higgs boson ness

Higgs boson explained in 120 seconds – BBC Radio 4 – BBC News

– – –

http://www.theguardian.com/science/video/2012/jul/03/what-is-a-higgs-boson-video

higgs field switched on (sand/sugar) – photon massless – so still moves at speed of light

higgs boson is the tiny grains of sugar – a particle of the higgs field.. use large hadron collider.. underground – 27 kilometers…. between france and switzerland.. colliding detector box – 3 stories high – that’s where you look to find higgs boson

when they collide in there – flash of energy – you get electrons, quarks, light, and occasionally higgs boson coming out

problem with higgs boson – is it doesn’t wait around to be measured.. as soon as created – it decays off into other particles.. and they do too.. so difficult to find and time consuming

the benefit in finding it – it rounds off your theories – it gives you a really nice package of understanding for certain laws of nature. finding something more complex is better because it gives you a a road into a new realm of physics.. seeking new door to understanding.. which they don’t have at the moment

– – –

The Higgs Boson Explained

any day could be the day we find something – any day could be the day to change the world..

we’re looking for patterns –

why – because of some fundamental underlying structure – one that we haven’t seen yet – that we don’t understand

it’s like what comes out doesn’t have to be a rearrangement of what went in

because no one had the energy to make them

one of things people predict is higgs boson – particle giving mass to other particles..

mass as gravitational charge..

higgs – imagine field that permeates entire universe… some hardly feel it and have small mass.. some that really feel it – large mass.. why do particles feel field differently

the thing is we can’t see these reactions.. these intermediate states… lasts for like 10 to the -23 sec.

what you need is a huge amount of data before you can see anything..

like 7 billion people thinking new everyday..

10 other ways to make the higgs…. try to look everywhere simultaneously…

whoa. yes that.

– – –

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/collider-reveals-first-glimpse-higgs-boson-work-n167706

2012 – believe they have found higgs

extremely rare collision of massive subatomic particles could reveal the nuts and bolts of how the subatomic particles called Higgs bosons impart mass to other particles.

The Higgs boson particle, which was detected for the first time in 2012, is essentially tossed around like a ball between two force-carrying particles known as W-bosons when they scatter, or bounce off of one another, a new data analysis has revealed.

The data comes from the ATLAS experiment, one of the proton-collision experiments that revealed the Higgs boson at the Large Hadron Collider, a 17-mile-round (27-kilometer-round) underground atom smasher on the border of Switzerland and France.

– – –

On July 4, 2012, Joseph Incandela announced the discovery of the Higgs Boson.

– – –

so – what if we look for the underlying field that gives all else mass.. mattering..

countless more data in countless more areas – if we figure out the field that .. giving weight daily, 24/7, to 7 billion people.. who each then carry on their own experiments

– – –

Despite being present everywhere, the existence of the Higgs field has been very hard to confirm, because it is extremely hard to create excitations (i.e. Higgs particles). The search for this elusive particle has taken more than 40 years and led to the construction of one of the world’s most expensive and complex experimental facilities to date, the Large Hadron Collider, able to create Higgs bosons and other particles for observation and study. On 4 July 2012, the discovery of a new particle with a mass between 125 and 127 GeV/c² was announced; physicists suspected that it was the Higgs boson. By March 2013, the particle had been proven to behave, interact and decay in many of the ways predicted by the Standard Model, and was also tentatively confirmed to have positive parity and zero spin, two fundamental attributes of a Higgs boson. This appears to be the first elementary scalar particle discovered in nature. More data is needed to know if the discovered particle exactly matches the predictions of the Standard Model, or whether, as predicted by some theories, multiple Higgs bosons exist.

________________

tweeted by Jason Silva – same day Katherine shares her new nerd heart throb..

http://aeon.co/magazine/science/our-quantum-reality-problem/

Something was wrong with matter. Somewhere, reality had departed from the best available model.

[..]

Einstein in particular never quite accepted it. ‘It seems hard to sneak a look at God’s cards,’ he wrote to a colleague, ‘but that he plays dice and uses “telepathic” methods (as the present quantum theory requires of him) is something that I cannot believe for a single moment

[..]

In a 1935 paper co-written with Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, Einstein asked: ‘Can [the] Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?’ He concluded that it could not.

[..]

Even so, I believe that Einstein would have remained convinced that a deeper theory was needed. None of the ways we have so far found of looking at quantum theory are entirely believable. In fact, it’s worse than that. To be ruthlessly honest, none of them even quite makes sense. But that might be about to change.

deep enough ness.. 2 needs

[..]

While the mathematics of quantum theory works very well in telling us what to expect at the end of an experiment, it seems peculiarly conceptually confusing when we try to understand what was happening during the experiment. To calculate what outcomes we might expect when we fire protons at one another in the Large Hadron Collider, we need to analyse what – at first sight – look like many different stories.

indeed. that. Chimamanda.. ness

[..]

The same final set of particles detected after a collision might have been generated by lots of different possible sequences of energy exchanges involving lots of different possible collections of particles. We can’t tell which particles were involved from the final set of detected particle

[..]

