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!

Has the Higgs Boson Particle Field Been Hiding in Plain Sight?

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the it-blinded-us-with-science dept.

Math 163

sciencehabit writes with a link to the ScienceNow site, noting an article saying the Higgs boson may already have been found in previous observations of the known universe. A theorist at Michigan state is arguing that scientists may have already found evidence for the elusive particle. The key appears to be that the particles that make up the Higgs field are of various 'strengths', and some of those particles may tug on others very weakly. "The lightest Higgs can be very light indeed, but it would not have been seen at [CERN's Large Electron-Positron (LEP)], because LEP experimenters were looking for an energetic collision that made a Z that then spit out a Higgs. That wouldn't happen very often if the lightest Higgs and the Z hardly interact. 'Just within the simplest supersymmetric model, there's still room for Higgs that is missed,' Yuan says. However, this lightweight Higgs is not exactly the Higgs everyone is looking for, says Marcela Carena, a theorist at Fermilab. 'The Higgs they are talking about is not the one responsible for giving mass to the W and Z,' she says. It can't be because it hardly interacts with those particles, Carena says. Indeed, in Yuan's model, the role of mass-giver falls to one of the heavier Higgses, which is still heavier than the LEP limit, she notes."

cancel ×

163 comments

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

the last place you look (4, Funny)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 6 years ago | (#22168488)

Turns out it was under the couch all this time.

Re:the last place you look (2, Funny)

clonan (64380) | more than 6 years ago | (#22168520)

The extra wieght of the Higgs particle is what makes the change fall out of my pocket!

I knew it wasn't me!!!

Re:the last place you look (2, Funny)

SL Baur (19540) | more than 6 years ago | (#22169538)

The extra wieght of the Higgs particle is what makes the change fall out of my pocket!
Perhaps, but more importantly, it is not symmetric and has been known to attract left or right socks more strongly than the other. This explains the dryer effect.

Re:the last place you look (1)

Oktober Sunset (838224) | more than 6 years ago | (#22170528)

but left and right socks are the same, except for cartoon socks and toe socks.

Re:the last place you look (2, Funny)

vtcodger (957785) | more than 6 years ago | (#22170550)

***Perhaps, but more importantly, it is not symmetric and has been known to attract left or right socks more strongly than the other. This explains the dryer effect.***

Doesn't the drier affect have to do with putting two pairs of black socks into the washer and getting three black socks and one blue one out of the drier? Perhaps you were thinking of the DB25 affect where when reassembling an elderly computer system you will -- with 50% probability -- find that when attempting to make the last connection you are trying to plug a male connector into a male socket?

Re:the last place you look (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22168566)

That was just the Higgs' Cheeto. Delicious perhaps, but not what gives particles mass.

Re:the last place you look (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22168594)

Lol, clever :)

Re:the last place you look (4, Funny)

onion2k (203094) | more than 6 years ago | (#22168688)

I've got one here on my desk. Curiously it looks, and smells, just like an orange.

Tastes like an orange too.

Actually, come to think of it, I think this might be an orange.

Re:the last place you look (3, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 6 years ago | (#22168896)

Search in reverse order - you'll find it quicker that way.

Re:the last place you look (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22168962)

Yep ... Were all doomed!

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson_(fiction) [wikipedia.org] "In the science fantasy series Lexx, one character points out that although all-out nuclear war sometimes destroys all life on planets as advanced as Earth, it is much more common for such planets to be obliterated by physicists attempting to determine the precise mass of the Higgs boson particle, since the moment the mass is known the planet will instantly collapse into a nugget of super-dense matter "roughly the size of a pea."

Re:the last place you look (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22169286)

And why exactly would the world collapse to the size of your package?

Re:the last place you look (1)

Splab (574204) | more than 6 years ago | (#22169748)

yeah, it always turns up the last place you look.

Re:the last place you look (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22169774)

Turns out it was under the couch all this time.


I found mine behind the refrigerator

Dear fucking assholes (Slashdot editors) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22168528)

What about adding some background to the submissions?

