Is the Higgs-Boson particle real?

[Annu]

It's not "smaller" particles they're looking for. We already have the electron, and that may not have any size at all. It's higher energy particles they want. Even then, they're not able to detect the Higgs directly, just what it decays into.

It's important because finding it will support the Standard Model. Or, on the other hand, not finding it will show that the Standard Model isn't correct. Either way, science will continue. It works best when there is no obvious commercial reason for it. Let other people figure that stuff out later.

I prefer to draw very very simple comparisons when explaining stuff. It is much easier to say an electron is smaller than a proton, rather than saying it has less mass or talk about particle energy. Even if my work is much simpler than particle physics, I still end up with people looking like easter bunnies, far too often.

But you are right, the boson should only result from such high energy collisions. Probably I should improve my "explanation for the kids" of LHC

[Brett Skullcrack]

I'm quite sure it doesn't exist. Besides, they would have found it by now if it did.

You are aware that "finding it" requires over TeV energies? How do you propose they would've found it by now without any means to access such energies?

[Azrok]

I don't think anyone on the MMO-Champion Forums is qualified to answer this question with even the slightest bit of certainty.

this. there are MAYBE like 1 or 2 people on here qualified to discuss this

[Catta]

If I knew the answer to that I wouldn't be sitting here moderating an internet forum.

Dont lie to us - ofc you would

[Deleted]

You are aware that "finding it" requires over TeV energies? How do you propose they would've found it by now without any means to access such energies?

Well, I remember reading news about it a year ago about them claiming that if they don't find it in the next 6 months, it probably won't exist. Besides, the main reason they built LHC was to find Higgs bozon and it's been operational for a long time now.

But even if I missed something, I doubt they'll ever find it because if they do, it will create more mysteries and problems than if it doesn't exist. Like completely separating the quantum and macroscopic worlds.

[Themos]

I prefer to draw very very simple comparisons when explaining stuff. It is much easier to say an electron is smaller than a proton, rather than saying it has less mass or talk about particle energy. Even if my work is much simpler than particle physics, I still end up with people looking like easter bunnies, far too often.

I recommend you reconsider.
An electron is about 100,000 bigger and 1/2000 lighter than a proton. The two have equal and opposite charges.

And energies are very important when dealing with electrons and atomic theory in general. All electrons are equivalent unless you do so, and that's not how the world works. Imagine knocking a tooth out of a jaw from an elderly person vs a professional boxer. The amount of *UMPH* (energy) required to eject a tooth (electron) varies between the two. And that is just talking electron vs electron.

In particle physics the amount of *UMPH* (energy) it takes to eject certain types of particles ranges from fairly easy to really frelling hard. Imagine trying to dislodge a single grain of sand under a giant pyramid. A left hook won't exactly cut it, no matter how much like a butterfly you dance like.

[Brett Skullcrack]

Well, I remember reading news about it a year ago about them claiming that if they don't find it in the next 6 months, it probably won't exist. Besides, the main reason they built LHC was to find Higgs bozon and it's been operational for a long time now.

LHC has not been run at full energy yet.

But even if I missed something, I doubt they'll ever find it because if they do, it will create more mysteries and problems than if it doesn't exist. Like completely separating the quantum and macroscopic worlds.

If one doesn't exist, they need to throw out current theories in particle physics which predict the existence of said particle. What exactly do you mean "create more mysteries and problems"?

[Adam Jensen]

o.O

But yeah, if it had direct immediate applications, it would be commercial research, not just generic science. Maybe someday it will be useful. Maybe it will lead to some other discovery that will be useful. There's no way to know until we do the research, but historically, science has often paid off, often in ways that weren't immediately apparent at the time, so continuing to do research and hoping it eventually pays off is a pretty good bet.

Edit: Plus, science is awesome. Knowing more about the universe has a value all its own.

Whoa . . . that was some crazy bad math on my part. Don't know where I got 200 years.

[Lilcheeks]

I don't think anyone can say yes or no with any certainty. None of us are qualified to answer that other than to say what we hope to be the answer. Even the physicists working at LHC or Fermilab can't say for sure since it hasn't been discovered, and research has yet to be exhausted(otherwise where would the argument be?). Certainly the current standard model has a place for the Higgs, but that just means that the model is either right or totally wrong. Either way it will be fascinating to see what happens.

[Vasti]

Should people be labeled stupid for believing the Higs Boson exists if we eventually discover it does not exist?

