io9 
Enter your username and password.
San Francisco, 5:05 PM
Tue Dec 15
26 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz |
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders |
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner |
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis |
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan |
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier |
Ed Grabianowski |
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan |
Lauren Davis |
Chris Hsiang |
Lynn Peril |
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins |
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox |
Interns:
Tim Barribeau |
Julia Carusillo |
Alex Eichler |
Cyriaque Lamar |
Caitlin Petrakovitz |
Mary Ratliff |
Josh Snyder |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
05:00 PM
03:03 PM
02:52 PM
Recent quakes in California and Nevada (updated every hour or within 5 minutes of a large quake)
[quake.wr.usgs.gov]
02:58 PM
03:04 PM
03:09 PM
The last one I remember was 3 months ago, it was a good shove, and that was it.
Disappointing really.
03:13 PM
02:51 PM
02:47 PM
That said, he should have invested in more Kyptonite.
03:02 PM
11:22 AM
Obviously it's kind of a big deal, but I just don't know why.
11:31 AM
(Who are you and why should I believe what you say, you might ask. I'm a (no longer practicing) theoretical particle physicist. This stuff is what I used to do for a living up until some 15 years ago.)
01:56 PM
02:00 PM
09:55 AM
Personally, I do not believe it exists. Higgs was closer to the truth with his Condensate.
10:19 AM
That's not quite the right question to ask. It's not like we can actually see the Higgs, whether it's there or here. All we can do is deduce its existence from proposed theoretical models along with corroborating experimental data.
If the so-called Randall-Sundrum models are correct, then WIMPs may be able to interact in ways to produce the Higgs. By observing data that corroborates these models we might be able to ascertain that the Higgs exists.
Alternatively and simultaneously, the LHC may "directly" produce the Higgs by producing collisions at sufficiently high energies.
The two approaches aren't mutually exclusive. Personally, however, I think the LHC has a much higher chance to succeed than the WIMP/Randall-Sundrum model.
"Personally, I do not believe it exists."
It's not a matter of belief. The Standard Model is extremely successful and depends on the Higgs' existence.
"Higgs was closer to the truth with his Condensate."
Why do you say that? What evidence do you have to corroborate that idea?
10:43 AM
I really get annoyed when people start a comment with "personally" when it refers to something as intricate and complex as the existence of the Higgs boson.
"Personally", I don't believe you exist Gann... And i have just as much proof to say that you don't exist as you do to say that the Higgs doesn't
10:49 AM
10:54 AM
10:56 AM
This sums up the source of my skepticism rather well. For a 'particle' that is theoretically 100,000x the mass of an electron it's suspicious that we have not seen one yet since it is supposed to give pretty much everything mass.
"It's not a matter of belief. The Standard Model is extremely successful and depends on the Higgs' existence."
I know there is theoretical evidence of a missing piece. The fact that it has not been found leads me to believe they are looking in the wrong place, or for the wrong thing. I am not denying the existence of the missing piece. Also, since we are talking about the truth of something hypothesized but never proven we are, in fact, talking about belief.
"What evidence do you have to corroborate that idea?"
None, except for their constant failure to prove their theory. If I had evidence it would not be belief, would it? Lucky for them, you cannot prove a universal negative (although they are making a good attempt).
Of course, I do have my own half-baked theory. It is in no way fully formed, and as such I will not be sharing it here. A thought though - if you pop a water balloon under water you cannot find where all the mass went by studying the remains of the balloon.
11:27 AM
Why should the fact that the Higgs is responsible for giving other particles their masses imply that it should be easily observable? That connection does not exist.
Also, just because it's expected to be a few hundred times the mass of a proton, it doesn't mean that it should be easily produced. On the contrary, the heavier a particle is, the harder it is to produce it.
"The fact that it has not been found leads me to believe they are looking in the wrong place, or for the wrong thing."
The only reason why it hasn't been found yet is that no accelerator prior to the LHC had enough power to generate the necessary center-of-mass energy to produce something as heavy as the Higgs. That's hardly the same as "they're looking in the wrong place, or for the wrong thing."
