Particles - higgs boson

[Tsyal Maktoyu]

Sometimes I wonder if our universe is just an example of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics to the extreme. Just as virtual particles can pop-into and out of existence thanks to uncertainty, I wonder if our universe is just one giant virtual mass of particles that spawned into existence thanks to the uncertainty of some higher dimensional space, and we are just one of an infinite number of virtual universes that came before us, and will follow us. Maybe that is why time can only run forward, because just like virtual particles, we are destined to become like the nothing from which we came. Maybe that's why time doesn't exist at the Planck length, because that's where our universe and the higher space that we came from meld.

Think about that. Maybe it's not that time doesn't exist, it's just that it is noncoherent...uncertain, and that uncertainty is why we are here.

For example, if we could somehow measure time (whatever that word even means anymore...) from the point of view of a virtual particle, time probably feels like much longer than we view them as.

[Seze Mune]

Just for the sake of a good head scratching, I will post a few excerpts out of a book I'm reading:

"Science likes to think that it deals with predictable action.  It perceives such a small amount of data, however, and in such a limited area, that the great inner UNpredictability of any molecule, atom, or wave is not apparent.  Scientists perceive only what appears within [their] system, and THAT often appears predictable.

True order and organization, even of biological structure, can be achieved only by granting a basic unpredictability....Basically, however, the motion of any wave or particle...is unpredictable - freewheeling and undetermined.  Your life structure is a result of that unpredictability.  Your psychological structure is also.  However, because you are presented with a fairly cohesive picture, in which certain laws seem to apply, you think that the laws come first and physical reality follows. [<=Newtonian physics]  Instead, the cohesive picture is the result of the unpredictable nature that is and must be basic to all energy. [<=quantum physics]

Statistics provide an artificial, predetermined framework in which your reality is then examined.  Mathematics is a theoretical organized structure that of itself imposes your ideas of order and predictability.  Statistically, the position of an atom can be theorized, but no one knows where any given atom is at any given time.

You are examining probable atoms.  You are composed of probable atoms.   ........Atoms can move in more directions than one at once.  You only perceive scientifically the probable motion you are interested in.  The same applies to subjective experience.

......Only out of unpredictability can an infinite number of orders, or ordered systems, arise.

Anything less than complete unpredictability will ultimately result in stagnation, or orders of existence that in the long run are self-defeating.  Only from unpredictability can any system emerge that can be predictable within itself.  Only within complete freedom of motion is any "ordered" motion truly possible."

I don't have the science or math background to prove or disprove the above.  And sometimes modern science is a form of indoctrination, meaning that if you are invested in seeing things in a particular way, it's hard to think out of that box.  In the context of the seeming absolutism of Newtonian physics, it's amazing to me that quantum theory ever developed.

Trying to apply quantum unpredictability to human life is interesting.  I wonder what actualizes any probable event in a life - is it a matter of the person's subconscious focus collapsing an event which is then perceived to be 'real'?  What happens to the other probable events which don't seem to be experienced? Do they continue to exist in some other probable universe?

I don't have any answers. It's just fun to play with the Play Doh.

[Human No More]

So far, no such unpredictability has been apparent on a lower level - the very fact that observation is possible would seem to contradict that. Unpredictability is a function of a construct of layers, as can be seen from weaknesses in RNGs, or human guessing patterns (which are much weaker than a well written RNG).

[Seze Mune]

This is just a little background information for people like myself who are particle physics-challenged:

Higgs-Bosons Particles for Dummies.

[Seze Mune]

New information, not necroposting:

Seems the LHC could be a victim of its own success.  By that I mean that it is producing so much data at the moment that there is a chance the Higgs Boson data - if any - could get lost in the maelstrom.  It is a pile-up of data which scientists are trying to manage with 'huge amounts of computing power, cunning software and technical tricks.'

