Higgs scientific discovery

[deviousdave]

Been watching the live webcast from CERN, it is now official. ATLAS and CMS experiments have both discovered the particle at 126GeV independently.

So what does this mean ? Well most of all it verifies the standard model. It shows that the science that has been done over a number of years has been correct.

[richief]

To what useful end is this discovery?

[deviousdave]

Originally Posted by richief

To what useful end is this discovery?

Good question.

Well the standard model is currently the best explanation that we have for the universe. It describes subatomic particles, their interactions with one another and the forces between them. This theory has been used to explain a great number of things, but there has always been the issue of the missing Higgs. The finding at CERN completes the model, and verifies the theory.

The Higgs boson is the quantum of the Higgs field, as elementary particles move through this field they are given mass. Some particles move slower through the field and have more mass, and some gain no mass and move at the speed of light.

The discovery is really just more experimental evidence for these theories, a vindication. It points scientists in the right direction for further work.

There is still a lot more that the LHC has yet to do.

[JoeDirty]

Originally Posted by deviousdave

...ATLAS and CMS experiments have both discovered the particle at 126GeV independently.

So what does this mean? Well most of all it verifies the standard model. It shows that the science that has been done over a number of years has been correct.

6kiphipxcm.jpg

[deviousdave]

But it doesn't mean that's it, all things are sorted. Far from it, it doesn't explain all matter, for example Dark Matter. The standard model is believed to be just a small part of a bigger theory. In the same way we think General relativity and quantum mechanics are part of a bigger blanket theory.

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by richief

To what useful end is this discovery?

Basically, it the first step in understanding the relationship between energy and matter.

This science is what is needed to develop new energy sources and a number of other things.

One day this may enable man to covert energy to matter.

[deviousdave]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

Basically, it the first step in understanding the relationship between energy and matter.

This science is what is needed to develop new energy sources and a number of other things.

One day this may enable man to covert energy to matter.

Well no, that's not really true. We understand the relationship between energy and matter quite well already. This discovery is more about validation of the standard model, and evidence for why certain elementary particles have mass and others do not.

It has little to do with developing new energy sources. Although accelerators are capable of creating antimatter, which when combined with regular matter, provides the single most efficient transfer of mass to energy as described by Einstein's equation. However the amount that can be produced in minuscule.


It's an exciting find, and certainly helps streamline the direction of future physics experiments. But we shouldn't claim the discovery to be more than it is.

[x__orion]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

Basically, it the first step in understanding the relationship between energy and matter.

This science is what is needed to develop new energy sources and a number of other things.

One day this may enable man to covert energy to matter.

Originally Posted by deviousdave

Well no, that's not really true. We understand the relationship between energy and matter quite well already. This discovery is more about validation of the standard model, and evidence for why certain elementary particles have mass and others do not.

It has little to do with developing new energy sources. Although accelerators are capable of creating antimatter, which when combined with regular matter, provides the single most efficient transfer of mass to energy as described by Einstein's equation. However the amount that can be produced in minuscule.


It's an exciting find, and certainly helps streamline the direction of future physics experiments. But we shouldn't claim the discovery to be more than it is.

Heh.

[Whitey44]

Originally Posted by richief

To what useful end is this discovery?

Pure science need not be useful. It only needs to shed more light on the truth.

[Pussy Shark]

Oh! So this could be harnessed as a fuel source? I'm hopeful that a feasible alternative to oil will be discovered soon. Like you guys have said at least this may start them down the right track.

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by deviousdave

Well no, that's not really true. We understand the relationship between energy and matter quite well already. This discovery is more about validation of the standard model, and evidence for why certain elementary particles have mass and others do not.

It has little to do with developing new energy sources. Although accelerators are capable of creating antimatter, which when combined with regular matter, provides the single most efficient transfer of mass to energy as described by Einstein's equation. However the amount that can be produced in minuscule.