"since we are talking about the truth of something hypothesized but never proven we are, in fact, talking about belief"
You're playing with semantics now. Belief in the predictions of a theoretical model otherwise supported by existing experimental data is not the same as belief without any evidence.
Your professed belief that the Higgs doesn't exist is of the second kind above, whereas every professional physicist's belief that it does is of the first.
"None, except for their constant failure to prove their theory."
Failure to prove their theory? The Standard Model is phenomenally successful.
For instance, it correctly predicts the masses of the W and Z bosons through the spontaneous symmetry breaking of the electroweak gauge invariance. That is precisely where the Higgs comes in; it's the Higgs mechanism that is responsible for breaking that symmetry, thereby given masses to the W and Z particles.
A similar mechanism, also attached to the Higgs, is expected to be responsible for fermion masses, though we can't at this point predict exactly how because we don't have enough information about the Higgs.
And that's why the LHC is so important. If it does detect the Higgs, we may finally be able to predict the fermion masses.
11:33 AM
12:01 PM
Do either of you two have PhD's with respect to the field you are discussing? Or just theorists? (just curious, not trying to insult or anything).
12:07 PM
"The only reason why it hasn't been found yet is that no accelerator prior to the LHC had enough power to generate the necessary center-of-mass energy to produce something as heavy as the Higgs."
This assumes that the only way to detect the Higgs is to create it first. If it as ubiquitous as the standard model suggests, why do we need to create one artificially to prove its existence?
"You're playing with semantics now. Belief in the predictions of a theoretical model otherwise supported by existing experimental data is not the same as belief without any evidence."
When you questioned my use of the word believe, you started the semantic argument.
I have already stated I am not arguing against the standard model, or even the Higg's mechanism. I am skeptical about their interpretation of the Higg's mechanism as a particle.
There is zero experimental data supporting the existence of the Higgs Boson. That is exactly what the LHC is supposed to provide. I am questioning something for which there is absolutely no experimental proof.
"Belief in the predictions of a theoretical model otherwise supported by existing experimental data is not the same as belief without any evidence."
Again, I am not questioning the entire model, just the interpretation of the part with no experimental evidence. If the LHC provides this evidence, I'll adapt and move on. It's no big deal.
12:12 PM
12:21 PM
"so unless you have pretty plots, graphs and have written a paper on the subject, opinions are really worthless to me."
All I said was the everyone is entitled to an opinion. I never suggested that every opinion is equally valid or acceptable. :)
"unless the topic is of something that is nearly unsolvable with the technology at present, because pretty math can at some times be seen as an opinion when it's far beyond our capabilities to conduct a specific measurement since the theories the math falls into may be wrong."
Case in point, string theory. At this point, it's all just math.
"Do either of you two have PhD's with respect to the field you are discussing? Or just theorists?"
This is the internet. People can say whatever they want and it's nearly impossible to verify, so whatever answer you get is really useless.
Having said that, here are my credentials. Three MSc degrees, one in theoretical particle physics, one in theoretical astrophysics, and one in computer science (specifically, in machine learning, data mining, and artificial intelligence). In particle physics, I have some published research on CP violation and the baryogenesis problem, on astrophysics I have some published results on the formation of accretion disks and ring systems. I also have some published results on data mining, but my interest is really in AI, not data mining per se. I've also taught physics, math, and computer science in 3 countries and in universities on both coasts of the US. These days, I make money as a software engineer and consultant for companies that are interested in data mining and machine learning.
12:35 PM
"This assumes that the only way to detect the Higgs is to create it first."
No. It assumes that it's one way to detect it. As the WIMP/Randall-Sundrum models suggest, there may be other ways of detecting the Higgs.
"If it as ubiquitous as the standard model suggests, why do we need to create one artificially to prove its existence?"
There's nothing "artificial" about creating the Higgs or any other particle. You're forgetting that not all particles are stable. You can't observe particles that decay unless you create them and either detect them directly before they decay or detect the results of their decay.
"When you questioned my use of the word believe, you started the semantic argument."
I didn't question the use of the word; I questioned the belief itself.