Copenhagen interpretation’ of quantum theory, versions of which were advocated by Bohr, Werner Heisenberg and other leading quantum theorists in the first half of the last century – claims that quantum theory is teaching us something profound and final about the limits of what science can tell us. According to this approach, a scientific question makes sense only if we have a direct way of verifying the answer. …

…So, asking what we’ll see in our particle detectors is a scientific question; asking what happened in the experiment before anything registered in our detectors isn’t, because we weren’t looking. To be looking, we’d have had to put detectors in the middle of the experiment, and then it would have been a different experiment

[..]

It gets worse. Quantum theory is supposed to describe the behaviour of elementary particles, atoms, molecules and every other form of matter in the universe. This includes us, our planet and, of course, the Large Hadron Collider. In that sense, everything since the Big Bang has been one giant quantum experiment, in which all the particles in the universe, including those we think of as making up the Earth and our own bodies, are involved. But if theory tells us we’re among the sets of particles involved a giant quantum experiment, the position I’ve just outlined tells us we can’t justify any statement about what has happened or is happening until the experiment is over. Only at the end, when we might perhaps imagine some technologically advanced alien experimenters in the future looking at the final state of the universe, can any meaningful statement be made.

[..]

We end up concluding that quantum theory doesn’t allow us to justify making any scientific statement at all about the past, present or future. Our most fundamental scientific theory turns out to be a threat to the whole enterprise of science. For these and related reasons, the Copenhagen interpretation gradually fell out of general favour.

[..]

One way of thinking about his ideas on quantum theory is that our difficulties in getting a description of quantum reality arise from a tension between the mathematics – which, as we have seen, tells us to make calculations involving many different possible stories about what might have really happened – and the apparently incontrovertible fact that, at the end of an experiment, we see that only one thing actually did happen. This led Everett to ask a question that seems at first sight stupid, but which turns out to be very deep: how do we know that we only get one outcome to a quantum experiment? What if we take the hint from the mathematics and consider a picture of reality in which many different things actually do happen – everything, in fact, that quantum theory allows?

[..]

We end up, Everett argued, with what became known as a ‘many worlds’ picture of reality, one in which it is constantly forming new branches describing alternative – but equally real – future continuations of the same present state.

On this view, every time any of us does a quantum experiment with several possible outcomes, all those outcomes are enacted in different branches of reality, each of which contains a copy of our self whose memories are identical up to the start of experiment, but each of whom sees different results. None of these future selves has any special claim to be the real one. They are all equally real – genuine but distinct successors of the person who started the experiment.

[..]

Everett and his followers would reply that science has taught us many things that seemed incredible at first.

[..]

Bell was one of the last century’s deepest thinkers about science. As he put it, quantum theory ‘carries in itself the seeds of its own destruction’: it undermines the account of reality that it needs in order to make any sense as a physical theory. On this view, which was once as close to heresy as a scientific argument can be but is now widely held among scientists who work on the foundations of physics, the reality problem is just not solvable within quantum theory as it stands. And so, along with the variables that describe potentialities and possibilities, we need to supplement our quantum equations with quantities that correspond directly to real events or things – real ‘stuff’ in the world.

[..]

Bell coined the term beables to refer to these elusive missing ingredients. ‘Beable’ is an ugly word but a useful concept. It denotes variables that are able to ‘be’ in the world – hence the name. And indeed it turns out that we can extend quantum theory to include beables that would directly describe the sort of reality we actually see. Some of the most interesting work in fundamental physics in the past few decades has been in the search for new theories that agree with quantum theory in its predictions to date, but which include a beable description of reality, and so give us a profoundly different fundamental picture of the world.

[..]

How might we do that? Assuming these ideas are not entirely wrong, what sort of experiments might give us evidence of a deeper theory underlying quantum theory and a better understanding of physical reality? The best answer we can give at present, if collapse models and other recent ideas for beable theories are any guide, is that we should expect to see something new when some relevant quantity in the experiment gets large. In particular, the peculiar and intriguing phenomenon called quantum interference – which seems to give direct evidence that different possible paths which could have been followed during an experiment all contribute to the outcome – should start to break down as we try to demonstrate it for larger and larger objects, or over larger and larger scales.

This makes some intuitive sense. Quantum theory was developed to explain the behaviour of atoms and other small systems, and has been well tested only on small scales. It would always have been a brave and perhaps foolhardy extrapolation to assume that it works on all scales, up to and including the entire universe, even if this involved no conceptual problems.

[..]

This would also allow us to investigate the outlandish but not utterly inconceivable hunch that the boundaries of quantum theory have to do with the complexity of a system, or even with life itself, rather than just size.

_________

so – we have these very smart people – spending tons of time money on something.. what if their thinking is great.. but the focus is off… at least for humanity sake.. at least for now.. when we need to do better and we can do better.

so now reading black swan..

___________

then this..

http://aplus.com/a/motivational-video-rise-and-shine

the laws of physics are merely a suggestion

___________

then Jason shared this:

two perfectly valid truths but you can’t see both..

your brain will choose one and lock on it – that’s the nature of illusion

some illusions are so strong they are difficult to unsee even after they break

others are hard to even recognize as illusions

perceptions so common you forget to see it as perception – it becomes reality

shed into particles… blood trails of dust

shed ness