30 votes

CERN experiments observe particle consistent with long-sought Higgs boson

From the CERN Press Release:

“We observe in our data clear signs of a new particle, at the level of 5 sigma, in the mass region around 126 GeV. The outstanding performance of the LHC and ATLAS and the huge efforts of many people have brought us to this exciting stage,” said ATLAS experiment spokesperson Fabiola Gianotti, “but a little more time is needed to prepare these results for publication.”

"The results are preliminary but the 5 sigma signal at around 125 GeV we’re seeing is dramatic. This is indeed a new particle. We know it must be a boson and it’s the heaviest boson ever found,” said CMS experiment spokesperson Joe Incandela. “The implications are very significant and it is precisely for this reason that we must be extremely diligent in all of our studies and cross-checks."

More here

Liveblogging of announcement @ Guardian.co.uk

See also Reuters.

From NYT:

ASPEN, Colo. — Physicists working at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider said Wednesday that they had discovered a new subatomic particle that looks for all the world like the Higgs boson, a potential key to an understanding of why elementary particles have mass and indeed to the existence of diversity and life in the universe.

“I think we have it,” Rolf-Dieter Heuer, the director general of CERN, said in an interview from his office outside Geneva, calling the discovery “a historic milestone.” His words signaled what is probably the beginning of the end for one of the longest, most expensive searches in the history of science. If scientists are lucky, the discovery could lead to a new understanding of how the universe began.

more here



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Structure of Scientific Revolutions

was a book written in the 60's (Thomas Kuhn) that caused a lot of controversy then but I believe is still just as relevant today. The main thrust of the thesis is that science is practised as a belief system (he uses the watered down term "paradigm") rather than as truly scientific method. Instead of looking to expand the scope of science by searching for new phenomena science only experiments to measure what they all already theoretically agree on to an even higher degree of accuracy. The Higgs Boson experiment assumes the existence of the Boson in order to find it. The problem becomes separating discovering something that already existed or creating something out of the conditions of the experiment. Peer review system and funding methods ensure this approach to science will never change.

If the Big Bang Theory is wrong we will NEVER KNOW until somehow they accidently measure something that cannot be explained within the existing paradigm (i.e. a scientific revolution). The problem is we are not looking to find things that break the paradigm, only support it!

Kuhn was a post-modernist relativist and a joke

Read Karl Popper to get a better idea of what science is. Read Henry Margenau to get an idea of what physics is. Remember, post modernists and relativists are the ones who believe there is no such thing as truth and they're the ones who are taking over Universities with affirmative action racism and socialist humanities departments.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself." - Thomas Jefferson

Just as Ron Paul is portrayed by MM as a joke now?

I care not about Kuhn I care only what the Structure Of Scientific Revolutions has to say and in mys experience it is completely accurate. As an ex physicist I turned my back on science when I realised the irrelevancy and impotentcy of the so called scientific method. That was before I came across this book that simply confirmed what I already understood. When Einstein's Theory of Relativity gets overturned there are going to be a lot of very red faced 'believers'. To date all of the experiments to challenge the theory fall down in that they never attempt to challenge any new alternative hypotheses. To do so would give credibility to the alternatives and funding would dry up instantly. So the experimental scope are limited only to past theories and the existing paradigms exactly as Kuhn said in this book.

you may get a kick out of the following;

as always, each epoch's most articulate observers come from us mere 'peons' with a comedic and melodic gift:

Higgs Boson Unbound - Rap News 14

Published on Jul 9, 2012 by thejuicemedia

"We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time." T. S. Eliot

http://www.thejuicemedia.com Juice Rap News: Episode 14 - Waiting for the Godot Particle. This civilisation's grand quest for ultimate meaning has taken a giant leap towards its epic conclusion. In the latest prequel to humanity's journey to inner-space, scientists at the CERN laboratory announce that they have unlocked one of the key strands in the origin of Life, The Universe and Everything: 42 years on from its coining, the Higgs Boson particle has possibly been detected at the Large Hadron Collider. So what does it all mean? How does it feel to meet our Massters? Is this the font of all wisdom? Does it anti-matter that Scientists make use of 'ComicSans', the font of all evil? Is anyone conCERNed about the MASS amount of Higgslarious Pun-upmanship Colliding in the twittersphere? Join Robert Foster as he takes a journalistic journey into this particular world, and meets a colourful character, Professor Scott Ridley, a scientist from CERN laboratories. Get your Boson!

