RIP Higgs Boson (with 95% confidence) • Hacker News Board

Re: RIP Higgs Boson (with 95% confidence)

#41

Post by noonespecial » Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 3:59 AM UTC

jamesaguilar wrote: post #27

icarus_drowning wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that it would be nice to know where mass comes from, but that fact absent any useful application (or a probability of a useful application) is of limited value to me. I guess if you don't see potential applications of understanding where mass comes from, we're at a bit of an impasse here. It is difficult (if not impossible) to make predictions about what the discovery will bring, but the mere possibility that…

> . . . we're at a bit of an impasse here. Only because I don't know the science behind it. I asked the question to be informed. Everyone is so busy trying to show that I am wrong to ask the question that no one has taken time to answer it. What potential applications are there of knowing where mass comes from in the level of detail we are speaking about here (i.e. the proof of the SM or the suggestion of one of the…

The value is not really in the finding, but more in the seeking. It's the surprise discoveries that happen along the way that have huge practical applications, not just what we thought we were looking for.

You have to seek to find. Even if they are on the wrong track it's better to seek than not.

Re: RIP Higgs Boson (with 95% confidence)

#42

Post by jamesaguilar » Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 3:59 AM UTC

bane wrote: post #34

jamesaguilar wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and then you know that decades down the line, you'll be very happy that you did it. How do you know that? Has all blue sky research in history resulted in massive benefits decades down the line?

Has all blue sky research in history resulted in massive benefits decades down the line? That's the wrong question. "Has blue sky research in history resulted in massive benefits decades down the line?" is a better one and the answer is a most definitive yes, many many many times the amount of money put into it, on the order of trillions of dollars. Do each and every blue sky pure R&D experiment yield such results? H…

> That's the wrong question.

I asked the question I meant to ask. The point is not that we should stop doing blue sky research if examples exist where it has produced no benefit. It is quite obvious that blue sky research has been useful to us over the course of time. That fact does not give anything called blue sky research carte blanche to spend taxpayer money.

The point is to weigh the likely benefits of all the various types of blue sky research available to us at any given time and try to spend more on research that is likely to be useful.

> Neither does any known investment vehicle.

And like any investment vehicle, I ask that we consider whether any given piece of blue sky research is likely to appreciate or be a money sink. This was, if you'll read back, my original query. I don't understand why the people in this forum consider this question so outrageous.

Re: RIP Higgs Boson (with 95% confidence)

#43

Post by idlewords » Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 4:02 AM UTC

melling wrote: post #4

"Congress may feel that even though its 1993 decision to cancel the American alternative to CERN—the Superconducting Super Collider—was generally met with chagrin by the American physics community, it may have been the right move one after all: to spend billions of taxpayer dollars in search of a particle that likely does not exist would have been wasteful." I'm a little surprised by that comment. The SSC would have…

It was, especially considering what that program was cut for - the International Space Station!

Re: RIP Higgs Boson (with 95% confidence)

#44

Post by idlewords » Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 4:04 AM UTC

MaxGabriel wrote: post #6

quandrum wrote: post #3

Incorrect, exaggerated title. They have 95% confidence that it's not in the 145-466 GeV range. They haven't searched the 114-145 GeV range. There's still plenty of work to be done, and sensationalist headlines only serve to mis-inform.

I don't know how likely other accelerators are to have found the Higgs-Boson, but the article at least makes an attempt to back up its claim: "Lower energy levels have been accessible to smaller accelerators, such as the Tevatron at Fermilab and the LEP—the LHC’s predecessor at CERN—and neither collider had found it. Perhaps the Higgs does not exist at all."

Neither collider has enough data in those mass ranges to give any useful result. That's WHY the LHC got built.

Re: RIP Higgs Boson (with 95% confidence)

#45

Post by idlewords » Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 4:05 AM UTC

modeless wrote: post #8

quandrum wrote: post #3

Incorrect, exaggerated title. They have 95% confidence that it's not in the 145-466 GeV range. They haven't searched the 114-145 GeV range. There's still plenty of work to be done, and sensationalist headlines only serve to mis-inform.

What about the >466 GeV range? Is that considered a possibility? Can the LHC explore that high?

See http://resonaances.blogspot.com/2011/08/higgs-wont-come-out-... for discussion. Basically, it's possible, but requires physics beyond the Standard Model.

