Scientists 99.9% sure they have found the Higgs boson, or "God" particle.

[georgiana]

I think this explains well how the Higgs detection works:

http://topquark.hubpages.com/hub/Hunting-the-Higgs-Difficulties

 

[Nova]

The Higgs boson is simply the particle responsible for giving mass to other particles. We believe that the Big Bang created massless particles. Peter Higgs came up with the idea of a particle (the Higgs boson) that gives those massless particles mass, so that they can form things like galaxies, stars, planets, etc. I think most scientists have accepted the existence of the Higgs boson, but until now we haven't been able to detect it. Theory says that its mass should be around 120-140 GeV (giga electron-volt; the mass of one hydrogen atom is about 1 GeV), so the particle whose discovery was announced today by CERN, at a mass of approximately 125 GeV, is almost certain to be the Higgs boson.

This is the post where I realize just how confused I am. So the Higgs bosun is theorized to give particles mass; I think this makes most of us assume it is somehow "inside" the atom. Yet it weighs 125 times the smallest atom, yes?

So it isn't part of an atom like a brick is part of a house. Is there a simple answer (I don't really mean "simple"; I mean one you can explain to me without taking up too much of your time) to "where" it is and how it interacts with other particles?

I know, I know: "pull a ping-pong ball through a vat of treacle." Is "treacle" what we Yanks call "molasses"?

 

[wfgodot]

Higgs boson and "intelligent design": yes? no? perhaps? Please answer in short words which would fit on 3" x 5" card. K thx bai.

 

[Cappuccino]

Higgs boson and "intelligent design": yes? no? perhaps? Please answer in short words which would fit on 3" x 5" card. K thx bai.

No.

Intelligent Design and the Higgs Boson particle have no relevance to each other, and evolution is a fact. :rocker:

 

[wfgodot]

No.

Intelligent Design and the Higgs Boson particle have no relevance to each other, and evolution is a fact. :rocker:

But intelligent design does not preclude evolution. Yes? No? Knees up, Mother Brown?

 

[Nova]

But intelligent design does not preclude evolution. Yes? No? Knees up, Mother Brown?

You're not really asking, I trust.

For others, no, the fact of evolution does not preclude it having been set in motion by a designer. Likewise, the existence of a designer (if such could be proven) does not preclude evolution as an ongoing instigator of change.

 

[matou]

Watch this video to understand what the deal is with CERN and the particle accelerator that may be discovered a Higgs Boson. I've shown this to my students and hopefully can explain what scientists have been working on for a while now. Apparently, the WWW was created to store data from particle accelerator experiments.

http://video.pbs.org/video/1506775943

 

[Cappuccino]

But intelligent design does not preclude evolution. Yes? No? Knees up, Mother Brown?

Yes it does. ID denies the existence of macro evolution. The existence of a creator is compatible with evolution, but Intelligent Design is just "creationism in a fancy tuxedo" - (I forget who that quote is from, probably Richard Dawkins).

I know you're joking Wfgodot, but for anyone who doesn't know, the BBC documentary on the Dover trial is a very interesting overview of the subject.

 

[Nova]

Yes it does. ID denies the existence of macro evolution. The existence of a creator is compatible with evolution, but Intelligent Design is just "creationism in a fancy tuxedo" - (I forget who that quote is from, probably Richard Dawkins).

I know you're joking Wfgodot, but for anyone who doesn't know, the BBC documentary on the Dover trial is a very interesting overview of the subject.

You're talking about "Intelligent Design" as a political movement aimed at getting God into science education through the back door. And the problem is that there is nothing in science that proves the existence of an Intelligent Designer, so teaching Intelligent Design denies the very foundation of the scientific method (first, one observes). You (and Dawkins) are right about the movement's aims and (il)legitimacy.

I was talking about intelligent design (lower case) as a mere concept. It is pure speculation (or faith) and can't be proven or disproven. It doesn't tell us whether evolution proceeds without interference via natural selection, or whether there is something that enables the mutation of organisms into more competitive forms. (Of course, we are unable to observe the latter, so like an intelligent designer, it remains pure speculation or, if you prefer, a leap of faith.)

 

[PoorPaulaNNJ]

The way I have always understood it goes like this:
We have broken down the components (ingredients) for any and every living thing. We can clone, however, the clone only looks the same. Since we made things using the same components (ingredients) that we see in nature, there must be a missing (unseen) component (ingredient) that would explain why cloning give a result that is 99% like the original. Finding, seeing, and identifying this previously unseen component (ingredient) explains why we cannot 100% duplicate personality, soul, when cloning.
This is how I always understood it. Anyone, please feel free to correct, expound, enlighten.

 

[Nova]

The way I have always understood it goes like this:
We have broken down the components (ingredients) for any and every living thing. We can clone, however, the clone only looks the same. Since we made things using the same components (ingredients) that we see in nature, there must be a missing (unseen) component (ingredient) that would explain why cloning give a result that is 99% like the original. Finding, seeing, and identifying this previously unseen component (ingredient) explains why we cannot 100% duplicate personality, soul, when cloning.
This is how I always understood it. Anyone, please feel free to correct, expound, enlighten.

Paula, at the moment, the "unseen component" is nurture. We don't have the technology to clone an adult organism from a single cell. So any creature we clone still has to go through its own gestation, infancy and maturation. Naturally, it won't be exactly the same as the donor who contributed the cloned cell.

As this thread demonstrates, I am not a scientist. But the last article I read on genetics suggests that many if not most of our chromosomes only produce tendencies; the final result is equally determined by our environment.