CONNECT with us: Website: http://thejuicemedia.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/juicerapnews
Farcebook: https://www.facebook.com/rapnews

SUPPORT the creation of new episodes of Juice Rap News - a show which relies on private donations: http://thejuicemedia.com/donate

DOWNLOAD free MP3: http://www.reverbnation.com/rapnews
LYRICS available here: http://thejuicemedia.com/video/lyrics

CREDITS:

- MUSIC: This week's episode contains a beat from our favourite new UK beat-maker, Red Skull. Check out his insanely ill beats on his blog:
http://redskullbeats.tumblr.com/ ;
soundcloud: http://soundcloud.com/redskullbeats ; or youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/RedSkullBeats
- ARTWORK: Thanks to Zoe Tame http://visualtonic.com.au for images and for website wizardry! Thanks to Jonas Schweizer in Germany for animating the Promethean intro and glass smash (See his work: http://www.indiegogo.com/CaribbeanNewcomer); And thanks to Joshy Anderson for the loan of the bone-fide pharmacist lab coat!

CAPTIONS are coming soon...

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Who was right?

At the same time that book came out, a young man named Peter Higgs was proposing a possibility that was far outside the mainstream of contemporary science. Yet Higgs' work was published in peer-reviewed journals, studied and debated. Forty-eight years later it is now possible to test that conjecture. If Mr. Kuhn had been right, that could not have happened. There would be no massively parallel computers, no Feynman diagrams and related mathematics, no silicon-based particle detectors, and no standard model of subatomic physics.

Come to think of it, there would be no personal computers, no high-speed internet, and no Daily Paul either.

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln

I think I know the reason for that

It has to do with the enormous amounts of data that science reproduces. In the past, it was pretty darn easy for a single scientist to make a discovery on his own. Nowadays, you need an entire team of scientists to do so. The simple reason for that is that each discovery requires more resources and expertise, due to the ever increasing complexity. Scientist are thus forced to spend their resources more prudently and build their work on the shoulders of their predecessors.

Now what would happen if they actually do it in the way you just described? Enormous amounts of resources would be required, since there would be enormous amounts of waste. Such research might introduce new truths not otherwise obtainable through other methods, but the cost to obtain them would be simply too high. This is one of the reasons so much money is spend on proving the existence of the Higgs. It might seem an enormous amount of money was spend, but more money was saved through elimination of other now obsolete theories. Researching a theory from left field, where none of its components are based on work from predecessors, would simply take too much time and money to be verified. It would be necessary to test and verify each component of such a theory, which would be extremely time consuming.

Why?

Why is this on the front page of the Daily Paul?

"Dedicated to restoring Constitutional government to the United States of America"

Jason Burns

Welcome to the r3VOLuti0n!

http://r3VOLuti0n.com

Why not?

Does spending your tax dollars on multi billion dollar research projects based on a religeous belief not matter to you?

It's not religious belief.

How do you feel when people question your love of liberty and Ron Paul as a religious belief? Grow up.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself." - Thomas Jefferson

The Big Bang Theory

Is a hypothesis with no concrete supporting evidence, like religion. How is that the same as Love of liberty and support for Ron Paul? Idiotic reply. I'll grow up when you grow a brain.

Liberty Unites

Liberty unites people from all walks of life. I don't see that happening here.

This is not a message of liberty, the constitution, sound currency, or free markets.

I don't see the purpose of having this on the front page of the Daily Paul.

