Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

RIP Higgs Boson (with 95% confidence)

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 153 posts

Re: RIP Higgs Boson (with 95% confidence)

#101

Post by wlievens »

zzzmarcus wrote: post #22
teraflop wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Higgs boson has essentially nothing to with dark matter, as far as we know. In fact, they're not even in the same category: the Higgs boson is a theoretical prediction that has yet to be observed (or conclusively ruled out), whereas dark matter is a real, observable thing in the cosmos that we don't yet have a theory to explain.

Dark matter has not been observed, hence the name. We know something is there, but we don't know what is is and we have not seen it.

I think 'knowing something is there' implies observation. Just not in visible light, or some other pedestrian interpretation of the word :)

Re: RIP Higgs Boson (with 95% confidence)

#102

Post by wlievens »

hypersoar wrote: post #70

This is rather beside the point, but why must they call it the "God Particle"? According to Wikipedia, it was coined in a popsci book when the writer's editor wouldn't let him call them "goddamn particles". So now we're stuck with this hollow, cliché, uninformative phrase for eternity.

Plus it feeds the religious nuts, and Dan Brown.

Re: RIP Higgs Boson (with 95% confidence)

#103

Post by arethuza »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #7
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. What did they get out of it? (Honest question.) Also, supposing the Higg's Boson did exist and this experiment found it, how much benefit would the average European derived? How much less benefit would people from other countries enjoy?

"What did they get out of it?"

As you read this you are using one of the direct benefits of Europe's funding for CERN two decades ago.

Re: RIP Higgs Boson (with 95% confidence)

#104

Post by archgoon »

Eliezer wrote: post #88

It's too early to call this one for sure, but still, I'm proudly on the record as betting against the Higgs. http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Bets_registry

You bet even odds. Does this mean you are equally likely to expect a Higgs as not, or simply that your belief of there being no Higgs is equal to that of RolfAndreassen's belief that there is one? Genuinely curious here.

Re: RIP Higgs Boson (with 95% confidence)

#105

Post by [deleted] »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #50
noonespecial wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[deleted]

Re: RIP Higgs Boson (with 95% confidence)

#106

Post by dodo53 »

wlievens wrote: post #96
jamesaguilar wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 v…

> I ask that we consider whether any given piece of blue sky research is likely to appreciate or be a money sink Good idea in theory perhaps, but how do you suggest to make that assessment?

I think ironically the more obvious the return on investment of the research is, the less sense it makes for government to fund it - the private sector is more likely to fund something where the route to commercialisation is clear.

Or: basic science is a public good, and is underinvested in by free markets.

Re: RIP Higgs Boson (with 95% confidence)

#107

Post by yardie »

peteretep wrote: post #79
linuxhansl wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you seriously quibbling about $8bn when we happily spend $3500bn on bank bailouts, or $500bn/year for the military (not including the various wars)?

Somehow you added two zeros on to your $3,500bn on bank bailouts! In 2009, it looked like the actual cost would be about $350bn, which is a lot, for sure, but literally an order of magnitude less. According to the treasury department, by 2010, projected cost of TARP was $30-50bn. That's /two/ orders of magnitude out. You also handily miss out the multiplier effects of military spending, and act like the government is…

Did you intentionally ignore the $80bn to AIG? TARP was just one program of many used in the bank bailout. The OP didn't say TARP was 3500bn s/he said the total bailout(s) were that amount. Including the government taking on all the junkbonds.

Re: RIP Higgs Boson (with 95% confidence)

#108

Post by sskates »

guygurari wrote: post #84

I'm a particle physics grad student. My god, what utter nonsense. The only reasonably accurate paragraph is this: "And, more importantly, the lower energy range from 114 to just under 145 billion electron volts, a region of energy that Fermilab has determined, through earlier experiments, may harbor the Higgs, has not been ruled out. But the Higgs is quickly running out of places to hide." The region of higher Higgs…

Maybe I'm missing something, but how is this argument flawed? Bayesian probability says that eliminating possible universes increases the probability of other ones (given everything else as constant). So reducing the probability that the Higgs Boson lies in some energy range (which is what this experiment did) increases the probability that a) the Higgs Boson doesn't exist and b) the Higgs Boson exists at some other energy level, which is what this article is saying.

Re: RIP Higgs Boson (with 95% confidence)

#109

Post by Tichy »

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…

I am not a specialist on that matter, but I suspect it is called "International Space Station" rather than "American Space Station" for a reason.

Re: RIP Higgs Boson (with 95% confidence)

#110

Post by guygurari »

sskates wrote: post #108
guygurari wrote: post #84

I'm a particle physics grad student. My god, what utter nonsense. The only reasonably accurate paragraph is this: "And, more importantly, the lower energy range from 114 to just under 145 billion electron volts, a region of energy that Fermilab has determined, through earlier experiments, may harbor the Higgs, has not been ruled out. But the Higgs is quickly running out of places to hide." The region of higher Higgs…

Maybe I'm missing something, but how is this argument flawed? Bayesian probability says that eliminating possible universes increases the probability of other ones (given everything else as constant). So reducing the probability that the Higgs Boson lies in some energy range (which is what this experiment did) increases the probability that a) the Higgs Boson doesn't exist and b) the Higgs Boson exists at some other…

I think we should be careful with Bayesian inference for the usual reason -- there is only one universe with one (or zero) Higgs particle. You can't really collect statistics over universes, so what is the meaning of probability in this case?

More concretely, what prior probability would you assign to the distribution of the Higgs mass? This depends on your theory. For instance, supersymmetric theories tend to favor a lower Higgs mass, so if you are a proponent of such theories you wouldn't expect a heavy Higgs anyway.

Note that physicists themselves do not phrase their results in these terms. The statement "Higgs excluded above 130 GeV at 95% confidence" does not mean there is 95% chance the Higgs isn't there. Rather, this statement has a precise meaning based on frequentist reasoning.

But perhaps more importantly, the tone of the article is sensationalist and seems to imply that we are about to give up hope. This isn't true at all. I mean, look:

     "while CERN will continue it's search at least until the end of this year, if no positive results about the Higgs should come out, Stephen Hawking ... would be able to cash in on his wager."
Post reply on HN