
CERN experiments observe particle consistent with long-sought Higgs boson - sdiwakar
http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2012/PR17.12E.html
======
pessimist
What stood out to me from watching the presentation was the incredible
integrity of the physicists involved. The CMS group had 2 sets of data with >
5 sigma significance, but chose to also show weaker data that actually reduced
the significance slightly. Consider the enormous effort spent to show that the
result was not some background fluke - two separate detectors, running 2
completely different means of detection, each with their own sets of computer
programs verifying the results. Finally both show almost exactly the same
result (although the masses are slightly different at this point)!

Given that tevatron also sees similar (although weaker) results, the
confirmation is beyond doubt. And what an achievement - the first fundamental
particle observed since the quarks in the 1980's! An incredible victory for
theoretical models developed almost 50 years ago (no wonder Peter Higgs had
tears in this eyes)!

Combining the brilliance of the theoreticians with the integrity of
experimentalists is what makes science the pinnacle of human achievement
(IMO), and makes me proud to be human today.

~~~
molmalo
> _So, chose to also show weaker data that actually reduced the significance
> slightly_

Well, they are not trying to convince anyone here. They are trying to prove
something. So, choosing to hide that data would've been dumb, as the two
possible outcomes would have equally interesting I think: proving that the
Higgs Boson does exists, or proving that it doesn't.

Beyond that, yeah, it's a good day today for science :) !!!

~~~
pessimist
> Well, they are not trying to convince anyone here. They are trying to prove
> something.

A nobel prize is at stake! If ATLAS only had the results and not CMS, they
would have lost the nobel. For them to put aside personal glory for science is
impressive.

~~~
Xion
Even without the question of ATLAS vs. CMS, awarding a Nobel Prize for this
will be rather challenging. At most three people can share it according to the
rules, and there were literally hundreds of scientists involved in this
discovery.

This is probably yet another argument in favor of the claim that Nobel Prize
in its current form is antiquated and not matching the reality of modern
science (especially particle physics).

~~~
tokenadult
The language of Nobel's will (as translated into English on the official site
of the Nobel Foundation):

"The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the
following way: the capital, invested in safe securities by my executors, shall
constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the
form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred
the greatest benefit to mankind. The said interest shall be divided into five
equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: one part to the person who
shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of
physics; one part to the person who shall have made the most important
chemical discovery or improvement; one part to the person who shall have made
the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine; one
part to the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most
outstanding work in an ideal direction; and one part to the person who shall
have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the
abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of
peace congresses. The prize for physics and chemistry shall be awarded by the
Swedish Academy of Sciences; that for physiological or medical works by
Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm; that for literature by the Academy in
Stockholm; and that for champions of peace by a committee of five persons to
be elected by the Norwegian Storting. It is my express wish that in awarding
the prizes no consideration whatever shall be given to the nationality of the
candidates, but that the most worthy shall receive the prize, whether he be a
Scandinavian or not."

After a settlement with Nobel's family, the foundation was set up with these
rules:

"a) that the statutes, common to the prize-awarding institutions, dealing with
the manner of, and the conditions for, the award of prizes as prescribed in
the will, shall be drawn up in consultation with a representative nominated by
Robert Nobel's family and submitted to the approval of the Crown; and

b) that there shall be no departure from the following main principles, viz:
that each of the annual prizes established by the will shall be awarded at
least during each five-year period from, and including, the year immediately
following that in which the Nobel Foundation commences its activities, and
that the amount of a prize thus awarded shall under no circumstances be less
than sixty percent of that portion of the annual yield of the fund that shall
be available for the prize award, nor shall it be divided into more than three
prizes at most."

[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_organizations/nobelfoundatio...](http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_organizations/nobelfoundation/statutes.html#par1)

From the statutes of the Nobel Foundation:

"A prize amount may be equally divided between two works, each of which is
considered to merit a prize. If a work that is being rewarded has been
produced by two or three persons, the prize shall be awarded to them jointly.
In no case may a prize amount be divided between more than three persons."

[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_organizations/nobelfoundatio...](http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_organizations/nobelfoundation/statutes.html#par4)

~~~
ieureur
So just like I said, the will doesn't mention the three person limit, only the
statutes.

------
mkr-hn
[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/07/04/hi...](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/07/04/higgs/)

This is a great comment: "Think about it this way. Let’s say you’re at the
target range, and the Lone Ranger is shooting at clay pidgins right nearby.
Obviously you’ll want to know if he’s shooting silver bullets, right? But you
can’t look at them while they’re still tied up in the gun. You can’t look at
them after they’ve hit the pidgin. And they’re traveling too fast to study
while they’re in flight. The only way you can see if they’re silver bullets is
based on how the pidgin gets blown to pieces."

"The Higgs boson has a very short lifetime outside of other subatomic
particles. The only way for us to study them is to smash those particles
together and see the results of the decay. Based on how the Higgs decays
(blows itself to pieces), we can infer its existence."

