Higgs boson particle possibly discovered

[Pali]

It seems that a recent experiment at CERN may have discovered the particle that grants every other particle mass. While it has not been confirmed to be the Higgs boson, observations of it thus far fit the bill.

Finding this was one of the purposes behind the construction of the Large Hadron Collider, so I imagine a lot of people involved in it's creation are feeling pretty damn vindicated right now. Me, I'm just hoping it doesn't turn out to be another loose wire like the FTL neutrino readings.

[Deykari]

Last I heard from couple of the CERN guys over twitter they were positive to 5 sigma (99.9999% sure) that it was the Higgs, the generally accepted level for scientific 'discovery'. I've been ill the past couple of days so I haven't really looked at much more about what's going on but it's good for Higgs & co themselves this has happened in their lifetime, given the hard time they got initially with their hypothesis.

Dey

[Pali]

Pretty much every news article on the subject I've seen has a bunch of partying scientists in it. Agreed on it being awesome that it happened within Higgs's lifetime.

[f0xx]

So, did they confirm the supersymmetry, or they gonna keep changing their theories as it fits them?

[Imoutgoodbye]

[Deykari]

So' date=' did they confirm the supersymmetry, or they gonna keep changing their theories as it fits them?[/quote']

Isn't the beauty of science the fact that our theories are subject to change based upon our experimentation and obersvation? That we attempt to prove our hypotheses and if we cannot we modify and refine them? Supersyemmetry has never been viewed as a 'scientific theory' by definition, but rather a theory that is not supported by any direct evidence, and as such is subject to change as scientists continue to do what they do best - unravel the mysteries of the universe.

Dey

[The-Nameless]

It absolutely scares me the possibilities that are unlocked if this is in fact the HB particle. The things that science, and by extension the military, can/will do is literally fear inducing.

Sadly we humans are the kind of race that WOULD travel to other planets, and strip them of all natural resources.

[f0xx]

Isn't the beauty of science the fact that our theories are subject to change based upon our experimentation and obersvation? That we attempt to prove our hypotheses and if we cannot we modify and refine them? Supersyemmetry has never been viewed as a 'scientific theory' by definition, but rather a theory that is not supported by any direct evidence, and as such is subject to change as scientists continue to do what they do best - unravel the mysteries of the universe.

Dey

The problem is that neither the LHC nor its American counterpart, the Tevatron, have seen any strong evidence in support of supersymmetry. Quite the contrary though, especially now after the discovery of the HB.

Experiments have already excluded the simplest supersymmetric theories. Physicists can keep tweaking their theories but after a while these "fine-tunings" begin to seem arbitrary, and it's well known that most of the particle scientists are in love with the Supersymmetry theory.

[The-Nameless]

Most scientists used to believe the earth was square, and mermaids lured sailors to their death.

Science is more of a "what we know now" and less of a "This is actually how it is"

[f0xx]

Most scientists used to believe the earth was square, and mermaids lured sailors to their death.

Science is more of a "what we know now" and less of a "This is actually how it is"

Was that aimed at my post? If yes, what's your point? I don't get it...

[The-Nameless]

Physicists can keep tweaking their theories but after a while these "fine-tunings" begin to seem arbitrary.

It was aimed at this portion. Scientific theories are based solely on existing information. Once that information changes (either through exclusion, or further discovery) then the theory itself changes, or becomes moot. Hence my example. Before the world had been fully circumnavigated, we thought the earth was flat, and that was widely accepted as the truth. Once we navigated the world, the existing information changed, and by extension the theory of the shape of the world had to change to fit the information that was then available.

[f0xx]

It was aimed at this portion. Scientific theories are based solely on existing information. Once that information changes (either through exclusion' date=' or further discovery) then the theory itself changes, or becomes moot.[/quote']

That is my point as well. There are many quantum theories and all of them exclude each other, including einstein's theory of relativity.

The standard model, the supersymmetry theory, the strings (or threads) theory (I don't know if I am translating everything accurately). Different scientists "like" different theories.

If you discover something that disagrees with your theory, but approves another, then the most logical thing is to leave the first and go with the second, and not change the first just so you can justify the latest discovery. And when such changes happen very often through the past few years, things become suspicious.

My point is that science (quantum physics in particular) is starting to become more like a huge essay of biasdome.

I agree that the level of complexity is very high, but I believe that a true scientist should be unbiased, not a fanboy.

[The-Nameless]

You ready to have the entire structure of the universe, including the time/space continuum completely rupture/fold/explode/implode?

I agree with you f0xx

[f0xx]

Signature worthy, isn't it?

[Deykari]

The problem is that neither the LHC nor its American counterpart, the Tevatron, have seen any strong evidence in support of supersymmetry. Quite the contrary though, especially now after the discovery of the HB.

Experiments have already excluded the simplest supersymmetric theories. Physicists can keep tweaking their theories but after a while these "fine-tunings" begin to seem arbitrary, and it's well known that most of the particle scientists are in love with the Supersymmetry theory.