"I have already stated I am not arguing against the standard model, or even the Higg's mechanism. I am skeptical about their interpretation of the Higg's mechanism as a particle."
Then I'm afraid your understanding of quantum field theory (QFT) is somewhat lacking. The Higgs field, as per the Standard Model, is a hermitian scalar field. By the rules of QFT, the quanta of that field are interpreted as excitations of a neutral particle of spin 0.
"There is zero experimental data supporting the existence of the Higgs Boson."
Not true. There is indirect evidence, for instance in the fact that without the Higgs field, the W and Z particles would be massless like the photon. Yet, they aren't. Not only that, we can precisely predict their masses exactly because of the Higgs field.
"That is exactly what the LHC is supposed to provide."
No. The LHC is attempting to provide a more direct evidence of the Higgs existence. That is not to say that indirect evidence of its existence does not exist. It does.
12:53 PM
"No. It assumes that it's one way to detect it."
True, you never said there is no other way to detect it. My point though is that it is suspiciously hard to detect since it is supposed to be everywhere, and much larger than things we have been aware of experimentally for a long time.
"There's nothing "artificial" about creating the Higgs or any other particle."
I don' t see how you can say this. Arguably the most complex machine on earth, the LHC could also be said to be one of the most artificial things we as humans have ever done.
"There is indirect evidence, for instance in the fact that without the Higgs field, the W and Z particles would be massless like the photon."
Again, evidence for the Higgs mechanism, not the currently accepted interpretation of what that is.
"I didn't question the use of the word; I questioned the belief itself."
Earlier you stated:
"It's not a matter of belief."
Which questions whether belief is relevant. You are also questioning my beliefs, but you did start by questioning whether belief should even be discussed.
As a side note, your credentials are impressive. I am actually honored that you deem my comments worthy of response.
01:10 PM
:), nice credentials. I've always wondered what kind of education other people had on the internet. like you said, "This is the internet. People can say whatever they want and it's nearly impossible to verify, so whatever answer you get is really useless."
I've just started my grad schooling part time while i'm doing research with the navy. Hopefully i'll be able to teach at some point in my future.
01:15 PM
"My point though is that it is suspiciously hard to detect since it is supposed to be everywhere, and much larger than things we have been aware of experimentally for a long time."
What do you mean by larger? Size-wise, elementary particles are supposed to be point-like, ie, have zero size (unless you subscribe to string theory, but that's a completely different conversation). If you mean in terms of mass, then I go back to what I said before: the heavier an unstable particle is, the harder it is to observe it. So the fact that the Higgs is supposed to be everywhere doesn't necessarily translate into an assertion that it should be easy to detect.
"I don' t see how you can say this. Arguably the most complex machine on earth, the LHC could also be said to be one of the most artificial things we as humans have ever done."
I meant it in the sense that the processes that create particles out there in the wild are exactly the same as those that create particles in the LHC. The LHC only allows us to create more of them in a smaller volume and more quickly than what you'd see out there.
"Again, evidence for the Higgs mechanism, not the currently accepted interpretation of what that is."
The interpretation of the Higgs as a particle is even more fundamental than the Standard Model. It's the backbone of quantum field theory. If you contest the interpretation of the Higgs field as a particle, then you should also contest the interpretation of the photon as the carrier of the electromagnetic interaction.
"As a side note, your credentials are impressive."
Thanks. I've always been a science nut and I never had the patience to stay confined to a single field. In fact, I'm considering getting a degree in biology, but since I don't even have a bachelor's degree in that, I'd have to start from a lower point in the scale.
"I am actually honored that you deem my comments worthy of response."
Why wouldn't I respond to your comments (or anyone else's for that matter)? I'm not flawless, so there's always the chance of learning from other people.
If I'm talking to an expert, even in my own fields of expertise, I might learn something new. But even if I'm not taking to an expert, the very act of trying to elucidate any differences in opinion forces me to re-evaluate my understanding, thereby improving it.
Moreover, if I can share some of what I know with others and help them understand a bit more about science, why not do it? Science could use more people interested in it.
01:23 PM
":), nice credentials."
Thanks!
"I've always wondered what kind of education other people had on the internet."
