and relativity. The limiting cases agree, so in the sense that one is an approximation for the other, it is an extension. There are some things where they clearly diverge. For example, the Standard Model isn't happy with neutrinos having mass. Most supersymmetric extensions of the Standard Model are ok with that. But there are also non-supersymmetric conservative extensions of the standard model which allow neutrinos to have mass. Hopefully the actual physics people here can comment on this in more detail.

Aw shucks... (1, Funny)

piemcfly (1232770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31150638)

So much for Europe being the new frontier for science.

Oh well, I suppose we can always turn the LHC into an expensive underground parking for the Genevans...
500 park jobs per day at a cheap 10dollars an hour... with luck we'll have our money back somewhere around the year 7010...

Re:Aw shucks... (4, Informative)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 4 years ago | (#31150688)

Note that they didn't find the Higgs boson, just got narrower upper and lower bounds on the rest mass. In any event, even if the Tevatron had found the Higgs boson, that wouldn't make the LHC useless. The LHC is going to be used for many things other than the search for Higgs boson. For example, the LHC will be useful for finding supersymmetric particles. If we are to progress at all beyond the Standard Model, such particles almost certainly need to exist. Even given the minimal supersymmetric model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimal_Supersymmetric_Standard_Model [wikipedia.org] , we still get a lot of other particles. Those particles will be much more easily detectable and analyzable with the LHC than with the Tevatron or any other lower energy collider.

Re:Aw shucks... (3, Interesting)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#31151062)

Note, they possibly could still do it, it's not out of the realm of possibility that the higgs boson is going to require more than fermilab can throw at it. Additionally if it turns out that the higgs boson doesn't exist, you're probably going to want the LHC and possibly something bigger to really nail it down. Rather than just eliminate the larger sizes. I don't expect that this sort of research will really settle the question unless there's a positive result and somebody actually discovers it.

Re:Aw shucks... (1)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 4 years ago | (#31152232)

I don't expect that this sort of research will really settle the question unless there's a positive result and somebody actually discovers it.

So where is your falsifiability? You're saying "If we don't find it this time, keep looking." Well, maybe there IS NO higgs boson, and you need to re-write the standard model. Oh. Well. Popper. Read him.

Re:Aw shucks... (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#31151358)

If you are talking about the LHC, then Europe won't be the new frontier of the science, will be its event horizon.

Re:Aw shucks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31152404)

Hearing about all of the cool stuff still coming out of the older particle accelerators only makes me more excited about the LHC. I can't wait to see what it will find out.

The LHC goes to eleven (3, Funny)

hackerman (1649305) | more than 4 years ago | (#31150930)

but the tevatron does more at ten

Re:The LHC goes to eleven (2, Funny)

julien dot (911974) | more than 4 years ago | (#31150998)

For $2,000 I'll build you one that goes to 12.

Re:The LHC goes to eleven (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#31151068)

Ah, but I can do it for $12 in sharpies. Even cheaper.

Re:The LHC goes to eleven (3, Insightful)

electrosoccertux (874415) | more than 4 years ago | (#31151136)

"why not build two for twice the price?"/crazy scientist cancer guy from "Contact"

Re:The LHC goes to eleven (1)

Extremus (1043274) | more than 4 years ago | (#31151154)

Sometimes I feel that, if Tevatron succeeds in this task before LHC, it will be difficult to try to convince future politicians and administrators to finance such big science projects, like the LHC.

Re:The LHC goes to eleven (1)

S-100 (1295224) | more than 4 years ago | (#31151202)

Unless they are influenced by more birds from the future.

i got the parts at (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31152076)

radioshack

can a Higgs Boson fly Southwest? (3, Funny)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | more than 4 years ago | (#31151228)

Or is it massive enough that it must purchase two seats?

Re:can a Higgs Boson fly Southwest? (1)

mhajicek (1582795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31151270)

It can only fly on a GeV (Ground-effect Vehicle).

Re:can a Higgs Boson fly Southwest? (1)

hackerman (1649305) | more than 4 years ago | (#31151552)

if it's on a GeV, it's not flying, it's riding, you insensitive clod

Bounds are Complicated (3, Informative)

mbone (558574) | more than 4 years ago | (#31151778)

The new data mandates that the Higgs boson mass within the standard model lies between 115 and 150 GeV."

