Comments on: 4th of July Higgs Update

By: Hunting for Higgses | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine

Hunting for Higgses | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 15:23:40 +0000

[...] from Geneva, where I’m visiting CERN to attend the much-anticipated Higgs update seminars on Wednesday, July 4. We’re all wondering whether they will say the magic words [...]

By: Steve Bergman

Steve Bergman — Sat, 30 Jun 2012 22:09:31 +0000

I remember a Steven Weinberg interview from a couple of years ago in which he was asked how physicists felt upon the prospect of future results forthcoming from the LHC. He responded immediately with “Terrified!”, explaining that the Standard Model has been so experimentally successful that theoretical physicists are in a quandary regarding moving the theory forward into new physics. Quantum Gravity, etc. He was afraid that the LHC would find the Higgs Boson… and nothing else. If Higgs is confirmed at this point, that’s exactly where we would be, for now. At last word (December 2011?), there was no evidence at all for Supersymmetry or extra dimensions. And nothing else that was “off-the-wall”.
Personally, I’m a lot more interested in the things people *aren;t* buzzing about. Susy. Hints of extra spatial dimensions. Or some really weird “Hmmm, that’s odd…” result somewhere.
Barring that, it would be fun if Higgs was ruled out on 4 July.

By: Nächste große Higgs-Enthüllung in fünf Tagen « Skyweek Zwei Punkt Null

Nächste große Higgs-Enthüllung in fünf Tagen « Skyweek Zwei Punkt Null — Fri, 29 Jun 2012 20:46:18 +0000

[...] 25., Ballon Juice = Inverse Square 24., Guardian 23., CERN Release (mehr), Not even Wrong, Cosmic Variance, Quantum Diaries, Physics World, FAZ 22., Science News, Evolution True, BBC, Principles, Cosmic Log [...]

By: James

James — Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:30:15 +0000

@Christian, you seem to be a little confused as to what is meant by “The Standard Model”. In general use, it refers either to the standard model (in lower-case) of particle physics, consisting of a bunch of fermions interacting via an SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) gauge theory, or it refers to the SU(2)xU(1) part of it, ie. the GSW theory of weak interactions, complete with Higgs mechanism for symmetry-breaking. Either way, the Higgs is an integral part of it, not something that’s tacked on.
Certainly, you could say that the Standard Model will be falsified if we find no Higgs, but who cares? In fact, great! We have to think of a new solution. This is the sort of thing that’s often assumed to be a disaster by those outside of science, but by almost no-one within it.

What you seem to be referring to, by “Standard Model”, is simply the current best model at any particular time, and you’re saying that it has always needed updating. Well, yes, that’s how science progresses, and with each step, we get a little better understanding of the subject. There’s nothing profound about this.
You may have missed it, but physicists aren’t wedded to the Standard Model in any sense – they’ve spent much of the last thirty years looking for alternatives. Now (some of) those alternatives are being put to the test.

By: Doug Little

Doug Little — Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:28:17 +0000

Yes Christian you know best

By: Christian Takacs

Christian Takacs — Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:53:55 +0000

@Doug,
Instead of trying to be clever without showing wit and attempting to be rude, Why don’t you look up some other conditions in the DSM that you haven’t already mentioned before. You need new material and seem to enjoy reading about abnormal psychology , it will keep you busy and entertained, write a nice report too while you are at it.

@James,
There is always a before and after with theories. The Standard Model is no exception. They don’t come about spontaneously like the miraculous symmetry breakings you would seem to accept. The Standard model didn’t start with Higgs Mechanism, and it most likely won’t immediately end with it either. Already alternates are being proposed… higgsless standard models of several types are being developed. It most likely won’t make much difference though. Until physics regains far firmer footing in some kind of actual mechanical theory based in causality, just adding more complicated mathematical abstraction with virtual particles , imaginary spaces, and non-physical physics in background independent fields is not going to make any progress. Before you get upset with me for bashing what I consider an imaginary particle (which according to you the Standard Model can’t do without)… a dangerous position you are taking by the way, but you are the one claiming there is no Standard Model without it, … why don’t you wait until July 4th and see what happens. If I am right, and no Higgs is found, you most likely will be looking for a new theory.. If you are right, you can tell me “aha! you were wrong, mathematical fudges actually can become physical particles!” There is also however another possibility, they find something, don’t know what the hell it is, and want several more billion dollars to build another collider to figure it out…at which point I will quote David Hannum to you.

By: JW Mason

JW Mason — Tue, 26 Jun 2012 00:23:04 +0000

Entropy,

Thanks!

It does feel as if the heat:light ratio is unusually high in the popular-science world on this one. Well, just have to wait for Sean’s book, I guess…

By: Doug Little

Doug Little — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 21:51:09 +0000

Christian Takacs the poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect.

By: James

James — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 21:20:08 +0000

@ 26 Christian Takacs:

What are you talking about? “Standard Model did NOT agree with experiment until the Higgs Mechanism…the ‘extension’ was ‘tacked on’”…
The Standard Model IS the Higgs mechanism. It didn’t exist before Brout, Englert et al (and didn’t exist afterwards, either, until Weinberg et al).

By: Ryan Onstott

Ryan Onstott — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:23:36 +0000

I think everybody (or most everybody) understands that whatever they discover and choose to call the Higgs will not be end and close of discussion on the Standard Model. New information will eventually transform it all out of all recognition.

Whatever the Higgs is, it is not a “relativity” moment where a whole subset of the universe becomes more clear, but just another data point that clears some things up, confuses others and probably eventually gets lost as better ideas come about.