"Since it began its latest science run last month, the LHC has been squeezing trillions of protons into ever-smaller bunches, and smashing those bunches together tens of millions of times per second. The resultant data are measured in inverse femtobarns (fb^?1), a unit roughly equivalent to 100 trillion collisions. In the past month alone, the LHC recorded 1?fb?1 worth of collisions. By the end of the year it aims have captured at least 15?fb^?1 (see `Smashing!').

"To gather these data, researchers are pushing the collider in two ways: by accelerating the particles to ever-greater energies and by increasing the number of collisions. Higher energies allow heavier particles to pop into being, but it is the number of collisions that will determine whether physicists have enough data to declare a discovery. In the weeks ahead, scientists will pack more protons inside the machine and focus the particles as tightly as possible onto the collision points at the centre of the LHC's two biggest detectors. Already, "we've done humongous better than we thought we could", says Mike Lamont, the head of accelerator operations at CERN.

"Every time two tightly packed bunches of protons cross, they generate not one collision, but on average 27, Lamont says. But within a few weeks, that number is expected to rise into the mid-30s, peaking at around 40 collisions per crossing. The two main detectors at the LHC were designed to handle only around two dozen collisions at once. But they have managed to cope so far."

Some of the ways researchers are tweaking the machines to disaggregate and sort the data may actually end up bypassing the Higgs-Boson signatures instead.

Knew y'all would like to know!   

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

They were able to increase beam energy about 15 percent over last year, and their bunch count now is where they were midsummer last year. If I am reading this right, I think they need to slow down a bit, and work on fewer, higher energy collisions than many, moderate energy collisions. But you all know how much physicists like to play with big, complex, powerful, expensive toys 

[Seze Mune]

From Wired Science:

Physics Community Afire With Rumors of Higgs Boson Discovery

   

By Adam Mann
    June 20, 2012 |
    6:30 am |

[/b]

One of the biggest debuts in the science world could happen in a matter of weeks: The Higgs boson may finally, really have been discovered.

Ever since tantalizing hints of the Higgs turned up in December at the Large Hadron Collider, scientists there have been busily analyzing the results of their energetic particle collisions to further refine their search.

"The bottom line though is now clear: There's something there which looks like a Higgs is supposed to look," wrote mathematician Peter Woit on his blog, Not Even Wrong. According to Woit, there are rumors of new data that would be the most compelling evidence yet for the long-sought Higgs.

The possible news has a number of physics bloggers speculating that LHC scientists will announce the discovery of the Higgs during the International Conference on High Energy Physics, which takes place in Melbourne, Australia, July 4 to 11.

The new buzz is just the latest in the Higgs search drama. In December, rumors circulated regarding hints of the Higgs around 125 gigaelectronvolts (GeV), roughly 125 times the mass of a proton. While those rumors eventually turned out to be true, the hard data only amounted to what scientists call a 3-sigma signal, meaning that there is a 0.13 percent probability that the events happened by chance. This is the level at which particle physicists will only say they have "evidence" for a particle.

In the rigorous world of high-energy physics, researchers wait to see a 5-sigma signal, which has only a 0.000028 percent probability of happening by chance, before claiming a "discovery."

The latest Higgs rumors suggest nearly-there 4-sigma signals are turning up at both of the two separate LHC experiments that are hunting for the particle. As physicist Philip Gibbs points out on his blog, Vixra log, if each experiment is seeing a 4-sigma signal, then this is almost definitely the long-sought particle. Combining the two 4-sigma results should be enough to clear that 5-sigma hurdle.

Of course, Gibbs reminds us that the rumors come with some caveats, such as the fact that they are vague and not completely reliable. Scientists outside the experiment also don't yet know how much data has been analyzed from this year, meaning that the rumored results could disappear with further scrutiny.

The Higgs boson is the final piece of the Standard Model — a framework developed in the late 20th century that describes the interactions of all known subatomic particles and forces. The Standard Model contains many other particles — such as quarks and W bosons — each of which has been found in the last four decades using enormous particle colliders, but the Higgs remains to be found. The Higgs boson is critical to the Standard Model, because interacting with the Higgs is what gives all the other particles their mass. Not finding it would severely undermine our current understanding of the universe.