It's an exciting find, and certainly helps streamline the direction of future physics experiments. But we shouldn't claim the discovery to be more than it is.

Isn't this the type of science we need to develop the clean renewable energy of the future?

[x__orion]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

Isn't this the type of science we need to develop the clean renewable energy of the future?

Nope. We need nuclear fusion, not antimatter.

Interesting aside: scientists in France announced a few years ago that their facility was close to replicating fusion in the lab.

And then their funding was abruptly pulled.

[deviousdave]

Originally Posted by x__orion

Nope. We need nuclear fusion, not antimatter.

Interesting aside: scientists in France announced a few years ago that their facility was close to replicating fusion in the lab.

And then their funding was abruptly pulled.

By the end of the decade I predict we will be harnessing power from Fusion. And by 2035 I think we will have the first fusion power stations. In terms of applied physics, along with maybe quantum computing, it doesn't get much bigger a the moment.

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by x__orion

Nope. We need nuclear fusion, not antimatter.

Interesting aside: scientists in France announced a few years ago that their facility was close to replicating fusion in the lab.

And then their funding was abruptly pulled.

Hmmmm, well yes..... But we have had "nuclear fusion" for decades now......

[Pussy Shark]

What if any are the inherent dangers of fusion? I imagine it's very clean!

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by Pussy Shark

What if any are the inherent dangers of fusion? I imagine it's very clean!

Well not really "clean". H-Bombs are a type of nuclear fusion.

[deviousdave]

Originally Posted by Pussy Shark

What if any are the inherent dangers of fusion? I imagine it's very clean!

No dangers comparable to Fission nuclear power. No meltdown, no long lasting radioactive waste, no carbon emissions.

With a virtually unlimited energy supply.

It will completely change the world. If there is anything worth putting resources into, it is fusion. In fact I would make it top priority if I was in charge.

[Whitey44]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

Basically, it the first step in understanding the relationship between energy and matter.

This science is what is needed to develop new energy sources and a number of other things.

One day this may enable man to covert energy to matter.

Einstein proposed the equivalence of energy and matter 100 years ago. That was the first step in understanding the relationship between matter and energy.

The existence of a Higgs particle was predicted in the 1960s. Physicists have had a hard time finding experimantal evidence of this particle for a long time. They may finally have it.

[Pussy Shark]

It will completely change the world. If there is anything worth putting resources into, it is fusion. In fact I would make it top priority if I was in charge.

Yeah no kidding!!! Damned oil companies are going to line the pockets of those with the clout to get it done and milk the people for as long as they possibly can. Fuckers.

[deviousdave]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

Isn't this the type of science we need to develop the clean renewable energy of the future?

Not really. For a start it takes significantly more energy to produce to the antimatter than what is provided by the antimatter when annihilated with regular matter. Secondly, it is not renewable as all the fuel is converted into energy.

But good science is always useful, who knows what engineering achievements at the LHC will lead to advances in technology and industry, and that is even excluding the scientific discoveries.

[x__orion]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

Hmmmm, well yes..... But we have had "nuclear fusion" for decades now......

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

Well not really "clean". H-Bombs are a type of nuclear fusion.

Are you really that dim? We have nuclear fission, not fusion.

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by x__orion

Are you really that dim? We have nuclear fission, not fusion.

OMG!!!! Are you really that pathetic and stupid????

Unlike the fission (atomic) bomb, the fusion (hydrogen) bomb derives its power from the fusing of nuclei of various hydrogen isotopes into helium nuclei.

OK dork?

[Heyesey]

Originally Posted by Pussy Shark

Yeah no kidding!!! Damned oil companies are going to line the pockets of those with the clout to get it done and milk the people for as long as they possibly can. Fuckers.

If they were greedy enough ot want to retain a monopoly on power, they'd be paying people to perfect controlled nuclear fusion; not paying people to bury it.

That way, when it finally is perfected, the oil companies would own the patents and stay rich.