I've met people with all kinds of education, even some with little formal education but with a remarkable ability to grasp complicated ideas. And, of course, there are also the trolls. But trolls come and go.
"I've just started my grad schooling part time while i'm doing research with the navy. Hopefully i'll be able to teach at some point in my future."
May I ask in what area you are doing your research and getting your graduate education on?
01:38 PM
01:49 PM
Your interest in AI can easily be combined with controlling dynamic systems. There are many applications of artificial neural nets as well as evolutionary computing (genetic programming and genetic algorithms, just to mention the most obvious ones) to the control of all kinds of sensory equipment and other equipment that qualify as dynamical systems.
If you haven't come across it yet, one of my favorite intro books on AI is Mitchell's "Machine Learning"
[www.amazon.com]
02:24 PM
"What do you mean by larger? Size-wise, elementary particles are supposed to be point-like, ie, have zero size (unless you subscribe to string theory, but that's a completely different conversation)."
I actually do believe "point-like" to be a misconception derived from mathematical convenience. I think string theory started in the right direction, but devolved into a dimensional orgy (I don't believe dimensions exist anywhere but in our minds as a construct to interpret reality).
"If you contest the interpretation of the Higgs field as a particle, then you should also contest the interpretation of the photon as the carrier of the electromagnetic interaction."
I don't contest that interpretation, as it is practically the definition of a photon. The propagation of an electromagnetic wave has, though, influenced much of my own crackpot theorizing somewhat directly.
02:42 PM
"I actually do believe "point-like" to be a misconception derived from mathematical convenience."
It's not derived from mathematical convenience. All the experimental data we have today (and I should stress "today") leads us to conclude that elementary particles - all fundamental fermions and the gauge bosons, plus their antiparticles - are truly elementary, that is, without any internal structure.
It's not impossible that later observations might lead us to conclude, for instance, that the electron is not elementary. However, as far as we know today, they are. As a result, they behave as point-like entities.
Is that entirely consistent? No. There are problems with assuming elementary particles to have no volume, but that's how science works. We don't have a perfect description of nature yet.
"I think string theory started in the right direction, but devolved into a dimensional orgy"
I think string theory is a beautiful mathematical theory, and it may very well be correct. My only objection to the level of worshiping it has received is that there is absolutely no empirical evidence to support it. It deals with an energy level far larger than that of today's accelerators.
Unfortunately, some very prominent physicists have forgotten the scientific method and have promoted string theory as THE final theory, and that's terrible because: (a) it's not necessarily true and (b) it consumes resources (both financial and human) that could be used to research alternative theories.
"I don't believe dimensions exist anywhere but in our minds as a construct to interpret reality."
That could be said of almost any kind of abstract scientific construct, particularly in physics. It doesn't mean that those constructs aren't useful or relevant, however.
"I don't contest that interpretation, as it is practically the definition of a photon."
It is the definition of the photon. My point, though, was that the quantum field theory interpretation of particles as excitations of their underlying fields is a fundamental idea, much more fundamental than the Standard Model. In particular, the Higgs particle is the excitation of the Higgs field, which is the field through which the Higgs mechanism works. Since you don't contest the mechanism, you shouldn't contest the interpretation of the Higgs field as a particle.
09:31 AM
10:21 AM
10:58 AM
09:20 AM
Thus, I think the LHC is safely ahead in the race to find the Higgs.
09:04 AM
09:26 AM
08:58 AM
09:29 AM
08:47 AM
12/14/09
Octopodes seem to be much smarter than they need to be to survive. How did they get that way? Should we welcome them into the Federation?
12/14/09
12/14/09
[io9.com]
12/14/09
They decided to set up a camera to film what happened when the octopus was left alone, and it turned out that the octopus was catching roaches and using the roaches as bait to catch rats.
I have nothing but the greatest respect for octopi.
10:57 AM
I'd heard of another tale where the octopus liked companionship and getting attention, and for some reason the electricity in the tank room kept shorting out. Turns out the animal was squirting water out of the tank and into the sockets at night so people would come into the tank room. That's a level of manipulation that I don't want to see anywhere in the chepalopod family!
11:13 AM