
Physicists Hope to Be Wrong About the Higgs Boson - qubitcoder
http://www.wired.com/2015/11/physicists-are-desperate-to-be-wrong-about-the-higgs-boson/
======
peter303
Thousands of particle physicists dont have much to do than add another decimal
place to their measurements of known physics.

Someone said this in 1900 too when classical physics was mostly wrapped up
save for a few loose ends like newly discovered radiation

~~~
Filligree
But in this case, we _know_ our physics is wrong. We still don't have a decent
theory of quantum gravity.

We just don't know what the solution is.

~~~
lisivka
Most likely, gravitation is an effect which we already know, but at much lower
resolution. IMHO, it is similar to Casimir effect, but at much higher
frequency, e.g. 1E(1E200) Hz.

~~~
jamesmaniscalco
Source, please?

~~~
T-A
It's a very old idea, almost as old as the Higgs mechanism:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity)

Getting it to work is another matter, though.

~~~
rurban
This other gravity theory sounds a bit better than Sakharov's induced gravity:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity)

------
grayclhn
Kind of an inflammatory title (but from the original article, so not a
complaint about HN). "Physicists hope to learn more about physics from the
Higgs Boson" seems more accurate. :)

~~~
fhars
No, that is not inflammatory. Physicists hoped to be wrong about the standard
model since the first PETRA energy upgrade. Just look at this conference
summary from 1981:
[http://lss.fnal.gov/conf/C810824/p1003.pdf](http://lss.fnal.gov/conf/C810824/p1003.pdf)
(from lss.fnal.gov/conf/C810824/ )

 _So I predict a new revolution, or phase change, by Christmas 1982. [...] And
by a second revolution, I don 't just mean already predicted Z's and W's, but
evidence anew than Nature's imagination is richer than ours as we cross new
frontiers of the unknown._ (p. 1004-1005)

They were getting quite desperate about finding physics beyond the standard
model by the mid of the decade.

~~~
Certhas
Absolutely. Ellis called the situation we are in a five-star disaster. I heard
many even stronger statements privately before the LHC switched on.

stat-athens.aueb.gr/~jpan/Science_Higgs.pdf

------
rangibaby
Something is seriously FU with scrolling on Wired.com if you zoom in on the
article. Please don't re-implement browser / OS features on your own. OK, I'll
try to read the article now. Autoplay video ads! I give up.

~~~
yoodenvranx
Reading wired.com on mobile is also a shitty experience. The scrolling is
stuttery and there is a small delay before the page reacts to any scrolling
input. I don't understand how they can fuck up the easy task of displaying
some simple text so badly.

~~~
stephengillie
Why use mobile with JavaScript enabled? If a site doesn't function, whitelist
it.

------
gtirloni
_the chance to spot larger particles never before created in a human-made
particle accelerator_

smaller, right?

~~~
KenoFischer
There isn't really a good notion of the size of an elementary particle. What's
really being looked for is particles with certain higher (mass) energies. Now,
why do we say that higher energies allow us to probe smaller scales? Well, at
small scales(/short times), quantum mechanics allows these higher energy
particles to play a role, even if there's not enough energy to create an
actual particle. The smaller the scale, the more do high energy particles come
into the picture. Thus cranking up the energy allows us to see these particles
at a larger (detectable) scale than they would usually occur.