[Adam Jensen]

Should people be labeled stupid for believing the Higs Boson exists if we eventually discover it does not exist?

Are geocentrists from the 1300s labeled stupid?

Being wrong and stupidity are two different things. You can be wrong and not be stupid, so long as your incorrect conclusion arose from an interpretation of facts and evidence, that may have made sense at the time, but with parts unknown that make you wrong. For example, geocentricity was correct from everything we could observe in the 1300s. The sun appeared to move around the earth and no one had any powerful telescopes or any ability to see into space well enough to realize this was in fact wrong, until Copernicus and Galileo came around. Those scientists weren't stupid, but they were wrong.

Or take Newton. His three laws of motions are only *mostly* correct. While they work at a macroscopic level, they do not work at a quantum level. Newton was not stupid, just not quite right.

Stupidity is when you refuse to investigate information, and yet believe in false information anyways. Stupidity is very similar to willful ignorance.

[Deleted]

If one doesn't exist, they need to throw out current theories in particle physics which predict the existence of said particle. What exactly do you mean "create more mysteries and problems"?

Like quantum entanglement and virtual particles and such. I think physics should apply the same to all scales, it would be odd if there are different laws of physics for the macroscopic and the quantum worlds. If they actually discover the Higgs boson, it would prove the standard model but would create more problems for the theory of everything. If it doesn't exist however, gravity could be explained by a parallel universe as well as dark matter and many other things.

[Deleted]

this. there are MAYBE like 1 or 2 people on here qualified to discuss this

This is an incorrect statement. Why are we not able to discuss this? Because we don't have the legitimate education? Stating what you do is an easy way out of somethign so fascinating, interesting and beautiful in all ways. If it does not exist, we cannot be sure of what is really true.

[Cleeq]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...iggs-hunt.html

Well if that article (posted today) is to be entered into the discussion, it appears as if we're getting closer to finding out....well sort of. According to the article they've almost precisely gauged the mass of the W boson (0.02% margin for error), and the mass measurements for the Top quark, leaves just the Higgs, and narrows it down even more. However, that comes from combing through 14 years worth of research, of a total of 28 years of research completed at Tevatron, which is shut down. So we still have a way to go, to find anything definitive.

[Reeve]

I've heard so many people talk about it, even well educated people...so does it exist or not? (edit: should have asked "Do you believe it exists?")

If you can't say yes or no, maybe provide the magnitude of the possibility that you think that it exists. (e.g. 5% chance it exists 95% it does not exist)

EDIT:
Should people be labeled stupid for believing the Higs Boson exists if we eventually discover it does not exist? (or vice versa)

I prefer to just let the scientists try to disprove its existence rather than to speculate myself.

[Brett Skullcrack]

I think physics should apply the same to all scales, it would be odd if there are different laws of physics for the macroscopic and the quantum worlds.

Regardless of the Higgs-Boson, many effects that do not "apply the same to all scales" have already been discovered, so how you think physics should be really makes no difference.

[Kavaren]

I'd prob wait until after the Hadron data is concluded end of this year.

It also doesn't matter what the people think about this - it's above most peoples pay-grade.

The technology and research direction has other benefits besides Higgs-Boson.

[ptwonline]

If I could answer this question, I would be a filthy rich Nobel Prize-winning bastard.

To be entirely truthful, I don't personally believe the Higgs-Boson exists. The idea of a particle that grants mass to all other particles (and as such, particles in lesser ranges of the Higgs consequently have no mass) seems somewhat ridiculous to me. I personally believe that there is some other undiscovered or calculated property of particles that grants them mass, rather than another particle itself doing said mass-granting.

Of course, I'm not remotely qualified to make that assertion.

It does violate our common sense of how the universe works, but then again so does a lot of other stuff we're discovering about the universe...especially at quantum levels.

[herpecin]

the standard model says it should exist, and the standard model is the most correct model we have come up with(which is why it's the one we use).

have we found it? no not yet. but everything we currently understand about particle physics and quantum mechanics says should exists and the LHC should have enough power to find it eventually.

[RickBeers]

I found the following Theory of Everything (TOE) that includes all forms of physics. The interrelationships provided can be used to model everything observable, dark energy, dark matter, entanglement, gravity, electromagnetism, parallel universes, alternate dimensions...



If you are looking to add software capabilities based on a consistent model, check out the QES TOE. Do a search on "QESdunn pbworks" to find the manuscript.