Comments on: Not Being Announced Tomorrow: Discovery of the Higgs Boson

By: The last days … of 2011 | The Zingularity

The last days … of 2011 | The Zingularity — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 16:19:20 +0000

[...] planet will be found orbiting in the habitable zone of a sun-like star. The Higgs Boson could be confirmed. The US space program will get a big shot in the arm from SpaceX and other newspace [...]

By: Amrit Sorli, Space Life Institute

Amrit Sorli, Space Life Institute — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:38:51 +0000

no good no higgs boson

By: Frank M DiMeglio

Frank M DiMeglio — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:17:17 +0000

Here is the clear, definitive, complete, and best proof that the Higgs search is a total and failed waste of money and time:

Here is the true, general, and fundamental unification of physics, AND this is what Einstein’s gravity lacks and what dreams FUNDAMENTALLY demonstrate, include, and unify:

1) Instantaneity (and fundamentally).

2) Truly and fundamentally equivalent and balanced inertia and gravity (both at half energy/force strength.) Gravity is reduced to the extent that inertia is increased.

3) Fundamentally balanced and equivalent attraction and repulsion.

4) Gravity and inertia are both FUNDAMENTAL to distance in/of space.

None of you can refute this. THIS IS GIGANTIC NEWS IN PHYSICS!

By: Claire C Smith

Claire C Smith — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 06:45:32 +0000

“This problem plagues medical research, where a common practice is to search for any darn correlation (of which there are an unlimited number by—- >chance”)<– – 4. Charlie.

By: steven johnson

steven johnson — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 23:23:28 +0000

I’m rather confused. One detector has an excellent indication of something massing 123 GeV and another has an excellent indication of something massing 126 GeV. Are we supposed to expect that another year’s run of data will provide a five-sigma (practically certain) indication of something massing 123-126GeV? Which I rather expect is far too imprecise to count as a discovery, given LHC’s technical capacities.

Aren’t these figure self-canceling, instead of reinforcing? Or, to put it another way, wouldn’t data from the two experiments be a lot more convincing if they really found the same figure? The articles seem to be assuming 123 and 126 are effectively the same figure. Suppose next year they say the figures indicate (with the requisite five sigmas,) one experiment finds 122 GeV and the other 127 GeV?

By: Avattoir

Avattoir — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 19:18:03 +0000

“Faster than light Neutrinoes and Higgs both cannot coexist”.

Oh, noes!

Hey, Pal*, I think you’ve got some ‘splainin’ to do (and not just on why you apparently think that ‘neutrinos’ decay into “neutrinoes”).

We know quantum tunnelling is real, so does that fact mean the Higgs boson cannot exist? And if not, then how is that different from what you are asserting?

*I’m serious here, not just seriously handicapped in the limits to my understanding of HEP-th, but having a serious problem with understanding the basis for your assertion.

But besides all that, this is the first ever decent opportunity I’ve ever had to start a blog comment with “Hey, Pal”!

By: The God particle and Tim Tebow | tebowdenver.com

The God particle and Tim Tebow | tebowdenver.com — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 18:02:21 +0000

[...] a “discovery” and CERN itself has already said there won’t be a discovery announcement. See Sean Carroll’s blog for a good analogy to American politics: “it’s like a bill has been passed by the House, but not [...]

By: KWK

KWK — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:52:56 +0000

So, two-ish sigma significance each for ATLAS and CMS–but with slightly different best fit masses. How much of a problem is that? It seems to me that at least one of the two low-significance excesses will have to go away, unless their energy resolution is worse than they claim–but that seems like an even bigger problem.
Also, with regard to posterior significance, experimentalists who are careful will specify the number of trials they performed and what effect that has on their result. In such cases a 3-sigma post-trials result should be interpreted straightforwardly as the usual 99.7% certainty.

By: Higgs-mania Day « In the Dark

Higgs-mania Day « In the Dark — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:45:00 +0000

[...] soon emerged however that this particular squib might be of the damp variety. Consistent with previous blogospheric pronouncements, a paper on the arXiv this morning suggested no convincing detection of the Higgs had actually been [...]