 

[Cappuccino]

You're talking about "Intelligent Design" as a political movement aimed at getting God into science education through the back door. And the problem is that there is nothing in science that proves the existence of an Intelligent Designer, so teaching Intelligent Design denies the very foundation of the scientific method (first, one observes). You (and Dawkins) are right about the movement's aims and (il)legitimacy.

I was talking about intelligent design (lower case) as a mere concept. It is pure speculation (or faith) and can't be proven or disproven. It doesn't tell us whether evolution proceeds without interference via natural selection, or whether there is something that enables the mutation of organisms into more competitive forms. (Of course, we are unable to observe the latter, so like an intelligent designer, it remains pure speculation or, if you prefer, a leap of faith.)

I get you, but the concept of an intelligent designer, (lower case), is usually called Theistically Guided Evolution. Proponents of that theory have no problem with Darwin or the science curriculum. The phrase Intelligent Design has come to mean something entirely more politicised which is why I'm wary of the term.

 

[justbeachy]

Holy crap. I have no idea what the heck you guys are talking about! I even watched the cartoon and I am still lost! LOL

"How I see math problems: If you have 4 pencils and I have 7 apples, how many pancakes will fit on the roof? Purple, because aliens don't wear hats." (shamelessly stolen from Pinterest, but it describes me perfectly!)

 

[Nova]

I get you, but the concept of an intelligent designer, (lower case), is usually called Theistically Guided Evolution. Proponents of that theory have no problem with Darwin or the science curriculum. The phrase Intelligent Design has come to mean something entirely more politicised which is why I'm wary of the term.

As I'm sure you can guess, I am firmly in the camp of the former. I'll try to avoid the use of the other term. Thanks.

 

[Nova]

Holy crap. I have no idea what the heck you guys are talking about! I even watched the cartoon and I am still lost! LOL

"How I see math problems: If you have 4 pencils and I have 7 apples, how many pancakes will fit on the roof? Purple, because aliens don't wear hats." (shamelessly stolen from Pinterest, but it describes me perfectly!)

You are not alone. I learned some things from the cartoon, but I see from georgiana's excellent posts that I'm still not getting the central concept.

 

[Steely Dan]

I don't think so. In my field (astrophysics), the ratio of men to women is quite high, and I know it's similar in particle physics. But I don't think that's because science is more easily understood by men. In my opinion, it has a lot to do with stereotypes and how we're brought up, and also with a bit (or a bit more, in some cases) of gender inequality once one gets a foot in the door of the academia.

Perhaps this page is oversimplified, but I don't think it's very far from the truth:

http://www.genderremixer.com/html5/

I respectfully disagree. I think it proves that men are a lot smarter!

Here's a PhD Comics animation explaining the Higgs boson:

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1489

Thanks, that was awesome!

I admit I'm still struggling with this idea, but I think I'm starting to figure it out. The only question I really have is how they managed to stay hidden this long. Is it because they are tiny or are they just composed in such a way that they are essentially invisible?

Yes, I read links, but most made me sort of glaze over after the first few sentences.

IIRC, they're tiny and they disappear so quickly that all scientists can really detect is the expected aftermath.

What I got out of the articles I read is that the Higgs boson completes the model of physics we have been using. It unifies all of the theories and confirms we are on the right track in figuring out the universe. If the Higgs boson didn't exist they'd have to smash the current model and restart.


[video=youtube;emZ5vuTQS-w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emZ5vuTQS-w[/video]

 

[georgiana]

This is the post where I realize just how confused I am. So the Higgs bosun is theorized to give particles mass; I think this makes most of us assume it is somehow "inside" the atom. Yet it weighs 125 times the smallest atom, yes?

It's correct that the hydrogen atom is the smallest atom, and the new sub-atomic particle (perhaps the Higgs boson) discovered by CERN is about 125 times heavier. However, not all sub-atomic particles are constituents of atoms. The Higgs boson isn't. An atom is made of electrons, neutrons, and protons. In turn, neutrons and protons are made of up and down quarks. Up/down quarks and electrons are fermions, and just three of the many different subatomic particles. Bosons are a different class of subatomic particles than fermions.

This is a funny particle zoo:

http://www.particlezoo.net/

You can click on individual particles for more detailed explanations.

Is there a simple answer (I don't really mean "simple"; I mean one you can explain to me without taking up too much of your time) to "where" it is and how it interacts with other particles?

This guy explains it better than I could:

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1458922

Also these:

[video=youtube;RFGpNMe5eEQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFGpNMe5eEQ[/video]

We can't see the ambient Higgs field that is all around us; it's literally undetectable. What we can do is to create ripples in that field, vibrations that propagate through the universe. When we look very closely at ripples moving through a field, what we actually see are individual particles--that's a consequence of quantum mechanics you'll have to take my word for right now. When the Higgs field ripples, the particles we see are Higgs bosons. That's what they're looking for here at CERN, at the experiments of the Large Hadron Collider.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/insidenova/2012/07/live-from-geneva.html

Without analogies, particle physics is usually very difficult to explain in layman's terms though...

 

[Steely Dan]

[video=youtube;dzrigQ13ElQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzrigQ13ElQ[/video]

 

[Nova]

Georgiana, I will not concede that the links explain anything better than you do, but they were really helpful to me. I recognized that all the info in them is also in previous links: but sometimes I have to hear/read the same thing in three different ways before it sinks in.

Thank you so much!

 

[hollyblue]

Wouldn't it be interesting if our universe was just a particle of dust on someone's coffee table?