I'm sure that the editors don't know squat about what they are posting. But it might be good to at least google stuff a little before posting the submissions.

Like a journalist researches a story... 'googling', the minimal threshold of journalistic integrity.

Re:Dear fucking assholes (Slashdot editors) (4, Informative)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 6 years ago | (#22168998)

This is real news for real nerds. This story requires reading of Leon Lederman's the God Particle [amazon.com] to get to the point where any amount of explanation in the summary would help. Maybe I'm exaggerating a bit, but I'd be really, really impressed if anyone could write a summary for that.

Re:Dear fucking assholes (Slashdot editors) (1)

Genady (27988) | more than 6 years ago | (#22170220)

See Greene, Brian.

Re:Dear fucking assholes (Slashdot editors) (1)

cthulu_mt (1124113) | more than 6 years ago | (#22170692)

Seen him. Kind of short, but gives a hell of lecture.

For those that went "wtf?!" (5, Informative)

moogied (1175879) | more than 6 years ago | (#22168534)

Re:For those that went "wtf?!" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22168676)

I always thought that Higgs Boson would be a cool name for a band.

Re:For those that went "wtf?!" (1)

Critical Facilities (850111) | more than 6 years ago | (#22170718)

Well maybe not a band name, but check out track # 15 on this great album [amazon.com] .

Re:For those that went "wtf?!" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22168728)

You call yourself a nerd and you didn't know what a Higgs Boson was??

Re:For those that went "wtf?!" (3, Funny)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#22168752)

Give him a break. He's new here.

Re:For those that went "wtf?!" (4, Funny)

DirkGently (32794) | more than 6 years ago | (#22169082)

So are you. ;-)

Re:For those that went "wtf?!" (4, Funny)

mortonda (5175) | more than 6 years ago | (#22169284)

you too... ;)

Re:For those that went "wtf?!" (4, Funny)

DeVilla (4563) | more than 6 years ago | (#22170118)

Quit tormenting the youngsters.

Re:For those that went "wtf?!" (1)

DirkGently (32794) | more than 6 years ago | (#22170322)

Pwned by my laziness. Way back when /. started UIDs, I didn't see the benefit of logging in to make my snarky comments. Now I know. :-)

Re:For those that went "wtf?!" (1)

kryten_nl (863119) | more than 6 years ago | (#22170606)

Cue that 2-digit guy, whom only posts in response to this kind of comments.

Re:For those that went "wtf?!" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22168794)

Re:For those that went "wtf?!" (1)

sveard (1076275) | more than 6 years ago | (#22168922)

Yeah thanks you made me go hyperwtf

Well I for one ... (1)

powerlord (28156) | more than 6 years ago | (#22169734)

... welcome our new Dreen [wikipedia.org] Overlords Exterminators.

Am I missing something? (1)

TrebleJunkie (208060) | more than 6 years ago | (#22168538)

From the article, this struck me as odd:

"Physicists suspect that empty space is permeated by a Higgs field, which is a bit like an electric field. And just as an electric field consists of particles called photons, the Higgs field consists of particles called Higgs bosons. The Higgs field drags on particles to give them mass, akin to molasses tugging on a spoon."

Electric fields consist of photons? If that's not a typo of some kind, would someone care to explain?

Re:Am I missing something? (1, Funny)

TrebleJunkie (208060) | more than 6 years ago | (#22168610)

Ah.. Found my own answer.

"In physics, the photon is the elementary particle responsible for electromagnetic phenomena. It is the carrier of electromagnetic radiation of all wavelengths, including gamma rays, X-rays, ultraviolet light, visible light, infrared light, microwaves, and radio waves."

For some reason, my feeble mind never really made that connection.

Re:Am I missing something? (1)

clonan (64380) | more than 6 years ago | (#22168620)

The particle that transmits electromagnetic radiation either through light or EM field is the phonton.

The electron carries a charge and creates the photon to transmit the field.

