Once produced, the Higgs boson would decay very quickly
Posted on 03/11/2004 4:45:23 AM PST by Momaw Nadon
A scientist says one of the most sought after particles in physics - the Higgs boson - may have been found, but the evidence is still relatively weak.
Peter Renton, of the University of Oxford, says the particle may have been detected by researchers at an atom-smashing facility in Switzerland.
The Higgs boson explains why all other particles have mass and is fundamental to a complete understanding of matter.
Dr Renton's assessment of the Higgs hunt is published in Nature magazine.
"There's certainly evidence for something, whether it's the Higgs boson is questionable," Dr Renton, a particle physicist at Oxford, told BBC News Online.
"It's compatible with the Higgs boson certainly, but only a direct observation would show that."
If correct, Dr Renton's assessment would place the elusive particle's mass at about 115 gigaelectronvolts.
Once produced, the Higgs boson would decay very quickly
Unstable particle
This comes from a signal obtained at the large electron positron collider (LEP) in Geneva, Switzerland, which has now been dismantled to make way for its replacement - the large hadron collider (LHC).
However, there is a 9% probability that the signal could be background "noise".
Before the LEP accelerator was decommissioned, physicists used it to send particles called electrons and positrons careering in opposite directions around its circular pipe, which had a circumference of about 27km.
When these particles collided, they created bursts of high energy. Such collisions themselves are too small to study but new, heavier particles can appear amongst the debris.
The Higgs boson is thought to be highly unstable and, once produced, should quickly decay.
Dr Renton cites indirect evidence taken from observations of the behaviour of other particles in colliders that agrees with the figure of 115 gigaelectronvolts for the mass of the Higgs boson.
"It's controversial. The data is possibly indicative, but it needs confirmation," said Bryan Webber, professor of theoretical physics at the University of Cambridge.
"Its mass is right at the maximum energy they could run the [LEP] at. But the indirect indications are that the Higgs boson should be close to that value."
The LEP's huge ring was used to study the particles in our universe
Mass giver
Physicists have observed 16 particles that make up all matter under the Standard Model of fundamental particles and interactions.
But the sums do not quite add up for the Standard Model to be true if these particles are considered alone. If only 16 particles existed, they would have no mass - contradicting what we know to be true in nature.
Another particle has to give them this mass. Enter the Higgs boson, first proposed by University of Edinburgh physicist Peter Higgs and colleagues in the late 1960s.
Their theory was that all particles acquire their mass through interactions with an all-pervading field, called the Higgs field, which is carried by the Higgs boson.
The Higgs' importance to the Standard Model has led some to dub it the "God particle".
Dr Renton said he hoped that once the large hadron collider was up and running in 2007, the Higgs boson would be detected within a year or two.
The LHC is a more energetic accelerator which will allow a much higher mass range to be explored. It will also be capable of producing much more intense particle beams which means that data can be aggregated much faster.
Are you serously trying to say that Bell needed government largess to maintain profitability? (Now if you were talking about Archer Daniels Midlands I would be forced to agree, but not Bell)
Odd, they specifically cite government funded vacuum-tube computing
Again, vacuum tubes were NOT invented by the government, and without WWII would have undoubtedly been developed privately anyway.
You guessed it: government grants. Are you for pulling state/federal funding to universities?
One it is NOT government funding in all "institutions of higher learning" Harvard has an enormous endowment, and most of the other major schools do too. And yes I'm all for cutting government funding to universities - hotbeds of liberalism communism paid for with my tax dollars. It would do my heart good to see a whole bunch of "womens studies" programs having to depend on the marketplace to get their loot. Not to mention "environmental studies" that "show" whatever their political master in the Democratic party want them to show. And what about the so called climatologists who are nothing but Paul (never right about anything in his life) Ehrlich clones going on to support the global warming lie? Come on tell me you too wouldn't want to see them have to do honest work for a living.
How about a modest proposal then and we eliminate all government agencies that started from LBJ on and then eliminate those taxes that are taken to pay for them?
They're still there as general classification systems in chemistry, but they have structure.