"Dedicated to restoring Constitutional government to the United States of America"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwDXB4a071Y

Jason Burns

Welcome to the r3VOLuti0n!

http://r3VOLuti0n.com

Hm... Until they can definitely prove WHAT made/caused

Higgs-Boson (a particle borne of a field that yields life to elementary wave-not-wave/particle-not-particle 'matter') to form or into being or decided it was the best mechanism to kickstart 'life,' this is just another in a long line of 'Yipee! We 'found' something pre-existent and gonna label it, parade it as new!' when it still doesn't really explain anything, in the aggregate, like, what came before the Big Bang?

And, before 'what came before the Big Bang'?? And... before, before-'what came before the Big Bang'???

Hopefully, some honest 'scientists' would recognize that to claim there is an entity, aka a particle or a groups of particles or fields, that kickstarted a cascade process that leads to life, sounds equally 'ridiculous' to those who have their own beliefs, be they religious or otherwise, questioned and maligned.

Because let's face it: HB as 'god' particle, too, is just a belief, even if it can be 'verified,' which already precludes other sub-atomic particles/fields which they're not even aware of yet, considering they can't really prove Dark Matter but they have faith, aka, assume it exists... 'cause you know, scientists apparently hate those who 'have faith' as long as it's not them.

Frankly, until we get to 'exchange' notes with other galactic species, this is never gonna be settled.

Suppose if one were to entertain the Drake Constant to be 'true'-ish(?), and assuming there are other sentient species among the trillions of star systems: why WOULDN'T they have their own origin myth or reality?

And, what would make theirs any more or less a credible faith or set of faiths and beliefs, than ours, which is also based on 'beliefs?'

Equally, is modern grant-whordom that is statist science, any less based on faiths? 'Science' as it stands today is based on 'as far as we think we know' anyway, which is wholly different than 'facts' facts in the 100% objective sense: it's all based on 'probabilities' which is the first thing one learns, when one finally 'get's rudimentary calculus.

Now, concurrently, the test for the Judeo-Christians would be, do they, the inter-galactic sentient species, call theirs Jesus/Holy Trinity, Allah, or Mithra, or Quetzalcoatl? Does that negate hundreds of other pre-Christian faiths or HenoTheism, the world over?

Just remember, we're always one dead Nobel Physics Laureate away from the next Flat Earther; our worldview on what or how the universe works, or is formed, is as is, until the next leading physicist comes along and comes up with another temporary explanation for how 'it all works,' after the last one dies off.

As it stands, frankly just sounds like they figured out a way to justify their post-Cold War science funding meme, where they don't have to just convince a single General or Colonel (the way US Gvt deals with foreign dictators for their resources: one person is always easier to deal with/control than an entire committee), but now actually have to convince the public at large, for the first time, to approve their massive DARPA/DoD related/funded projects, and figured out how to keep the stolen taxpayers' dollars, and to keep the gravy train rolling along.

Looks like the SSC dudes are having the last laugh, after all, as many of them are currently at CERN, anyway.

But, what do I know; I'm just a 'layman' who knows that I know that I don't know.

stir, stir, stir.

** UPDATE: apparently, they're now claiming to have discovered a method on how to measure/verify Dark Matter; hopefully it's true:

http://www.nature.com/news/dark-matter-s-tendrils-revealed-1...

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Hey AnCap

what do you mean by it's all based on 'probabilities' which is the first thing one learns, when one finally 'get's rudimentary calculus. ?

I mean, people use the 'probability paradigm' all the time, but what does that have to do with rudimentary calculus?

"...what does that have to do with rudimentary calculus?"

Everything.

As in calculus, it's all about a number 'closely approaching,' as in 'a range of possible numbers,' as in 'likely to be,' aka 'probability.'

Limit (mathematics)

In mathematics, the concept of a "limit" is used to describe the value that a function or sequence "approaches" as the input or index approaches some value.[1] Limits are essential to calculus (and mathematical analysis in general) and are used to define continuity, derivatives, and integrals.

The concept of a limit of a sequence is further generalized to the concept of a limit of a topological net, and is closely related to limit and direct limit in category theory.