Re:Am I missing something? (4, Informative)

tylersoze (789256) | more than 6 years ago | (#22168724)

Yep that is correct. The photon is the carrier of the electromagnetic force, and light is an electromagnetic wave. The force felt between charged particles is caused by the exchange of virtual photons. All fields can be thought of as made of quantized particles. In the case of the fundamental forces: Electromagnetism - photons, Gravity - graviton (theorized), Weak Force - W and Z bosons, Strong Force - 8 colored gluons.

Re:Am I missing something? (2, Informative)

tylersoze (789256) | more than 6 years ago | (#22168902)

Another interesting thing is that the range of the force is determined by the mass of its carrier particles. Gravity and Electromagnetism have infinite range, whereas the Weak Force has a very small range due to the mass of the W and Z (which is suppose to come the Higgs). Now gluons are actually supposed to be massless, but the Strong Force is range is still limited due to the fact the gluons have color and change interact with themselves (it's the only force that gets *stronger* with distance) unlike the other carrier particles that don't carry the "charge" of their field.

Re:Am I missing something? (1)

jfengel (409917) | more than 6 years ago | (#22169246)

I've never been 100% clear on this. Is the weak force really infinite but just drops off to effectively-zero faster than electricity and gravity to?

At least, that was the way I thought of it. You're saying (if I get it) that because the mediating particles are massful rather than massless, they're limited to sublight speeds. That is intriguing, but I don't quite follow the implications.

I've never seen an equation for weak or strong interactions corresponding to the Maxwell or Newton/Einstein equations for electricity and gravity. Is that because we just don't model weak force as a field because the particles don't move fast enough?

Re:Am I missing something? (1)

Tangent128 (1112197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22169624)

From what I understand, it has something to do with the Uncertainty Principle- a varient of it links energy with time, meaning that a high mass-energy virtual particle can only exist for a very short time.

Photons and gravatons (should the latter exist), however, are not so limited due to their much lower mass-energy.

Re:Am I missing something? (5, Informative)

niklask (1073774) | more than 6 years ago | (#22169992)

I've never been 100% clear on this. Is the weak force really infinite but just drops off to effectively-zero faster than electricity and gravity to?
Not really. Both electromagnetic and gravitational potentials have a simple 1/r dependence (because of massless mediating particles). If the mediating particle is massive then the potential is not as simple. Take the Yukawa potential which nicely describes pion exchange in the nucleus. It goes as exp(-mr)/r. Now, the Yukawa potential works for massive scalar fields. If the field is not scalar, like the W and Z bosons which are axial-vector bosons the potential is somewhat different, but the point is the same.

I've never seen an equation for weak or strong interactions corresponding to the Maxwell or Newton/Einstein equations for electricity and gravity. Is that because we just don't model weak force as a field because the particles don't move fast enough?
Electromagnetic and weak interactions has been unified for a long time now and are nicely described by a Lagrangian. The strong interaction is much more complicated because of the self-coupling of the mediating particles. But that's not to say there is no Lagrangian.

Re:Am I missing something? (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 6 years ago | (#22170136)

I'm assuming a typo.

Both electromagnetic and gravitational potentials have a simple 1/r dependence

Should be 1/r^2.

Re:Am I missing something? (3, Informative)

tylersoze (789256) | more than 6 years ago | (#22170244)

Nope that's not a typo either. :) The potential goes at 1/r, the force (which is the derivative) goes as 1/r^2.

Re:Am I missing something? (2, Informative)

niklask (1073774) | more than 6 years ago | (#22170270)

No typo. You have to differentiate between potential and force. Lets take the simple case of a scalar potential V(r) which is given by the integral over the vector field F(r) along some path C. Hence, V(r) is proportional to 1/r for both gravity and electromagnetism.

Re:Am I missing something? (5, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 6 years ago | (#22170420)

Lets take the simple case of a scalar potential V(r) which is given by the integral over the vector field F(r) along some path C. Hence, V(r) is proportional to 1/r for both gravity and electromagnetism.

Simple .

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Re:Am I missing something? (0, Redundant)

niklask (1073774) | more than 6 years ago | (#22170788)

Sure it does. I don't think you understand what I am writing.

