Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
What, no Higgs Bosun yet found.
Still no Higgs Bosun after all these experiments with the LHC. Could all these scientists be wrong in their prediction? They got it wrong about global cooling and whose to say global warming will go the same way.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rov1100. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Mike -
“By the way, I did not introduce religion into this thread...”
Yes you did. You stated, “Warming? Cooling? I don't know either way. What I have been told, though, is it's bloody hot in hell!”.
Hell is not a matter that should be being discussed in a science forum. As the existence of hell cannot be proven nor disproved, the discussion about such matters belong firmly in the realm of theology and not science. It is my assertion that attempting to shoe-horn the alleged high temperature of a non-falsifiable theoretical construct into a debate about climate change / sub-atomic particles constitutes bringing religion into a scientific thread.
;-)
“By the way, I did not introduce religion into this thread...”
Yes you did. You stated, “Warming? Cooling? I don't know either way. What I have been told, though, is it's bloody hot in hell!”.
Hell is not a matter that should be being discussed in a science forum. As the existence of hell cannot be proven nor disproved, the discussion about such matters belong firmly in the realm of theology and not science. It is my assertion that attempting to shoe-horn the alleged high temperature of a non-falsifiable theoretical construct into a debate about climate change / sub-atomic particles constitutes bringing religion into a scientific thread.
;-)
Lots of peer reviewed papers? Right!
As opposed to what is now pretty much the entire scientific community - you can't even find me a single solitary scientific society to back up your global warming conspiracy theories!
There is simply no comparison - there is better evidence for cold fusion and perpetual motion!
Anyway on the more serious point of the Higgs Boson.
The standard model does not tell us what the mass of the Higgs Boson is - so finding it is challenging - you know what to look for but you don't know where to look.
Whilst you're looking you see billions upon billions of other useless interactions before you find just one that might be usefull.
A bit like Answerbank really
I met a guy a few years back who was an investigator on the team that discoverred the Z0 boson back in the 80s
I asked him whether there was a Eureka moment - He said 'No it was just a growing degree of confidence as you recorded more and more events until we were ready to make the case'
You may remember recently there was a 'false alarm from CERN' http://www.bbc.co.uk/...-environment-13424231 that may well have been an over enthusiastic junior blabbing about a first candidate event.
Also they have decided to skip the planned 1 year shutdown.
http://press.web.cern...ses2011/PR01.11E.html
I'm surprised that Beso thinks the Higgs is a bore - It's the last undiscovered particle in the standard model - If there was an element that was missing from the periodic table wouldn't you want to find it? I know I would
I suspect t
As opposed to what is now pretty much the entire scientific community - you can't even find me a single solitary scientific society to back up your global warming conspiracy theories!
There is simply no comparison - there is better evidence for cold fusion and perpetual motion!
Anyway on the more serious point of the Higgs Boson.
The standard model does not tell us what the mass of the Higgs Boson is - so finding it is challenging - you know what to look for but you don't know where to look.
Whilst you're looking you see billions upon billions of other useless interactions before you find just one that might be usefull.
A bit like Answerbank really
I met a guy a few years back who was an investigator on the team that discoverred the Z0 boson back in the 80s
I asked him whether there was a Eureka moment - He said 'No it was just a growing degree of confidence as you recorded more and more events until we were ready to make the case'
You may remember recently there was a 'false alarm from CERN' http://www.bbc.co.uk/...-environment-13424231 that may well have been an over enthusiastic junior blabbing about a first candidate event.
Also they have decided to skip the planned 1 year shutdown.
http://press.web.cern...ses2011/PR01.11E.html
I'm surprised that Beso thinks the Higgs is a bore - It's the last undiscovered particle in the standard model - If there was an element that was missing from the periodic table wouldn't you want to find it? I know I would
I suspect t
Jake -
I was going to mention the peer review process in another thread but decided not to do so as that discussion had appeared to come to an end. I'm glad you've mentioned it again as you seem to think that peer review is a 'gold' standard in ensuring that scientific reports are accurate and bias free.
It isn't and I shall explain why.
First, I would like to point out that as I mentioned earlier, Global Cooling was the theory of the day back in the 1970s and 1980s. Thousands of scientific, peer reviewed papers were published on the 'fact' that the earth was heading for the next Ice Age. The people producing and publishing these papers were not on the fringes of science - they were the establishment. That fact alone should tell you something about the peer review system.