In formulas, limit is usually abbreviated as lim as in lim(an) = a, and the fact of approaching a limit is represented by the right arrow (→) as in an → a.

The higher one goes 'up' the mathematics and physics rabbithole, one has to contend with the fact that there are no absolute constants in the known universe that can possibly be perceived by the human mind. There's a reason why many formerly 'atheist' mathematicians and quantum physicists convert to Buddhism, precisely because it makes them feel safe, as it bridges the gap between religion and philosophy and logic; it makes them 'spiritual' without becoming religious: the way I interpret is that, they're basically admitting the existence of the unknown force(s) in the universe/multi-verse(?), without outright saying it.

Scientists still have no clue what causes gravity for crying out loud! The current runner up is graviton waves, then there's the soliton wave, iron ore, or the most brilliantly scientific of them all, and my all time favorite: "it just happened to be there, because 'it' needed 'it' to be there!"

Think it's safe to say we're all in diapers, when you can identify what you can observe, but not completely understand what causes it.

All modern "empirical science" is based on theories, aka proven hypotheses, which is merely an idea someone puts forth as a plausible explanation for something, and proceed to provide a model to test his/her idea to be true or not. Which by definition does not automatically prove anything; it only proves that, that person's test model worked or failed.

Frankly, that's the fundamental basis behind the climate control Malthusian freaks' computer model (there's a reason why most supercomputers are dedicated to projecting weather patterns, as it is full of variables and thus have most difficulty 'predicting,' yet the same people are so certain that they know what x causes y? puhleeze), along with Keynesian economists model. The latter is obviously not a 'science' science in the traditional sense despite what Krugman or Rubini delude, no matter how many mathematical formulas they throw at it to 'prove' their case.

What good is your computer model, when algorithms written to 'prove' it are based on faulty premise to begin with. THAT, is precisely what the famed "Black Swan" economist and Dr. Paul supporter, Nassim Nicholas Taleb also knows to be true about modern economists.

What is a constant point of frustration for me anytime these threads pop up is, the circular emotive argument both Judeo-Christians AND 'logical' atheists make. Both show their bias. One side view is that only a Christian creationist model for universe is possible, the other side somehow hilariously BELIEVE in science as if it's an equally sacred religion.

More intellectually disastrous is the latter. Most here know how biased govt/corporatist econ data is, precisely because many publicly famous economists actually receive grants directly from the Federal Reserve itself. Yet, somehow modern 'science' which is equally govt subsidized, as up to 80% of all large grants in the most elite Ivy League universities are from DoD/DARPA, yet, somehow libertarians like Stefan Molyneux routinely fail to recognize how biased and manipulated 'scientific' data can equally be.

Like you can be a critical thinker enough to question the govt/corporatist/Wall St.-owned Federal Reserve, yet cognitive dissonantly not apply the same healthy skepticism to the field of science, which is unfortunately in the modern reality has devolved into just another Wall St Corporatist Mil. Industrial Complex social engineering fiefdom?

The Ruling Class needs both to have us police ourselves. One is about the nature of 'money' which is what everyone uses. The latter field literally tells the narrative to the 'laymen peons' how our entire universe supposedly works.

Our very view of the universe surrounding us is mostly dictated by them. So, in some sense, I view 'scientists' to be a far more dangerous threat to humanity; like Fed. Govt when they get something wrong they affect all 50 states, but when leading scientists get it wrong or intentionally manipulate, it literally threatens our entire world.

I cannot repeat this enough: the world has gone from the Saturnian Vatican Black/Red-robed cultists telling us that the Earth is Flat, to govt/statist/Wall St. Military Industrial Complex corporatist fascist funded grant whores/White-robed cultists telling us the the Universe is Flat.

Those who apply faith and spirituality in their lives, at the core, is a fundamental understanding that we as humans do not have a full picture of the world; we humbly accept that there are other forces present in the universe at work. We may differ and bicker over different labels, but at the central premise is that 'we simply do not know everything.' Now, where doctrinaire religious types differ are who or what caused x, depending on one's faith. But at the end of the day, there is a still healthy respect for the unknown.