While discovery of the Higgs would be a remarkable achievement, many researchers are also eager to hear the details from the experiments, which may indicate that the Higgs boson has slightly different properties than those theoretically predicted. Any deviations from theory could suggest the existence of heretofore-unknown physics beyond the Standard Model, including models such as supersymmetry, which posits a heavier partner to all known particles.

Image: A disk full of silicon sensors that sits as an endcap on ATLAS, one of the LHC experiments searching for the Higgs boson. Peter Ginter/ATLAS collaboration/CERN

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

They are having challenges with the Higgs particle, as it has an exceptionally short half-life. But it is heartening to see that it is being detected by two different experiments, pretty much in the middle of the predicted range of energies.

[Tsanten Eywa 'eveng]

Tomorrow is CERN going to announce the evidence of the Higgs boson

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/god-particle-found-cern-to-announce-evidence-of-the-higgs-boson-on-july-4/

This July 4th, there's more than just the Independence of the United States that some of us in the U.S. will be celebrating. Scientists from The Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), working on the Large Hadron Collider in Europe, are prepared to announce on July 4th the discovery of the elusive Higgs Boson, also known as the God Particle, with 99.99 percent certainty.

Read more: http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/god-particle-found-cern-to-announce-evidence-of-the-higgs-boson-on-july-4/#ixzz1zYryfalt

[Tsa'räni]

Watching the conference.  It's important to remember this is early statistical data.  CMS isn't over 5-sigma yet, and I'm sure ATLAS isn't either (they're still going as I type this).  A lot more analysis will need to be done before a definite answer can be given.

In short, at least as far as CMS is concerned, they're at 4.9-sigma for a new boson that is in the expected range for the Higgs (specifically 125 +/- 0.6 GeV).

In truth, assuming it actually is a new particle (meaning not background fluctuation), having it NOT be the Higgs would be far more exciting.

Edit - Something to note is they observed a fair amount of excess in certain channels.  For instance, the gamma gamma decay appears to be about 2x what is predicted by the Standard Model.  This is one place where more analytical work and experimental data gathering will help a lot.  It's too early to tell if it's a statistical fluctuation or not.

But, this mass would be a relatively light Higgs (if that's what it is), so something would be required to explain this.  Supersymmetry is one way to do it, and it requires a small number of light Higgs bosons, if memory serves.  No matter what, the deviation from the Standard Model predictions are tantalizing, but they just don't know yet if they're true deviations or just statistical anomalies.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

They have been narrowing the mass of the Higgs down into this range for a long time. I strongly suspect that they really are seeing it. (Or seeing something totally new, but definitely measureable!)

This is an exciting day for particle physics!

[Tsyal Maktoyu]

Fantastic. Yet our trip down the rabbit hole has only just begun...

[Personal Theory]Not sure what is out there on the cutting edge, but I feel a renewed interest in the graviton will be coming soon. We [likely] have a Higgs, that's great, but we still need to find a way to describe the interactions of the Higgs field, that lead to the curvature in spacetime, that lead to gravity, while both satisfying the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. I have a feeling mass and gravity have a similar relationship to that of Electromagnetism and the Weak Force, that they were both once a single force before undergoing symmetry breaking leading to separate mass and gravitation. If I can find a way to possibly pair my idea of spin as a force with the strong force, then an elegant model forms: bosonic pair production. Six fundamental forces, "decaying" in pairs of two (mass/gravity, electro/weak, spin/strong) from the one fundamental force that existed at the moment directly after the Big Bang.[/Personal Theory]

*Though recent happenings involving the idea of spin-charge-seperation are leading me to toy with the idea that there may be no such things as fundamental fermions, and what we may be seeing as fermions is just fundamental fields interacting with the fabric of spacetime (the quantum loops).