[PatronofPorn]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

OMG!!!! Are you really that pathetic and stupid????

Unlike the fission (atomic) bomb, the fusion (hydrogen) bomb derives its power from the fusing of nuclei of various hydrogen isotopes into helium nuclei.

OK dork?

Fusion weapons
The other basic type of nuclear weapon produces a large amount of its energy through nuclear fusion reactions. Such fusion weapons are generally referred to as thermonuclear weapons or more colloquially as hydrogen bombs (abbreviated as H-bombs), as they rely on fusion reactions between isotopes of hydrogen (deuterium and tritium). However, all such weapons derive a significant portion, and sometimes a majority, of their energy from fission. This is because a fission weapon is required as a "trigger" for the fusion reactions, and the fusion reactions can themselves trigger additional fission reactions.[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_bomb

If a thermonuclear bomb can't utilize fusion on it's own to create it's explosion, then it can't be considered a truly fusion weapon.

[deviousdave]

Originally Posted by Heyesey

If they were greedy enough ot want to retain a monopoly on power, they'd be paying people to perfect controlled nuclear fusion; not paying people to bury it.

That way, when it finally is perfected, the oil companies would own the patents and stay rich.

Precisely, I have been saying that for years !! Oil is not a future proof industry

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by PatronofPorn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_bomb

If a thermonuclear bomb can't utilize fusion on it's own to create it's explosion, then it can't be considered a truly fusion weapon.

LOL, that's not true...... Oh and your link proves I am right. Thanks!

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by deviousdave

Precisely, I have been saying that for years !! Oil is not a future proof industry

Oil will run out one day. Our entire existence depends on energy. A future overpopulated Earth will need a new energy source sooner than later.

[deviousdave]

Most power comes from nuclear fusion anyway. Except fission power plants, tidal power plants, and a couple of other examples.

Oil, coal, natural gases, solar power, wind power are all driven from the great big fusion reactor in the sky.

:D

[deviousdave]

Originally Posted by richief

To what useful end is this discovery?

This article by renowned theoretical physicist and author of some of my favourite books explains it well.

http://www.slate.com/articles/techno...mportant_.html

[origen01]

I heard that we are NOT sure if this actually the Higgs-Boson...


I'm sorry, but I shrug at this discovery. Sure it's important but I'm not so sure it's so fundamental as people think it is...

[origen01]

BTW, dave, what's going on with String Theory ATM?

[x__orion]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

OMG!!!! Are you really that pathetic and stupid????

Unlike the fission (atomic) bomb, the fusion (hydrogen) bomb derives its power from the fusing of nuclei of various hydrogen isotopes into helium nuclei.

OK dork?

From the wiki posted:

"However, all such [fusion] weapons derive a significant portion, and sometimes a majority, of their energy from fission. This is because a fission weapon is required as a "trigger" for the fusion reactions, and the fusion reactions can themselves trigger additional fission reactions."

We do not have a stable, reproducible form of fusion. End of.

[deviousdave]

Originally Posted by origen01

I heard that we are NOT sure if this actually the Higgs-Boson...


I'm sorry, but I shrug at this discovery. Sure it's important but I'm not so sure it's so fundamental as people think it is...

It's a Boson that fits the bill, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is the Higgs as described by the standard model, there is still more data that needs analysing to find that stuff out. It is a significant finding though. It's fundamental in a sense that it puts our physics on a sound footing. If no Higgs like particle was discovered, then a lot of physics would be on shaky foundations.

Originally Posted by origen01

BTW, dave, what's going on with String Theory ATM?

The problem with String Theory is that currently no one can find an experiment that validates or disproves the theory. String theory can be used to explain any phenomena by tweaking it any which way the theorists like. It is still the best solution that we have, but that is not to say it is correct.

What I don't like about it, it is given the title 'theory'. In science 'Theory' is reserved for only the most proven aspects of science. Whereas 'String theory' uses the term more like a layman would.