Re: RIP Higgs Boson (with 95% confidence)

#46

Post by wtallis » Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 4:06 AM UTC

jamesaguilar wrote: post #31

wtallis wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you could know the odds or expected payoff in advance, then it wouldn't be cutting-edge science anymore. It would be engineering. You can't make valid predictions about the expected benefit of any single experiment before running it for the first time. All we have to go on is the history of major scientific undertakings, and the technologies they have eventually lead to. That history primarily shows two things: su…

> If you could know the odds or expected payoff in advance, then it wouldn't be cutting-edge science anymore. Not so. For example, it was hypothesized long before the first human-initiated fission event that the energy from fission would possibly be useful for creating a bomb. The research and physics that went into actually developing the thing was still cutting edge even though predictions had been made about its l…

They only calculated one side of the equation. What would have been the long-term effect if the Manhattan Project experiments had produced negative results and falsified the quantum mechanical models of the time? You can't just ignore that possibility and still have a valid expectation.

Re: RIP Higgs Boson (with 95% confidence)

#47

Post by D_Alex » Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 4:07 AM UTC

jamesaguilar wrote: post #26

henrikschroder wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is ridiculous, ROI is relevant if you're talking about applied research where you have a short-term goal and can make the calculation. But the LHC is basic research, you can't do ROI calculations on that. Instead, you dump as much money as you can into it, and then you know that decades down the line, you'll be very happy that you did it.

> and then you know that decades down the line, you'll be very happy that you did it. How do you know that? Has all blue sky research in history resulted in massive benefits decades down the line?

Seriously...? Not "all", but in general, "blue sky research" does deliver massive benefits (just look at what is in front of your face right now! It would not be there without quantum physics.).

Also, take a look at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind96/chap_8.pdf, table 8.1, for estimates of rates of return on scientific research.

Re: RIP Higgs Boson (with 95% confidence)

#48

Post by andrewflnr » Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 4:07 AM UTC

Maybe its irrational, but kind of hope they don't find it. It's almost gratifying, definitely exhilarating, to know that particle physics is still a fresh frontier with plenty of territory to be discovered. Supersymmetric particles seem to be unlikely too. It seems like we're almost back at the drawing board.

So if it turns out that it doesn't exist, where do we go from here? What are the alternative theories? It's been a while since I went into particle physics at all deeply, so I don't know all the leading theories and their pros and cons.

Re: RIP Higgs Boson (with 95% confidence)

#49

Post by Permit » Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 4:09 AM UTC

tzs wrote: post #33

indrax wrote: post #2

>to spend billions of taxpayer dollars in search of a particle that likely does not exist would have been wasteful This is infuriating. A negative result is a successful experiment. Don't hamper efforts to fund science with the argument that science might figure out it was wrong. Europe explored the universe where America did not.

> Europe explored the universe where America did not I guess you never heard of a little project called the International Space Station? The SSC was supposed to be a $4 billion project. That's what Congress was told in 1987. By 1993, it was projected as a $12 billion project. Guess where that $8 billion would have come from if the SSC project had continued? From other science projects--and most likely the ISS would h…

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting indrax's comment, but I'm fairly sure it wasn't meant to be a jab at the United States. He was stating that while America chose to focus its exploration on the cosmos, Europe's exploration endeavors focus on the sub atomic level.

Europe's exploration of the universe has a different focus, not a better one.

Re: RIP Higgs Boson (with 95% confidence)

#50

Post by jamesaguilar » Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 4:10 AM UTC

noonespecial wrote: post #41

jamesaguilar wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> . . . we're at a bit of an impasse here. Only because I don't know the science behind it. I asked the question to be informed. Everyone is so busy trying to show that I am wrong to ask the question that no one has taken time to answer it. What potential applications are there of knowing where mass comes from in the level of detail we are speaking about here (i.e. the proof of the SM or the suggestion of one of the…

The value is not really in the finding, but more in the seeking. It's the surprise discoveries that happen along the way that have huge practical applications, not just what we thought we were looking for. You have to seek to find. Even if they are on the wrong track it's better to seek than not.

> You have to seek to find. Even if they are on the wrong track it's better to seek than not.

I guess this sentiment, which is seen throughout this thread, is my main objection to the whole thing. This is spiritualism, pure and simple. Science, no matter about what, is good, because it's science. We know this because of our history, and we embrace it like a totem.

What I wish is that we had a scientific mindset about our science, about determining what science is most useful, etc., but all I can see here are variations on the assumption that, if it's an expensive science project, it must be useful somewhere down the line.