Found: Higgs Boson

[Shadowsforbars]

Now can they help me find my missing fatboy. I had a sled stolen in 1955, can they find that too, please.

 

[Seraphim]

I pretty much agree with Kentos.

If you look into the astronomical end of the scientific spectrum, they have the hugest "fudge factor" ever in the proposition of dark matter/dark energy, which purportedly accounts for 94% of the mass of the universe, but is at the same time unobservable and undetectable. But to make the mathematical model work, it "must" be there.

 

[Slash McCoy]

If I can't have dark matter lapping film, I will take some higgs boson film.

 

[mikeschu]

That was good. Thank you. I'll be using it all day tomorrow at work. Most of my colleagues are engineers and dig this sort of humor.

Off-topic, but since you brought it up I recently heard this one:

What's the difference between an introverted engineer and an extroverted engineer?

The introverted engineer looks down at his own shoes. The extroverted engineer looks at the other engineer's shoes.

(Note: I have an electrical engineering degree and thus can confirm this in my experiences.)

 

[Kentos]

I pretty much agree with Kentos.

If you look into the astronomical end of the scientific spectrum, they have the hugest "fudge factor" ever in the proposition of dark matter/dark energy, which purportedly accounts for 94% of the mass of the universe, but is at the same time unobservable and undetectable. But to make the mathematical model work, it "must" be there.

I especially like it when they try to explain what was there before the Big Bang. It, a infinitely compressed ball of matter, was just there. I really feel that science is just another belief, in that it gives meaning and sense to the eternal human question of WHY. In the end they all boil down to having to have faith in something that can't be seen, touched, smelled. Be it the Big Bang 55 billion eons ago, or something else. YMMV

 

[Deleted member 48987]

I think that what you describe, on paper proofs rather than tangible ones, are unavoidable when probing things which are as basic to physics as the Higgs Boson is said to be, I certainly couldn't think of a way to tangibly demonstrate the existence of the Higgs Boson. There's no alternative though, and the lack of a more clear cut proof certainly shouldn't deter us from trying to advance our knowledge of the universe.

That said, this isn't a question of faith, any statement made is a result of rigorous scientific tests, and the evidence is there, though I myself wouldn't understand the raw data. They found something, what was it, 99.994% similar to the proposed Higgs Boson, and they still wish to put in further study before confirming that it is, in fact, the Higgs Boson. Certainly not leaping to conclusions like Aristotle. Faith isn't a concept in modern science, logical derivations are, and should the rest of the studies pan out, then the Higgs Boson's role in mass will be as common knowledge to future generations as gravity is to ours.

I apologize if that was a bit much, or if I'm being rude, it wasn't directed only at you, I just truly believe that proper science and scientific exploration are one of the few things that's right with the world now, something that should be encouraged and understood.

+1

 

[mdunn]

We got it! Incredible!

Phil plait has a good explanation of what it is, and why we can safely party for those who are a bit confused (understandably) by media reports: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/07/04/higgs/

 

[honed]

This is an easy to read article explaining why this find is important.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/04/us-science-higgs-explanation-idUSBRE86306W20120704

Great article for us common peeps

 

[oakeshott]

I especially like it when they try to explain what was there before the Big Bang. It, a infinitely compressed ball of matter, was just there. I really feel that science is just another belief, in that it gives meaning and sense to the eternal human question of WHY. In the end they all boil down to having to have faith in something that can't be seen, touched, smelled. Be it the Big Bang 55 billion eons ago, or something else. YMMV

Kent,
I have to politely disagree with you here. Science isn't "just another belief", though that's close to what it is and you are not alone in thinking this, but rather it's a methodology. Specifically, a methodology attached to a way of knowing things. This is where the phrase "scientific method" comes from. You can google "the scientific method" and find that the steps outlined are uniformly agreed upon, but the basic thing that ALL scientific assertions have in common is that they can be disproved. This makes them fundamentally different from Political, Religious, Psychological (mostly), Aesthetic and Historical assertions. For instance, it is theoretically possible to disprove the existence of a gravitational force, but the same cannot be said of the assertion that the start of WW1 was the fault of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. I find this difference comforting. It doesn't help me much in raising my child, but if I want to build a flux capacitor for my time traveling Delorean, then I cannot do without it.

I think what gets people upset with science is when its practitioners step beyond their field of expertise to opine on unrelated matters. The nature and origin of the universe, however, is their proper sphere of understanding and it is supremely cool and awesome.

 

[oakeshott]

We got it! Incredible!

Phil plait has a good explanation of what it is, and why we can safely party for those who are a bit confused (understandably) by media reports: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/07/04/higgs/

That was an excellent piece for us laymen. Thanks.

 

[kirill]

Kent,
I have to politely disagree with you here. Science isn't "just another belief", though that's close to what it is and you are not alone in thinking this, but rather it's a methodology. Specifically, a methodology attached to a way of knowing things. This is where the phrase "scientific method" comes from. You can google "the scientific method" and find that the steps outlined are uniformly agreed upon, but the basic thing that ALL scientific assertions have in common is that they can be disproved. This makes them fundamentally different from Political, Religious, Psychological (mostly), Aesthetic and Historical assertions. For instance, it is theoretically possible to disprove the existence of a gravitational force, but the same cannot be said of the assertion that the start of WW1 was the fault of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. I find this difference comforting. It doesn't help me much in raising my child, but if I want to build a flux capacitor for my time traveling Delorean, then I cannot do without it.