No, it doesn't. Look at this graph [aps.org] . At a "3 sigma" level (and don't believe any new science that is not at the 3 sigma level or better), the mass of the Higgs (assuming it exists) is roughly between 115 and 225 GeV. To put it another way, a mass greater than the Tevatron exclusion zone at ~160 GeV is by no means ruled out.

Re:Bounds are Complicated (2, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#31151996)

> At a "3 sigma" level (and don't believe any new science that is not at the 3
> sigma level or better),

So I guess you reject pretty much all of biochemistry and medicine?

Aether (1, Funny)

Barncs (1746258) | more than 4 years ago | (#31151810)

How long will it take to realize that Aether theory had a lot of things right? I don't know much about anything, but I do have a feeling when things feel right. Up until Mr. Einstein, aether was it. The more I see the less I like, and I really wonder how long it will take before science realizes that we are, in fact, in the soup.

You know whats going to happen ? (0)

axonis (640949) | more than 4 years ago | (#31151830)

These Colliders will make some nice wind turbines once they are reprocessed. What goes around comes around.

I'm lost. (3, Interesting)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 4 years ago | (#31151832)

I would imagine this is how my family and friends feel when I start speaking computer gibberish. I'd consider myself relatively competent to understand basic principles like gravity, mass, weight, etc, but can someone dumb this down?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model [wikipedia.org]

I know that's probably a hopeless request without some sort of basis in this field, but can someone give the "particle physics for dummies" equivalent here?

I get the impression this is a hunt for some as yet unknown particle?

Re:I'm lost. (2, Informative)

domulys (1431537) | more than 4 years ago | (#31152000)

It so happens that there is a "simple English" version of that wikipedia entry:

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model [wikipedia.org]

Re:I'm lost. (1)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 4 years ago | (#31152138)

Sometimes I'm still amazed at the oddest places that exist on the internet. I find this simple.wikipedia.org link much more 'readable' to the laymen.

So if I'm reading the 'simple' version correctly, they are tying to narrow down the mass of the mysterious 4th Higgs Boson? These Bosons are the 'conduit' (I apologize if the terminology doesn't fit properly) that this energy flows through from fermion to fermion?

Re:I'm lost. (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 4 years ago | (#31152004)

At one level, all you need to know is that the Standard Model "needs" this particle - no Higgs Boson, and the Standard Model may fall. Finding the Higgs (and thus its mass) should also help in making predictions in other areas, such as cosmology.

As for why the Higgs Boson is needed, you might find this [ucl.ac.uk] interesting.

Re:I'm lost. (1)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 4 years ago | (#31152302)

Is this Higgs particle increasing in mass because the fermion is passing through/near it, or does the fermion increase in mass as a result of passing through/near this Higgs particle? Or am I misunderstanding the mechanics of this and the additional mass is due to the 'clustering' of these fermions in close proximity to each other?

Thanks for the link [ucl.ac.uk] . It does help visualize this a bit better.

Unanswered questions still (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 4 years ago | (#31151912)

Determining the mass is fine, I guess, but what about size - is it bigger than a breadbox?

Higgs Boston Mass. (1)

CranberryKing (776846) | more than 4 years ago | (#31152118)

Anyone else read it that way?

I'll say it again (-1, Troll)

axonis (640949) | more than 4 years ago | (#31152212)

From the spoils of war come tropheys, Mark my words, every single one of these colliders will be recycled and reprocessed into long term and far more useful gear like wind turbines. Lets consider the Niobium or Columbium used extensively in them. Remember who controls the science solar system and its definately not Physicists. For the unitelligent and poorly educated, "God" is and will always be the most intelligent lifeform on this planet not some Chinese Wisper collection of stories collected by warriors --> and today these poorly educated group of Disciples who have learned a Discipline in an artificially coined and extinct "universe" or University --> that means Catholic for you stupidly faithful. Like i said what goes around comes around, and Chemists or alchemists have already made a far more significant long term mark on these continually failing humans, for example uses of Chlorine ;)

Re:I'll say it again (1)

IRoll11!s (1609859) | more than 4 years ago | (#31152560)

What?

Re:I'll say it again (1)

axonis (640949) | more than 4 years ago | (#31152696)

I think you meant Watt's ?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?