You're absolutely right, but there are differing theories of supersymmetry. The fact that current experimentation hasn't produced any positive results doesn't suggest that future experimentation can't - that is how science works as scientific method is refined. I also agree with your later post about how science should be unbiased and not subjected to 'fanboyism' but who is to say supersymettry is subject to fanboyism? Whilst at this stage it has no direct evidence to back it up, the theory behind it holds merit and explains some holes in the standard model and scientists clutching at their beliefs even in the face of what 'modern science' is telling them is exactly what happened when the idea of the 'god particle' was first posited. I believe it was Werner Heisenberg who told Higgs & Co that they didn't even understand the rules of physics.

Anway, I know you're damn stubborn f0xx so I'm gonna just agree to disagree on the areas we disagree...

Dey

EDIT: Though I have to add, your post is almost a direct copy and paste of: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/07/supersymmetry-explained/

The problem is that neither the LHC nor its recently decommissioned American counterpart, the Tevatron, have seen any strong evidence for new, heavy particles during their experiments. Though they keep searching at higher energy ranges, the particle accelerators don’t turn up any new superpartners.

Already, experiments have excluded the simplest supersymmetric theories. Physicists can keep tweaking their theories but after a while these fine-tunings begin to seem arbitrary.

EDIT 2: Linked the wrong lecture there, that's heavily maths-based and little conceptual discussion, bear with me whilst I dig it out...

Dey

[f0xx]

Ah yes, I loved that quote

Been reading many sources on the matter lately...

Not arguing on anything, just trying to understand things, and biased scientist are not helping me at all. Sometimes I feel they are more eager to prove their "own" truth, than to seek the truth itself.

[Pali]

Before the world had been fully circumnavigated' date=' we thought the earth was flat, and that was widely accepted as the truth.[/quote']

This is not true.

Not only that, but I find it disappointing when people talk about what "scientists" thought before modern science (with the emphasis on experimentation and observation) actually existed. You are not talking about scientists thinking the Earth was flat - you are talking about philosophers and naturalists thinking the Earth was flat, and most of them knew better throughout the Middle Ages.

Foxx, the "theories" you're talking about that various scientists like or dislike are not yet scientific theories - they are mathematical models based on current physics, but aren't yet testable, which means they cannot be considered scientific theories. As they are not testable yet in a practical way, we lack actual scientific evidence to support or discredit them - which is why there is no consensus. But this is the way science is supposed to work - we come up with ideas, we test them, we revise them based on results of testing, repeat.

[Imoutgoodbye]

Perpetuation of lies in history books. Horrible, horrible, horrible.

Aristotle was the first (as chronologically recorded) to have mathematically proved the earth was round.

[Pali]

And Eratosthenes calculated the circumference around 240BCE to within 2% of its actual value.

[The-Nameless]

which is only 500 or so miles lol.

[Pali]

Considering that he did it by measuring shadow lengths, I still find it a pretty impressive accomplishment.

[Imoutgoodbye]

Considering that he did it by measuring shadow lengths' date=' I still find it a pretty impressive accomplishment.[/quote']

To be quite honest, given the time at which this occurred, it would seem reasonable to suggest that the excuse for the past of "they didn't know any better" or "that's the way it was" are just excuses for today's general populace to easily sweep all other theories under the rug, easy explanations that lay no blame, and keep people from looking to closely at their history texts, which are severely flawed.

This is both a truth for the phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and a paradigm for continued theoretical use as to why history texts are not so easily changed. It's easier to create a continued existence of ignorance if people don't know what past they are repeating.

Although, I do not doubt that either of the aforementioned thinkers were well ahead of most people in their times and consider both to be incredibly educated and articulate men who created astounding hypotheses.

[Pali]

*shrugs* I don't see any need to excuse such a minor error that resulted simply from a lack of information/technology - his methodology was sound and provided results accurate enough to be used practically. I do think we tend to look at the ideas and knowledge of the past in a way designed primarily to make us feel superior, which is certainly a mistake, as our only superiority is that we've got a larger knowledge base to work off of because of people in the past working hard to give us that knowledge.

On a side note, I've always hated the phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - because while it is indeed technically true, the fact remains that an absence of evidence is the closest you can get to evidence of absence. Things that don't exist don't leave any evidence of their nonexistence.

[Imoutgoodbye]

On a side note, I've always hated the phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - because while it is indeed technically true, the fact remains that an absence of evidence is the closest you can get to evidence of absence. Things that don't exist don't leave any evidence of their nonexistence.

I know it's an often misused phrase, but it's a good one to get to know and understand because there are plenty of people who enjoy using it. It's good to know when to use it and good to know how to defend against it, as you yourself have pointed out.

A good example I like to use is the disappearance of the Roanoke Colony. Only one clue at the actual site. There may have been more evidence on a map under a map (some documentary I saw, never knew if this was confirmed) that pointed to another settlement (not known if another European colony or an Indian settlement). But, back to the main idea, it wasn't much of a clue to go from. Gathering from journals, diaries, and letters, we can see that some settlers actually preferred to live with the Indians than inside the settlements. While there is no 100% accurate evidence of where they went or what happened, there is a conclusion that appears more likely based on the clues or absence of evidence.

It's not fool proof fact and it's not documented as that, but it's a viable theory where we won't ever have the actual fact.

[Pali]

Yes, but at least in that case you're still basing an idea off of evidence - limited, circumstantial and inconclusive though it may be. I most often see it used by people to defend ideas with NO evidence to support them, without any recognition that it doesn't actually support holding their position - all it supports is holding open the possibility, however small it may be.