[deviousdave]

pwned
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18708626

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by x__orion

From the wiki posted:

"However, all such [fusion] weapons derive a significant portion, and sometimes a majority, of their energy from fission. This is because a fission weapon is required as a "trigger" for the fusion reactions, and the fusion reactions can themselves trigger additional fission reactions."

We do not have a stable, reproducible form of fusion. End of.

End of what? Hopefully the end of your stupid posts.

However the research goes on despite your negative view.


Building upon the nuclear transmutation experiments by Ernest Rutherford, carried out several years earlier, the laboratory fusion of heavy hydrogen isotopes was first accomplished by Mark Oliphant in 1932. During the remainder of that decade the steps of the main cycle of nuclear fusion in stars were worked out by Hans Bethe. Research into fusion for military purposes began in the early 1940s as part of the Manhattan Project, but this was not accomplished until 1951 (see the Greenhouse Item nuclear test), and nuclear fusion on a large scale in an explosion was first carried out on November 1, 1952, in the Ivy Mike hydrogen bomb test.
Research into developing controlled thermonuclear fusion for civil purposes also began in earnest in the 1950s, and it continues to this day. Two projects, the National Ignition Facility and ITER are in the process of reaching breakeven after 60 years of design improvements developed from previous experiments[citation needed].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

[signatory12]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

End of what? Hopefully the end of your stupid posts.

However the research goes on despite your negative view.


Building upon the nuclear transmutation experiments by Ernest Rutherford, carried out several years earlier, the laboratory fusion of heavy hydrogen isotopes was first accomplished by Mark Oliphant in 1932. During the remainder of that decade the steps of the main cycle of nuclear fusion in stars were worked out by Hans Bethe. Research into fusion for military purposes began in the early 1940s as part of the Manhattan Project, but this was not accomplished until 1951 (see the Greenhouse Item nuclear test), and nuclear fusion on a large scale in an explosion was first carried out on November 1, 1952, in the Ivy Mike hydrogen bomb test.
Research into developing controlled thermonuclear fusion for civil purposes also began in earnest in the 1950s, and it continues to this day. Two projects, the National Ignition Facility and ITER are in the process of reaching breakeven after 60 years of design improvements developed from previous experiments[citation needed].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

problem:
"break even" just means that the experiments are producing as much power as it took to initiate the fusion reaction. which for your dim mind means that none of these experiments is anywhere near the stage where it can produce power for commerical (i.e. for your) use yet.

[signatory12]

btw, Dave, thanks for the posting. then again, posting it here comes close to 'pearls before swine', doesn't it?

[deviousdave]

Originally Posted by signatory12

btw, Dave, thanks for the posting. then again, posting it here comes close to 'pearls before swine', doesn't it?

I'm quite confident the average intelligence of people on this forum is above that of the average population, even if there are a few people that negatively skew the results. I know there will be people on here already interested in the discovery and would be fully aware of it, hopefully there are some others too.

[x__orion]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

End of what? Hopefully the end of your stupid posts.

However the research goes on despite your negative view.


Building upon the nuclear transmutation experiments by Ernest Rutherford, carried out several years earlier, the laboratory fusion of heavy hydrogen isotopes was first accomplished by Mark Oliphant in 1932. During the remainder of that decade the steps of the main cycle of nuclear fusion in stars were worked out by Hans Bethe. Research into fusion for military purposes began in the early 1940s as part of the Manhattan Project, but this was not accomplished until 1951 (see the Greenhouse Item nuclear test), and nuclear fusion on a large scale in an explosion was first carried out on November 1, 1952, in the Ivy Mike hydrogen bomb test.
Research into developing controlled thermonuclear fusion for civil purposes also began in earnest in the 1950s, and it continues to this day. Two projects, the National Ignition Facility and ITER are in the process of reaching breakeven after 60 years of design improvements developed from previous experiments[citation needed].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

Correct. Research into stable fusion is 'in the process'. As of yet, fusion is power does not exist in a stable state. It is only utilisable in things that go bang, and things that go bang don't tend to be stable.