By: Physics and astronomy: worth billions?

Physics and astronomy: worth billions? — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:05:55 +0000

[...] folk at CERN prepare not to announce the discovery of the Higgs boson (apparently), other folk have been discussing whether it's worth the [...]

By: Josh

Josh — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 08:45:42 +0000

3 Sigmas is exciting stuff. Between this and the faster than light neutrinos, I had to learn all about this sigma business. It makes me want to make jokes about synergy, and retreating to move forward.

By: Nirdosh

Nirdosh — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 07:54:37 +0000

Sean, there is quite a chance that the media will misinform the public about the bill passed by the house.
Anyway, its a good feeling that once in a while “physics” does not only get a huge attention but also gets pure hype. We really are a part of a scientifically aware (or informationally manipulated) civilization.

By: Anadish Kumar Pal

Anadish Kumar Pal — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 06:23:53 +0000

Faster than light Neutrinoes and Higgs both cannot coexist — either one has to be wrong. It’s DCE research and superluminal speed which has the potential of breaking current scientific barriers, rather than finding a nebulous statistical dual peak for a Higgs, which well could be due to many other anomalies, one that LHC could not decipher is that of the UFOs.

By: Temps Higgs : 5 indicateurs à observer | Matières Vivantes

Temps Higgs : 5 indicateurs à observer | Matières Vivantes — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 04:03:11 +0000

[...] et exagérations, le CERN va devoir faire preuve de trésors de pédagogie et de nuance. Comme explicité dans cet article de Sean Carroll, il faudra calmement expliquer qu’on a des indications mais non pas des preuves de [...]

By: BigBangBoom

BigBangBoom — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 03:47:34 +0000

The lack of a Higgs Boson would in many ways be more exciting than finding one. Our current models have failed to find us the path to Fusion energy, move any closer to a Grand Unified Theory etc., etc. . A good solid Dead End might just about the greatest discovery (or non-discovery) possible. The motto “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” is a two edged sword that means that real progress is only possible in moments of “failure”. Here’s to not finding the Higgs.

By: Albert Z

Albert Z — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 03:27:21 +0000

Sigh, once again a toe appears from beneath the stage curtain and we are encouraged to think that it belongs to a beautiful tiny dancer. Alas, there are myriad other possibilities. In fact it looks suspiciously like the other “toes” that have appeared from beneath the curtain and then mysteriously disappeared.

Don’t expect big news tomorrow.

Just enough to keep the show going.

Albert Z

By: Woof

Woof — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 01:18:17 +0000

990 mile marker?

PLEASE tell me they don’t use MILES at CERN!

By: MPS17

MPS17 — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 00:45:48 +0000

Thanks for pointing out my naivete Brendon J Brewer; I should read more about probabilities and evidence and such.

Yet I think your comment points to another aspect in which the analysis is tricky, because if you want to talk Bayesian probabilities for theories in light of evidence, you have the problem that we don’t have an alternative theory other than there is a Higgs. (I assume you are not talking about a spectrum of theories with Higgs but just uncertain mass.)

By: Brendon J. Brewer

Brendon J. Brewer — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 00:09:07 +0000

“That is, given a 3-sigma result, I’m inclined to take 100 to 1 odds that it’s there.”

You’re interpreting a p-value as a posterior probability. The odds on a 3-sigma result being correct depend on the assumptions but are typically more like 5-to-1.

By: Adam

Adam — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 23:29:34 +0000

@MPS17 — Actually, it’s even MORE important that you press for 5-sigma significance when you have a theoretical backing for the measured phenomena in question. Prejudging and all that whatnot.

re: the medical debate — It’s very difficult to find millions of people to test on (which is what 5-sigma significance requires), at least ethically, where their backgrounds are identical. People just need to be informed about statistical significance, and how to interpret findings based on that.