Re:Am I missing something? (1)

tylersoze (789256) | more than 6 years ago | (#22170530)

I dunno, I kind of think of it like that, exp(-mr)/r just drops off a lot faster than 1/r, but it always does have a non-zero value, albeit effectively zero beyond a short range.

I've always found it interesting that they could fairly accurately model the strong force at the nucleon level as pion exchange long before they theorized quarks with color as the "real" cause of nuclear binding. It's like the layers of an onion.

Re:Am I missing something? (3, Informative)

lazyforker (957705) | more than 6 years ago | (#22168958)

Electric fields consist of photons? If that's not a typo of some kind, would someone care to explain?
I think the author forgot to specify that the electric field is time-varying (to have an associated magnetic field). The combination of the two varying fields propagates as an electromagnetic wave ie light (photons). Take a look at Maxwell's Equations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations [wikipedia.org]

Re:Am I missing something? (2, Informative)

mdmkolbe (944892) | more than 6 years ago | (#22169166)

Even static electric and/or magnetic fields are transmitted via photons. They behave slightly differently than "regular" photons and so are called "virtual" photons, but they are no less real than the photons you are familiar with. (Explaining it further would require going into quantum theory.)

No, you're dead on (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22169350)

Electric fields consist of photons?


Since nobody's made this point yet, I'll put it out there.

The statement is literally correct. Say you have a field in 3-space. That field itself is a 3-vector at every point in that space. When you make a fourier transform of the field, you get the field as a function of a momentum-like 3 vector. That vector is quantized, and the excitations of it are what we refer to as "photons". Add in special relativity, and you have the basics of quantum field theory.

Try the first chapter of Lahiri and Pal's "A First Book of Quantum Field Theory". If you've had undergrad calculus, it shouldn't be that bad.

SELL SELL SELL AAPL loosing big (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22168574)



SELL your AAPL while or your shirt is all you'll have UNTIL THE MORROW

SELL

Higgses (1)

gyboth (1034320) | more than 6 years ago | (#22168584)

...must be one of the ugliest plural forms I've recently encountered.

Re:Higgses (5, Funny)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 6 years ago | (#22168646)


Nasty Hobbitses...and their mean Higgses make Precious feel so heavy.

Re:Higgses (5, Funny)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | more than 6 years ago | (#22168666)

Higgses ...must be one of the ugliest plural forms I've recently encountered.

You say that now, but she'll look better after a couple of drinkses.

Re:Higgses (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22169014)


Higgses ...must be one of the ugliest plural forms I've recently encountered.

You say that now, but she'll look better after a couple of drinkses.
... and if you're interested in plural forms, you need to make sure she's had a couple of drinkses too.

Yikes! (3, Interesting)

Rgb465 (325668) | more than 6 years ago | (#22168634)

Am I really the only one worried that determining the precise weight of the Higgs Boson will result in the Earth being crushed into a tiny particle the size of a pea?

Re:Yikes! (2, Funny)

Yetihehe (971185) | more than 6 years ago | (#22169470)

yes, no, maybe

gibberish (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22168638)

Sometimes I think these particle physics guys are just making stuff up.

Wha? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22168640)

Anyone has a car analogy for this?

Re:Wha? (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#22169120)

It's kind of like when you look in your mirrors, but you're not expecting anyone else to be on the road, so you don't even see them.

The Higgs Boson (2, Interesting)

TheBearBear (1103771) | more than 6 years ago | (#22168656)

From Wiki...

It is the only Standard Model particle not yet observed, but would help explain how otherwise
massless elementary particles, still manage to construct mass in matter. In particular, the difference between the massless photon and the relatively massive W and Z bosons


I always wondered what they use to measure the mass of elementary particles (not atoms). Can anyone explain? Also, maybe photons and higgs boson do have mass, but our instruments just aren't sensitive enough (kinda what the summary is saying)?