Also: 'citation needed'? Schoolboy error.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by deviousdave

I'm quite confident the average intelligence of people on this forum is above that of the average population, even if there are a few people that negatively skew the results. I know there will be people on here already interested in the discovery and would be fully aware of it, hopefully there are some others too.

Actually your quite right about that and somewhere around there we also have threads on CERN, Dark Matter, and Einstein just to name a few threads dealing with this subject matter.

And if I understand this correctly (and there's no guarantee of that) the Higs particle is nothing less than the very foundation of the universe.

[Heyesey]

Originally Posted by x__orion

We do not have a stable, reproducible form of fusion.

Which is what CS said in the first place, but some dumbfuck decided to argue with him and claim we don't have fusion at all. They were wrong then, and still are wrong. We've had fusion since 1951; we've had stable, controllable fusion for at least twenty years now.

What we don't have, is self-sustaining fusion. We still have to put more energy in than we get out.

[deviousdave]

Originally Posted by stumbler

And if I understand this correctly (and there's no guarantee of that) the Higs particle is nothing less than the very foundation of the universe.

It is possible to describe it under those terms. It's fundamental to determining how a particle gets its mass. Without the Higgs field the universe would be indescribably different. However, it is possible to make that claim for other elementary particles too.

I will say this though, Dark Matter makes up 84% of the mass in the universe. All the stars, galaxies, black holes, everything we see. Those particles, the particles encompassed by the Standard Model, only make up 16% of all the matter in the universe. So to call the Higgs the foundation of the universe, may be missing out on the big picture.

Further still, all the regular matter and Dark matter combined only constitutes about a quarter of the energy of the universe. The rest is the energy of empty space, known as Dark Energy, and that makes up 3/4 of the universe, and we have no idea what it is.

[smcaaphd]

[AZRIEL]

tic toc.jpg

[signatory12]

Originally Posted by deviousdave

I'm quite confident the average intelligence of people on this forum is above that of the average population, even if there are a few people that negatively skew the results. I know there will be people on here already interested in the discovery and would be fully aware of it, hopefully there are some others too.

yeah, I'd like to beleive that too.....then I read something like CS's post, and that whole fantasy goes "PPHHHTTT!!!" right out the door.

[Heyesey]

Originally Posted by signatory12

yeah, I'd like to beleive that too.....then I read something like CS's post, and that whole fantasy goes "PPHHHTTT!!!" right out the door.

You've only got to ignore five or six major trolls, and the average intelligence on here would go up from minus-something to well over 120.

[Empress Lainie]

It has been sitting right under the nose so to speak forever. Using reversible non-organic chemical reactions that produce heat to produce steam for either heat or driving a turbine to drive a vehicle. Nobody even wants to look at it.

[JoeDirty]

You may not be aware of the fact that the boring geeks forum is located on the web thataway. ----------------------------------->

You are presently at a fucking porn forum.

[deviousdave]

Originally Posted by JoeDirty

You may not be aware of the fact that the boring geeks forum is located on the web thataway. ----------------------------------->

You are presently at a fucking porn forum.

No. I think you will find this is a general discussion forum. If you want porn you are looking in the wrong place.

[deviousdave]

Originally Posted by Empress Lainie

It has been sitting right under the nose so to speak forever. Using reversible non-organic chemical reactions that produce heat to produce steam for either heat or driving a turbine to drive a vehicle. Nobody even wants to look at it.

Chemical reactions do not produce much heat(apart from igniting fuels). Secondly energy is require to produce the chemicals, and if you want to reverse the reaction to reuse the chemicals, at least the same amount of energy of what's obtained needs to be put back in. You cannot built a perpetual motion machine.