I think what gets people upset with science is when its practitioners step beyond their field of expertise to opine on unrelated matters. The nature and origin of the universe, however, is their proper sphere of understanding and it is supremely cool and awesome.

Thank you for that. I was sorely tempted to respond, but I didn't want to be the one guy getting all worked up over it. I respect Kentos, and this site, so I'm hesitant to start an argument, but what you wrote did need to be said. Very well put, might I add, I wouldn't have thought to explain it in quite that way.

 

[oakeshott]

Thank you for that. I was sorely tempted to respond, but I didn't want to be the one guy getting all worked up over it. I respect Kentos, and this site, so I'm hesitant to start an argument, but what you wrote did need to be said. Very well put, might I add, I wouldn't have thought to explain it in quite that way.

+1 on being a fan of Kentos. That is why I felt free to respectfully disagree.

 

[kirill]

+1 on being a fan of Kentos. That is why I felt free to respectfully disagree.

That's actually a fantastic way of looking at it. I have a somewhat similar disagreement going on in my non-B&B life, and I think you just might have helped me decide how I'm going to proceed. Thanks!

 

[Go West Young Man]

I especially like it when they try to explain what was there before the Big Bang. It, a infinitely compressed ball of matter, was just there. I really feel that science is just another belief, in that it gives meaning and sense to the eternal human question of WHY. In the end they all boil down to having to have faith in something that can't be seen, touched, smelled. Be it the Big Bang 55 billion eons ago, or something else. YMMV

Kent -

I see where you're coming from, but I take slightly different approach to the debate. IMO, the difference between faith and science is that faith is handed down as a fait accompli. "This is what <insert book/person/tradition> says, it must be so. End of story."

Science, on the other hand, STARTS from the point of admitting that they have no idea what's going on but they're willing to take a stab at explaining things. Using the scientific method, you construct a theory that explains the data you have. If new data comes up, science (not 'scientists', mind you, they still have egos and are human) has no problem completely tossing the old theory out and starting a new one. We're trying to infer very complex processes from very subtle clues, so it's not surprising that our models are still imcomplete.

The two approaches aren't mutually exclusive, either. You can be a person of great faith who also believes strongly in testing and proving theories before accepting them. There's so much that we DON'T know about the universe that it would be arrogant to make sweeping generalizations based on our current scientific models.

 

[barrycv]

The two approaches aren't mutually exclusive, either. You can be a person of great faith who also believes strongly in testing and proving theories before accepting them. There's so much that we DON'T know about the universe that it would be arrogant to make sweeping generalizations based on our current scientific models.

Yes, but that gap between the two is ever-closing. The origin of the universe is a great example. The scientifically accepted theory is the Big Bang, but that conflicts directly w/ creationism. Those two are indeed mutually exclusive. So, in response, those of faith attack science w/ the tired arguments of 'they don't know everything, it is just a theory, they though you could turn lead in to gold, etc'.

 

[oakeshott]

Yes, but that gap between the two is ever-closing. The origin of the universe is a great example. The scientifically accepted theory is the Big Bang, but that conflicts directly w/ creationism. Those two are indeed mutually exclusive. So, in response, those of faith attack science w/ the tired arguments of 'they don't know everything, it is just a theory, they though you could turn lead in to gold, etc'.

All,
While the question of the relationship between faith and science is a deep one and important and interesting, it gets into potentially inflammatory areas and is not the original subject of this post. Let's tread carefully here.

 

[Obsessed]

The two approaches aren't mutually exclusive, either. You can be a person of great faith who also believes strongly in testing and proving theories before accepting them. There's so much that we DON'T know about the universe that it would be arrogant to make sweeping generalizations based on our current scientific models.

Yes, but that gap between the two is ever-closing. The origin of the universe is a great example. The scientifically accepted theory is the Big Bang, but that conflicts directly w/ creationism. Those two are indeed mutually exclusive. So, in response, those of faith attack science w/ the tired arguments of 'they don't know everything, it is just a theory, they though you could turn lead in to gold, etc'.

Just because science is incompatible with the literal interpretation of certain religious texts doesn't mean that it's necessarily incompatible with faith in a broader sense. Conversely, the fact that science can't explain everything isn't necessarily a basis for faith.

This is probably one of those questions we're unlikely to resolve on B&B.

 

[oc_in_fw]

I don't mind the media coverage. I'd rather they spend the time covering this and trying to explain it in words even I can understand then the latest moronic thing that Snooky said. Who knows maybe some kid will see it and get excited and decide to be a scientist rather then wanting to get the latest thing some talking head is flogging.

My 10 year old granddaughter wants to be a scientist. I need to figure out how I can help keep her interest up during the (not too far away) teen years.

 

[oakeshott]

My 10 year old granddaughter wants to be a scientist. I need to figure out how I can help keep her interest up during the (not too far away) teen years.

Blow some stuff up. Wait...maybe that only works for guys. I can't help on this. My daughter and son are both artists. Tried to turn them into Marine Biologists, but no joy.

 

[Nils]

My 10 year old granddaughter wants to be a scientist. I need to figure out how I can help keep her interest up during the (not too far away) teen years.

One of the best ways (very much imho, of course) is Astronomy. A good beginner's telescope and some grandparental guidance can go a long way to awaken scientific interest. If she is more of a maker and tinkerer, I'd recommend this book:

http://www.amazon.de/Backyard-Ballistics-Cannons-Cincinnati-Dynamite/dp/1556523750