[Human No More]

Very interesting indeed

I hope this is only the first great discovery for the LHC too... still got LHCb and ALICE even before future experiments.

[Meuiama Tsamsiyu (Toruk Makto)]

http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2012/07/university_of_oregon_physicist.html

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Fantastic. Yet our trip down the rabbit hole has only just begun...

(Personal Theory)Not sure what is out there on the cutting edge, but I feel a renewed interest in the graviton will be coming soon. We [likely] have a Higgs, that's great, but we still need to find a way to describe the interactions of the Higgs field, that lead to the curvature in spacetime, that lead to gravity, while both satisfying the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. I have a feeling mass and gravity have a similar relationship to that of Electromagnetism and the Weak Force, that they were both once a single force before undergoing symmetry breaking leading to separate mass and gravitation. If I can find a way to possibly pair my idea of spin as a force with the strong force, then an elegant model forms: bosonic pair production. Six fundamental forces, "decaying" in pairs of two (mass/gravity, electro/weak, spin/strong) from the one fundamental force that existed at the moment directly after the Big Bang.(/Personal Theory)

I really like your thinking on this. You may be on to something! I especially like your idea of pairing the Higgs field with Gravity, and considering the Higgs field to be a new force. There might be some interesting relationship between the weak force and Higgs, as the Higgs boson has always been associated in some ways with the weak force.

*Though recent happenings involving the idea of spin-charge-seperation are leading me to toy with the idea that there may be no such things as fundamental fermions, and what we may be seeing as fermions is just fundamental fields interacting with the fabric of spacetime (the quantum loops).

You are essentially describing string theory with different terminology.

[Tsyal Maktoyu]

Weak has always seemed like a...frankenforce to me. It seemed like a weird amalgamation of, well, I don't know. It interacted with all fermions directly, in some way or another, it is massive, and it itself carried characteristics from other bosons (charge, and I wonder if color aswell [quarks exchange color constantly, but I wonder if the color exchange process changes during beta decay?]).

If the Higgs itself happens to be massive, it would be the second massive boson, and thus exert itself at sub-C speeds. With that said, could an effect similar to CP violation be a possibility? They say it is spin 0, but the helicity of particles it interacts with might play a role. Maybe it could be the cause of neutrino oscillations? I think its worth a look into.

I wouldn't necessarily say its string theory. String theories mostly involve branes which are either extra dimensions, or separate from our space time in some way. I theorize that loops of space time might be the particles themselves, which bosons "latch" onto to create characteristic particles. Thus space becomes the particles themselves. A canvas so to speak, with bosons being the paint, and our universe the portrait. It's a hybrid of string and LQG, with our 4 dimensions being the "brane."

[Seze Mune]

Now that is a very interesting theory! Hmmm...

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

I agree with Seze Mune that this is definitely an interesting theory.

The multidimensionality of string theory is a very interesting twist to conventional thinking. But I think the bottom line here is that 'empty space' is far from 'empty space'-- it is just non-baryonic. It may be that there is more than one thing filling 'empty space', such as gravity and the Higgs field. It is easy to believe there is more there than just those two things. But is very hard to 'measure' because it is 'transparent' to virtually everything but particles. It may even be that there is truly no 'unification', but that simply that two or more things (gravity, and everything else, for instance), just happen to interact in a functional, but perhaps very hard to accurately characterize, way.

[Seze Mune]

I wish I knew more about the brane(s) theories, but I do wonder whether some of the effects might be precipitated by intersection with fields which might be the main operational matrix in one of the adjacent multiverses, but only tangentially involved in ours.

It's a screwball idea, but hey.....

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

There certainly have been more bizarre ideas postulated. Apparently, there is an idea that is popular where the universe as we know it is some sort of 3D projection from a kind of holographic 2D plane. That is kind of a challenge to wrap your head around.

One theory I do strongly question though, is the whole idea of multiverses. Especially multiverses that intersect, kind of like what you are suggesting. I think there are enough oddities in our own universe to explain without postualting that there could be other universes.