~~~
SoftwareMaven
It's even harder than that, because it turns out full metal jackets will cause
the pigeons to blow apart into the same pieces, so it's not just the pieces,
but things like the direction and velocity of those pieces.

------
sanxiyn
It's cute that ATLAS spokesperson says 126 and CMS spokesperson says 125. Then
CERN says 125-126.

------
confutio
Can someone please dummify this result a little bit? what does this mean for
particle physics in the future? does it confirm any theories?

~~~
Luc
Here's a pretty good Q&A that talks about this:
[http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/particle-consistent-
with-...](http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/particle-consistent-with-higgs-
boson-found/)

------
mkr-hn
I'm going to summarize this based on my limited understanding, and hopefully
someone can confirm or deny.

This is important because it confirmed the accuracy of the way we
conceptualize the structure of the universe.

That means both the people who start and fund projects know that the basis of
modern physics is sound. So the time and money won't be wasted by a surprise
"nope, Higgs-boson isn't there" in the middle of a project based on the belief
that it is.

~~~
sp332
Yup, this was the last particle predicted by the Standard Model. In addition
to not having any evidence that it existed, we also didn't know exactly how
massive it was, or how likely it was to show up in high-energy collisions.

Unfortunately, the Standard Model still doesn't have a good explanation for
how quantum mechanics and gravity work together, so we know it's not complete.
But at least the particle menagerie seems to be full :)

------
mrpollo
Can someone please explain to me what would the immediate technological
advancement be if this is true?, what applications would this have? (Already
watched the video and read the FAQ, still a lot that is not clear to me)

~~~
amackera
This has been covered a lot, but in short: this is basic science that will
have far-reaching implications in the long term. It gives us a greater
understanding of the universe, and confirms a hypothesis that heretofore had
no direct evidence.

The immediate short term won't see any technological advancement, but as with
all basic science we will see outcomes in the future.

Science is in fact _not_ engineering.

~~~
mrpollo
Thanks for your response, I understand science is not engineering I was just
not sure if I was missing some other immediate implications. The more you
know.

------
hessenwolf
Really interesting article: so we're basically back to studying the Aether,
right? Or did I get that wrong? The only cause of mass is the particles moving
through a vast pervasive invisible field?

~~~
blueprint
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that we need to be more careful about
rejecting theories that simply sound like that of the luminiferous aether on
the surface.

FYI aethers can be explained mathematically nowadays.

See: [http://www.quora.com/Physics/Besides-maturity-of-model-
what-...](http://www.quora.com/Physics/Besides-maturity-of-model-what-are-the-
differences-between-the-Higgs-field-and-aether/answer/Jay-Wacker)

~~~
hessenwolf
The link isn't bad.

(the comment oddly doesn't follow my comment??)

------
senjin
This is probably the best headline for this that I've seen on a news
aggregation site.

------
esusatyo
So, will we get more understanding about the shape of the universe?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe>

Can we now conclude what'll happen if we go right to the edge of the universe
with speed of light? Without any further debates?

~~~
mserdarsanli
There is no such thing as 'edge of the universe'

~~~
hessenwolf
Speculative.

~~~
obtu
Nope, it comes down to the generally agreed definition of the universe: the
universe contains everything. If you want a border, there's the observable
universe (everything in our past light cone).

~~~
hessenwolf
Did you not follow the wikipedia link above?

------
sdiwakar
Amazing, I wonder what this means for creationists and more importantly - our
understanding of our universe?

~~~
ygmelnikova
The anti-creationists have become a religion unto themselves, complete with
persecutions and indulgences.

"I'm about fifty-fifty on believing in God" - Steve Jobs

~~~
CamperBob2
This is true only if creationists' bullshit is as valid as our reality.

So, no.

~~~
ygmelnikova
Hawking bet $100 that the Higgs Boson didn't exist. Does that make him a
quack? If one or more creationists believes the earth was created in 6000
years, does that make all creationists quacks? Where's the scientific method
in that?

------
Create
just for the record and to please the prospective downvoting mob, here are my
experimental observations consistent with the cern experimental domain in
order to warn any non-westerners:

"The cost [...] has been evaluated, taking into account realistic labor prices
in different countries. The total cost is X (with a western equivalent value
of Y) [where Y>X]

source: LHCb calorimeters : Technical Design Report

ISBN: 9290831693 <http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/494264>

about integrity:

<http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1127343?ln=en>

FYI:
[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Spin_(public_...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Spin_\(public_relations\)#Techniques)