Re:The Higgs Boson (3, Informative)

clonan (64380) | more than 6 years ago | (#22168704)

A lot of times they use charge. You can determine the charge of a particle and then place it in a known EM field and observe how quickly it reacts which gives you mass.

Re:The Higgs Boson (2, Informative)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 6 years ago | (#22170524)

If you put a particle with known velocity and electrical charge in a known magnetical field, it will run on a circle. You can calculate its mass by the circle's radius.

At particle accelerators the magnetical field there is a given, since you need it to keep the particles inside the building while they are gaining speed.

Re:The Higgs Boson (5, Informative)

dmitrybrant (1219820) | more than 6 years ago | (#22168756)

The mass of elementary particles is measured in units of energy (thank Albert Einstein for that connection), namely the electron-volt. Essentially, physicists look for the amount of energy it takes for a certain particle to come into existence. The photon does not have mass by definition, since it travels at the speed of light. The Higgs Boson, on the other hand, is expected to be quite massive.

Re:The Higgs Boson (1)

u-bend (1095729) | more than 6 years ago | (#22168878)

I don't actually have an answer to any of your questions, I just wanted to say that while scanning your comment, my brain initially fabricated the phrase "massive W and Z bosoms."

In cup size, I suppose that would be relatively massive.

Re:The Higgs Boson (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22169010)

With a really teeny tiny set of scales. Duh.

Re:The Higgs Boson (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22169394)

I always wondered what they use to measure the mass of elementary particles (not atoms). Can anyone explain?
Mass, energy, and momentum are related by a simple equation. If you know the momentum and the energy of a particle, then you can determine its mass.

The momentum of a charged particle can be measured from the curvature of the particle's trajectory in a magnetic field.

Energy can be determined through various means, which usually have to do with measuring the energy given off when the particle slows down when going through matter. For example, you could have a leaded glass block. As a fast-moving electron goes through the glass, it gives up its kinetic energy as it interacts with the atoms in the block. Eventually the kinetic energy is turned into a proportionate amount of light.

A more unusual technique is to measure the velocity of a charged particle by using the Cerenkov effect.

Also, maybe photons and higgs boson do have mass, but our instruments just aren't sensitive enough (kinda what the summary is saying)?
Photons may have mass, but experiments show that it would be very small. (Less than 6 x 10^-17 electron-volts) But the higgs, if it exists, surely has mass, because it is self-interacting, and it is interactions with the higgs field give mass to particles.

Re:The Higgs Boson (5, Informative)

mdmkolbe (944892) | more than 6 years ago | (#22169448)

Mostly it comes down to conservation of mass/energy. If we know we put 3 electrons and 20GeV of energy into the reaction chamber and got out 2 electrons, 10GeV and one unknown particle then that unknown particle must have a combined mass/energy to balance things out. (Remember that E=mc^2 so mass could have been converted to energy and vice vesa.)

So how did they measure the mass of the first particle? As one of the sibling posts said, put an electrically charged particle into a static electric field and watch how fast the field moves the particle (this can be observed at the macroscopic scale using gas bubble chambers).

Of course the above requires you to know the charge of the particle, so how do we measure the charge of an elementary particle? Simple! Fill the air with neutrally charged oil droplets and "spray" them with the particle. Some droplets will pick up 1 particle and some will pickup 2 or 3 or 4. Put them in a static electric field and measure how strong the field has to be to suspend the droplets against the force of gravity. You don't have to know which ones picked up how many particle, you just have to measure the difference in the required field strength. (See the Oil-drop experiment; note measuring the mass of oil droplets is hard be macroscopically possible.)

So in summary: we measure particle mass in terms of the masses of other particles. The first particle's mass was measured in terms of it's electric charge. The first particle's electric charge was measured in terms of how much force it imparted on an oil droplet. The oil droplet's mass was measured relative to a lump of platinum-iridium sitting in Paris. That lump was just pointed to and called 1 kilogram.

Any questions?

Re:The Higgs Boson (1)

rasputin465 (1032646) | more than 6 years ago | (#22169606)

I always wondered what they use to measure the mass of elementary particles (not atoms). Can anyone explain?