Peer review is rather like democracy – a deeply flawed system that has only one thing going for it – all other possible systems are worse.
I was going to mention the peer review process in another thread but decided not to do so as that discussion had appeared to come to an end. I'm glad you've mentioned it again as you seem to think that peer review is a 'gold' standard in ensuring that scientific reports are accurate and bias free.
It isn't and I shall explain why.
First, I would like to point out that as I mentioned earlier, Global Cooling was the theory of the day back in the 1970s and 1980s. Thousands of scientific, peer reviewed papers were published on the 'fact' that the earth was heading for the next Ice Age. The people producing and publishing these papers were not on the fringes of science - they were the establishment. That fact alone should tell you something about the peer review system.
Peer review is rather like democracy – a deeply flawed system that has only one thing going for it – all other possible systems are worse.
Continued...
Peer review works like this – editorial offices of scientific publications maintain a register of people who are prepared to put in a lot of work for no pay and are willing to do so promptly. Like a democracy, this has the detriment that the candidates are largely self-selected. I accept that without this anonymous band of workers, the whole scientific edifice would come tumbling down. However, the downside to this is that the peer review system can be grossly abused whilst ostensibly appearing to be impartial.
At worst, the peer review system can have the effect of maintaining orthodoxies. Couple that with publication bias (ie. certain eminent scientific journals refusing to print articles and papers that reject the paradigm) and you have a 'closed shop' system of science.
Peer review works like this – editorial offices of scientific publications maintain a register of people who are prepared to put in a lot of work for no pay and are willing to do so promptly. Like a democracy, this has the detriment that the candidates are largely self-selected. I accept that without this anonymous band of workers, the whole scientific edifice would come tumbling down. However, the downside to this is that the peer review system can be grossly abused whilst ostensibly appearing to be impartial.
At worst, the peer review system can have the effect of maintaining orthodoxies. Couple that with publication bias (ie. certain eminent scientific journals refusing to print articles and papers that reject the paradigm) and you have a 'closed shop' system of science.
Jake -
“... there is better evidence for cold fusion and perpetual motion!”
Oh dear...
Are you honestly suggesting that cold fusion and perpetual motion are MORE likely than the theory of anthropogenic climate change being incorrect?
If so, you disagree with the last IPCC report that said that it was 90% certain that the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities are driving climate change.
I'm sorry but stupid, flippant statement like that just make you look foolish.
“... there is better evidence for cold fusion and perpetual motion!”
Oh dear...
Are you honestly suggesting that cold fusion and perpetual motion are MORE likely than the theory of anthropogenic climate change being incorrect?
If so, you disagree with the last IPCC report that said that it was 90% certain that the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities are driving climate change.
I'm sorry but stupid, flippant statement like that just make you look foolish.
Birdie you don't even seem to know what youre arguing!
Last time we had this discussion you were telling me the sun was causing the warming - today it's global cooling.
I don't know about perpetual motion but there's certainly more scientific backing for cold fusion than for the idea that humans are not having an effect on global warming!
Anyway back to the Higgs
Yes event descrimination is done by computers - it's probably the biggest computer challenge in the world:
15 Million Gigabytes of data a year - it's spread over 8,000 physicists in 34 countries making the world's largest computing grid - it needs around 100,000 CPUs
http://www.datacenter...arge-hadron-collider/
I don't know what uses more power the collider, the instrumentation or the computing.
It's probably the air conditioning!
Last time we had this discussion you were telling me the sun was causing the warming - today it's global cooling.
I don't know about perpetual motion but there's certainly more scientific backing for cold fusion than for the idea that humans are not having an effect on global warming!
Anyway back to the Higgs
Yes event descrimination is done by computers - it's probably the biggest computer challenge in the world:
15 Million Gigabytes of data a year - it's spread over 8,000 physicists in 34 countries making the world's largest computing grid - it needs around 100,000 CPUs
http://www.datacenter...arge-hadron-collider/
I don't know what uses more power the collider, the instrumentation or the computing.
It's probably the air conditioning!
I don't think the search for the Higgs is a bore at all. On the contrary I am a great enthusiast for this kind of research. I wax lyrical bout the energy of the beam in the LHC and people look at me kind of strange.