Possibly. Read the history.
Again, vacuum tubes were NOT invented by the government, and without WWII would have undoubtedly been developed privately anyway.
Without the government's (Allied) need to crack enemy codes, the vacuum-tube computer and it's ilk would have taken much, MUCH longer to develop, if at all. For some reason you cannot grasp the meaning of this. If we were to wait for a private company to develop the technology, it becomes very likely that another country, using state funds, would develop it first. After all, why wouldn't they? They would either a: throw more money at it, or B: BUY the work from your ideal private company. Despite your beliefs, private industry is not ideally suited to every situation - technological dominance being one of them.
You are absolutely misled about universities. Examples of ridiculous programs (I know they exist, I think they are ridiculous) does not change the fact that the majority (vast) of tech universities and departments enjoy federal and state grants. If you are against these schools and departments getting the funding they need, then there is no need to debate with you any longer.
Ranch dressing for starters.
Who determines "need?" You, me, Kongress (ol' pork barrel), who? "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," sound familiar? You may think some climatology program "needs" money. I may think that it's complete boondogle. Who then determines need - Majority? Consensus? The recipients of the largess? (ha ha ha)
then there is no need to debate with you any longer.
OK. we aren't going to agree anyway.
Who else? Are you an anarchist?
Peer review.
Majority = pure democracy = 51 wolves and 49 sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Who else? Are you an anarchist?
No I don't think I'm the antichrist, although the statists on this forum seem to behave that way at times.
Oh fun. Peer review = anonomyous committee of PC foxes determing how the henhouse is to be allocated.
I have an idea. (taken from Bastiat, Mises et al not claiming it's original) How about the people who actually worked for the money that the government is dispensing as largess determining how their money is spent?
I believe he was being sarcastic.
How about the people who actually worked for the money that the government is dispensing as largess determining how their money is spent?
Two ways of doing this I guess: vote on each decision, or elect a representative to do so. Or do you have another idea?
That would make them boson buddies, no?
Ironically, posted on a thread about CERN (birthplace of the World Wide Web, html, and http) on an internet forum. ;^)
I agree that a large chunk of government research dollars flows into pork projects and / or junk science. Where we apparantly disagree is in the funding for basic research.
As far as distorting the market place goes, here are some excerpts from the National Science and Engineering Indicators (2002):
Private industry, which provided 68 percent of total R&D funding in 2000, pays for most of the nation’s R&D. Private industry itself used nearly all (98 percent) of these funds in performing its own R&D; most (71 percent) of the funds were used to develop products and services rather than to conduct research.Looks like the marketplace is doing just fine. Private funding for R&D is booming.In 1980, Federal R&D support accounted for 47 percent of the nation’s total R&D effort. By 2000, Federal sources accounted for considerably less (26 percent) of the U.S. R&D total.
Industry performed the largest share of the nation’s R&D—75 percent. Universities and colleges performed 11 percent, and the Federal Government performed 7 percent. Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), which are administered by various industrial, academic, and nonprofit institutions, accounted for an additional 4 percent, and other nonprofit organizations accounted for 3 percent.
I'm glad you asked (he said getting out a soapbox) YES! leave the money in the hands of the earners and let them determine at the individual level where they want the research dollars to go. They do this by investing in stocks, donating to foundations (like the Keck foundation which I have a lot of respect for BTW) etc. Letting the marketplace call the shots beats central planning every time.
ROFL! I assume the abundance of the latter particle explains why the universe will not expand forever AND why there are so many Democrats?
If correct, Dr Renton's assessment would place the elusive particle's mass at about 115 gigaelectronvolts.
All I really want to know: is this enough to supply the 1.21 gigawatts to power the Flux Capacitor? ;)
I guess it depends on how you define this. I consider giant supercolliders to be pork with no practical payoff for anyone except those whose livelihoods are provided by hte pork and payofff to the politicians who are using the pork money to buy votes. You might consider this to be basic research.
Not at all. When it comes to science, scientists are the only people in a position to decide how the money is to be allocated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.