You always can have some information on the mass from the kinematics of a particular interaction. The mass of charged particles is usually measured by a mass spectrometer [wikipedia.org] . But one way of measuring the mass of photons (chargless for sure) is to observe how they travel through a vacuum. The theory says that they are massless for one. But if they did have some small mass, they would travel slightly slower than c, and a beam of photons would not maintain its coherence over long distances. Here is a summary on the latest experimental upper limit on the photon mass [aip.org] , which uses a different method, with a torsion balance.

will CERN become a theme park now? (4, Funny)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 6 years ago | (#22168780)

So they won't need their brand-spanking new accelerator after all!

Maybe we could put it to good use as a theme park ride instead. Imaging all those superconducting magnets accelerating your cart up to 99.99% of the speed of light - what a ride that would be.

With the relativistic effects, you might even be able to come out of the ride before you went in.

The fact that it operates in a vacuum might be a problem ... have to think about that.

Re:will CERN become a theme park now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22168814)

"The fact that it operates in a vacuum might be a problem ... have to think about that."
A theme park that operates in a vacuum? You mean Eurodisney?

Re:will CERN become a theme park now? (1)

RockedMan40 (1130729) | more than 6 years ago | (#22169214)

>>With the relativistic effects, you might even be able to come out of the ride before you went in.

    Then vacuum would not be a problem, because you were never there in the first place when you went in.

That will make even more sense after a couple drinkses.

Re:will CERN become a theme park now? (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 6 years ago | (#22169702)

The fact that it operates in a vacuum might be a problem ... have to think about that.
Maybe Lance Bass will spend millions to ride that ride. Heck, half of that would probably come from Paypal donations.

Re:will CERN become a theme park now? (1)

jimand (517224) | more than 6 years ago | (#22169958)

you might even be able to come out of the ride before you went in.

that should keep the lines short

Re:will CERN become a theme park now? (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 6 years ago | (#22170608)

"With the relativistic effects, you might even be able to come out of the ride before you went in."

Hardly, but it will be quite a long, long line just to get a disapointing short trip...

Antiparticles / antimass? (1)

otis wildflower (4889) | more than 6 years ago | (#22168784)

I wonder if there are antiparticles to these that have antimass? And what would enveloping mass with antimass fields enable you to do? What would happen to E=mc^2 if m is negative?

Might make an interesting story, if someone's already written it please link..

Re:Antiparticles / antimass? (3, Interesting)

mdmkolbe (944892) | more than 6 years ago | (#22169562)

What would happen to E=mc^2 if m is negative?

You get a negative energy.

This is actually possible near the event horizon of a spinning blackhole. The zero energy state around a spinning blackhole is a particular orbit (I believe due to frame dragging, but I'm not positive), but a slower orbit must have lower energy which thus must be negative energy. The Penrose process uses this trick to extract energy from a blackhole.

Re:Antiparticles / antimass? (1)

dougr650 (1115217) | more than 6 years ago | (#22169762)

Antiparticles to the Higgs boson? Absolutely. These would have the same mass, but opposite charge, in the case of a charged Higgs. "Antimass"? "Enveloping mass with antimass fields"? What the hell are you smoking?

Re:Antiparticles / antimass? (1)

otis wildflower (4889) | more than 6 years ago | (#22170110)

I must have misread the article, I thought it was saying that mass is the charge of a Higgs particle in a Higgs field?

Re:Antiparticles / antimass? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22170570)

Absolute value, my good friend.

Re:Antiparticles / antimass? (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 6 years ago | (#22170186)

He was sitting in an antitime [wikipedia.org] field.

Re:Antiparticles / antimass? (1)

nthcolumnist (734273) | more than 6 years ago | (#22170326)

Higgses is there ownses anti-particles

in soviet russia (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22168786)

higgs boson discovers you!

Re:in soviet russia (1)

Beorytis (1014777) | more than 6 years ago | (#22169550)

Hey!!! Today is Yakov Smirnoff's [wikipedia.org] 57th birthday!