I was really just saying much the same about it not being a Eureka moment but a probability.
What is boring is people who call it the God Particle.
I was really just saying much the same about it not being a Eureka moment but a probability.
What is boring is people who call it the God Particle.
///it's spread over 8,000 physicists in 34 countries making the world's largest computing grid - it needs around 100,000 CPUs///
If the Higgs Bosun is eventually found I wonder who will win the nobel prize for it. The person who designed the LHC, one of the 8000 physicists, or the number cruncher who found it.
If the Higgs Bosun is eventually found I wonder who will win the nobel prize for it. The person who designed the LHC, one of the 8000 physicists, or the number cruncher who found it.
Jake,
You seem to have a problem with reading and understanding logic.
Your quite bizarre statement, “Last time we had this discussion you were telling me the sun was causing the warming - today it's global cooling”, shows that you haven't bothered to read or even tried to understand my post.
To go from one post suggesting that perpetual motion is less 'proven' that anthropogenic climate change, to your next post admitting that, “... I don't know about perpetual motion...” clearly demonstrates that you are giving little, if any, thought to the arguments being made. If you're not even going to bother to engage your brain, why bother to comment?
In summary, peer review is a necessary but flawed process. Climate change (or global warming) has not been proven to be man-made beyond a reasonable doubt, which is something even the ultra-climate change body, the IPCC, admits with its '90%' estimation.
You seem to have a problem with reading and understanding logic.
Your quite bizarre statement, “Last time we had this discussion you were telling me the sun was causing the warming - today it's global cooling”, shows that you haven't bothered to read or even tried to understand my post.
To go from one post suggesting that perpetual motion is less 'proven' that anthropogenic climate change, to your next post admitting that, “... I don't know about perpetual motion...” clearly demonstrates that you are giving little, if any, thought to the arguments being made. If you're not even going to bother to engage your brain, why bother to comment?
In summary, peer review is a necessary but flawed process. Climate change (or global warming) has not been proven to be man-made beyond a reasonable doubt, which is something even the ultra-climate change body, the IPCC, admits with its '90%' estimation.
Continued...
On the strength of your quite monumentally moronic response, I shall cease to bother you on this matter in this thread except to say this...
You refer to those of us who don't accept that ACC is a problem as 'conspiracy theorists'. By doing so, you demonstrate a very worrying mentality amongst the adherents to the ACC theory. Do you actually understand what a conspiracy theory is? I don't think you do. Allow me to enlighten you. At its simplest, a conspiracy theory is two or more people agreeing to carry out a criminal act.
By stating that I am a conspiracy theorist because of my views on this matter, you're suggesting that I am committing some kind of thought crime by not agreeing with you and others who think that ACC is happening and is a problem. I would hope that your use of the word 'conspiracy' was a mistake and not one you will be repeating.
On the strength of your quite monumentally moronic response, I shall cease to bother you on this matter in this thread except to say this...
You refer to those of us who don't accept that ACC is a problem as 'conspiracy theorists'. By doing so, you demonstrate a very worrying mentality amongst the adherents to the ACC theory. Do you actually understand what a conspiracy theory is? I don't think you do. Allow me to enlighten you. At its simplest, a conspiracy theory is two or more people agreeing to carry out a criminal act.
By stating that I am a conspiracy theorist because of my views on this matter, you're suggesting that I am committing some kind of thought crime by not agreeing with you and others who think that ACC is happening and is a problem. I would hope that your use of the word 'conspiracy' was a mistake and not one you will be repeating.
Starbuck It's not an element, it's a force comminicator, a boson, eg the photon is the boson for electromagnetic force. Mass can be considered mathmatically as a "force" and the boson should be present to explain current observation, the Higgs is expected to be there. Just as most of the periodic table was predicted to exist before the actual elements where found.
BTW. Cold Fusion does exist and those who predicted and demonstrated it were awarded the Nobel Prize.
No, not that rubbish published by Pons and Fleischmann.
Real Cold Fusion
http://en.wikipedia.o...Muon-catalyzed_fusion
No, not that rubbish published by Pons and Fleischmann.
Real Cold Fusion
http://en.wikipedia.o...Muon-catalyzed_fusion
Latest Posts
News38 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles114 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles233 mins ago
Crosswords242 mins ago
Animals & Nature245 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.