But, NOT when you're a govt/corporatist-funded scientist: his/her job is to play god and assume their theories are correct so they can tell the rest of us what is, and supply their paymasters some measurable metrics, which assumes that the data works or doesn't, according to their presumed model built on their a-priori assumptions.

If some people here only familiarized themselves with how truly POLITICAL the entire of field of science is, they'd 'get' how equally ridiculous some scientists are; as we can laugh AT Paul Krugman, frankly some here need to begin to do the same, when it comes to doctrinaire 'atheists' and 'scientists,' alike.

Like I say often, all I know is that I know that I know nothing. The difference is, I can happily embrace that, as to humbly continue to seek, rather than accept anything as gospel, no matter how on the surface 'rational' and 'logical' it may sound.

The following is an interesting take by Nassim Nicholas Taleb on the arrogance of the white-robed class, that essentially the only 'certainty in the universe is uncertainty':

The Predictability of Unpredictability

Uploaded by theRSAorg on Jan 9, 2012

Renowned academic and author Nassim Nicholas Taleb discusses his groundbreaking ideas and their relevance to the current economic crisis, national policy making and other topics with Rohan Silva, senior policy advisor to the Prime Minister.

To listen to the full event on the audio file, please click here.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Thanks for the answer

although I admit I was expecting a more concise one ;)

First, let me say that on the topic of philosophy of science I understand your points about the limitations of 'empirical science' (hypotheses, models, experiments, etc) and I agree with your views.

I'm also confident I have a pretty good understanding of limits and probability theory.

My question is this: what is this connection you refer to between probability and limits? To me, limits are not probabilistic at all - they are totally deterministic. You can think of it as a process, moving in time, with a particle getting closer and closer to a point but that's just a 'physical metaphor'.

Sorry if I am being a nuisance - I'm just curious about the mental link you have made there.

A "concise" answer to a philosophical question?

Ha!

No siree, you're not "being a nuisance."

That said, as for "I'm just curious about the mental link you have made there" I'm gonna have to ask you to simply meditate on it, as I've gone way past my non-"concise" answer quota for the day.o)

So, please allow your open mind to work its own magic: I'm sure you'll come to a similar conclusion.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Its funny to watch brainwashed Atheists deny its a religion

For GODS [oops] I mean GOODNESS SAKE argue your evidence ... But please do not deny it takes FAITH to believe there is no god.

LOL ... you people crack me up with your "Its not a religion because I say so argument"

Patriot News
http://redpillpost.com
*
Stand up For your Civil Rights
http://SueBadCops.com

Does is matter what we call our desire to understand

the origin of the universe?

I think the difference is that science attempts to base its conclusions on objective evidence, while each religion has its own set of myths. If you want to call atheists' views a religion, then you should be equally willing to accept the view that a god created the universe is a theory. Since the view that god created the universe is without objective evidence, and the various scientific theories are based on objective evidence, as imperfect as they may be, it is much more likely that the scientific theories give a better approximation of reality, and if they are proved incorrect, it will be based on new scientific evidence. Science does not support the god theory.

Myth does not trump science; science trumps myth.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

SteveMT's picture

Anyone w/evidence against the Big Bang theory is ridiculed.

Their work cannot get published, and they lose their jobs, like astronomer Halton Arp lost his job.

Science can also perpetuate myths. Ever heard of global warming now called climate climate change? That's another myth.

I disagree with your premise

I would concede this:
" If you want to call atheists' views a religion, then you should be equally willing to accept the view that a god created the universe is a theory."

This is where you fail

" 1. Since the view that god created the universe is without objective evidence, / 2. and the various scientific theories are based on objective evidence"

I disagree with both 1 and 2

You may have been told or taught this [brainwashed] but until you understand that this is not the case, you are trapped in a paradigm.