902,000 Google hits for: in soviet russia * you

They were looking where? (2, Funny)

shadowofwind (1209890) | more than 6 years ago | (#22168940)

"...the Higgs boson may already have been found in previous observations of the known universe." But what about in observations of the unknown universe, did they find anything there?

Time long ago, galaxy far away (2, Funny)

Latent Heat (558884) | more than 6 years ago | (#22170540)

. . . these are not the Higgs' bosons you are look for.

Correction (2, Interesting)

VenomousGecko (659254) | more than 6 years ago | (#22168996)

Shouldn't "A theorist at Michigan state" be "A theorist at Michigan State University"? Adds clarification, for me at least.

Re:Correction (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 6 years ago | (#22169084)

I know, I *always* get Michigan State University confused with Michigan State Curler's Association.

Re:Correction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22169242)

Michigan State is a university now? Aren't they a land grant college? I could have sworn there was only one University in Michigan...

Re:Correction (1)

caspper69 (548511) | more than 6 years ago | (#22170520)

No. They're a university and have been for over 50 years. Land grant != college. Land Grant Colleges and Universities [wikipedia.org]

Heavier Higgses? (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 6 years ago | (#22169134)

The Higgs they are talking about is not the one responsible for giving mass to the W and Z, ... the role of mass-giver falls to one of the heavier Higgses, which is still heavier than the LEP limit.

Obviously, jeesh. Have you even looked at Higgs recently?
"This little Higgsy went to market."

Re:Heavier Higgses? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22169188)

"These aren't the Higgs you're looking for..."

What's this ... ? (4, Funny)

MrNougat (927651) | more than 6 years ago | (#22169294)

What's this ... behind your ear ... ?

Oh, look! It's a Higgs boson!

Scientific American (1)

Burrfoot (1081715) | more than 6 years ago | (#22169404)

The latest (print) issue of Scientific American has a very clear article explaining what a Higgs particle is (or isn't) and why anyone might want to find one.
--
The theory predicts that there should be a SIG here.

This isn't the Higgs Boson you're looking for (2, Funny)

Mike Van Pelt (32582) | more than 6 years ago | (#22169510)

This isn't the Higgs Boson you're looking for.

You can go about your business.

Move along.

These are not the Higgs bosons you are looking for (0, Redundant)

monopole (44023) | more than 6 years ago | (#22169552)

... move along.

Ahh, the old quantum mind trick!

Hiding right in front of us? (4, Funny)

PinkyDead (862370) | more than 6 years ago | (#22169558)

Clearly the Higgs Boson was contained within an SEP field.

Which suggests that we are one step closer to actually creating an infinite improbability drive - the ramifications of which are... well I don't know, but they are at least big, possibly huge.

Thousands of particle physicists? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22169586)

Thousands of particle physicists are spending ...

There are really thousands of particle physicists out there?

hiding behind the barn? (1)

line-bundle (235965) | more than 6 years ago | (#22169968)

Maybe it's hiding behind a barn.

oblig futurama (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22170140)

How convenient, a theory of Higgs Boson that doesn't require looking through a microscope. Get back to work.

Nothing new. They used to call that molasses... (1)

Babu 'God' Hoover (1213422) | more than 6 years ago | (#22170224)

stuff 'the ether'. Until they were laughed out of town.

The Higgs field drags on particles to give them mass, akin to molasses tugging on a spoon.

Sheesh... (1)

BritneySP2 (870776) | more than 6 years ago | (#22170272)

at least five kinds of Higgs bosons... but physicists hope many more particles exist

(That's from TFA.) What a mess. The Nature cannot be that complex. Not at that (elementary) level. How many different types of point-like particles do we need to explain things?

This seems to be a situation where the theoretical thinking has taken us nowhere. Or, we may need yet another Periodic Table, this time one for the elementary particles, that would show that they are not, indeed, elementary, or that different particles are nothing but different forms of the same truly basic physical substance.

At least, such is my expectation as a layman.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>