Patriot News
http://redpillpost.com
*
Stand up For your Civil Rights
http://SueBadCops.com

It's good to finally see some non-religious DP'ers

finally come out of the woodwork!

This isn't the Daily-Jesus, it's the Daily Paul...

A place where fact based discussions once ruled the day rather than faith

Thank you

for the DailyLaugh!

I am not promoting Jesus

I am debunking the theory of origin for the RELIGION of Atheism !!!

Patriot News
http://redpillpost.com
*
Stand up For your Civil Rights
http://SueBadCops.com

not really talking about you in this case

it just gets old seeing thread after thread about Jesus and no one able/willing to have a discussion on the lack of logic inherent in superstitious/religious beliefs.

personally I see religion as a major stumbling block towards liberty and would love to have a decent discussion about it.

i think the problem might be that religious people think it's "evil" to question god/jesus, thus are unable to discuss it.

Talk about the pot

calling the kettle black.

I actually see state churchs

as a major stumbling block to freedom, and state schools.

I feel that the Christians over the centuries who refused to be a part of the state churches (who suffered enormously for it by the way read foxes book of martyrs) showed us in a large part how to be free. There are actually a lot of letters from the baptist, during the time that our congress was writing the constitution, that stated that they would refuse all state money for their church, and change the name of their denomination to make sure they would not be a state church. John bunyon was imprisoned for 20 years because he was a preacher, and would not take a license to preach, he said that he did not need the kings permission to do Gods work. During his prison sentence he wrote Pilgrims progress, and since it has not been out of print once. Historically there have been a lot of Christians (especially baptist) that refused government handouts and government licensing.

Rational thought has been

Rational thought has been banned. Please make no attempt to re-engage. :D

Completely pointless... Think

Completely pointless... Think about how much money was spent to verify whether this thing exists, but without any potential use for society in the near term. We have developed technology for the use of photons and electrons, etc. but we haven't even developed technology for any relevant commercial use for quarks or anything else. And these guys spent like a trillion dollars to "verify" some Higgs Boson. For what? Yeah, it might add to our knowledge but we have no practical use for this knowledge at this time. It is a complete waste of society's capital resources.

Is it any surprise that these guys "found something" that appears to be exactly what they are looking for? could you imagine if all this money was spent and they said "we haven't found a damn thing, we have wasted our time and money." Its amazing how when you expect to find something and design an experiment to find it, then you find it. Not because it is really there but because you are biased in your experimentation.

If it weren't for basic reasearch, you wouldn't be posting that

... or doing any number of countless things you take for granted.

You're smart enough to work a computer, get on the internet, and post here.

So why aren't you smart enough to understand that the technology to do it is based on some kind of basic research that didn't 'pay off' instantly?

I never understood that lol

I'm an engineering student

I'm an engineering student getting a masters - not trying to brag but I understand technology fairly well.

What you don't understand is that the allocation of resources to make new discoveries needs to be done through the market in order to have the most impact. Its fine if private investors want to fund research into the Higgs Boson but why aren't they? Sure, 30 years from now it may be of use but what did society miss out on and how much could it have been improved had we spent those resources according to the market demands? Who knows... we could have made major advancements with those funds and doubled the amount of people with the access to tools to be physicists and engineers.

By doing it too early we may have blown our wad, so to speak. There is time-preference in the market. Investors analyze the amount of resources they have, the time it will take certain investments to return a profit. An investor might ask, "what can we do with the Higgs Boson once we find it?" The physicist might answer, "well, we have no idea, yet". The investor will reply, "So you want me to invest $1 Trillion to find something that may not have a future potential for profit?" Physicist: "Well, yeah!" Investor: "No thanks."

That is exactly what has happened here. In a free-market, the Higgs Boson would be discovered either by accident, when some mega-wealthy investor who is crazy about science does it for the hell of it, or when it becomes practical to do so. If it is done when it becomes practical, it is being done so at the opportune moment, when impact the discovery has on society will be "in balance" with the trade-off in resources to do it and the relative results of allocating those resources somewhere else.