"Achingly close..."

Quote :

Without the Higgs boson to explain why electrons and matter have mass, Carroll said, "there would be no atoms, there would be no chemistry, there would be no life, so that's kind of important."

http://news.yahoo.com/god-particle-confirmation-achingly-close-013616436.html


No one has ever explained to me how the mere presence of Higgs boson is an explanation of why electrons and matter have mass.

"In particle physics, the Higgs mechanism is a kind of mass generation mechanism, a process that gives mass to elementary particles. According to this theory, particles gain mass by interacting with the Higgs field that permeates all space. More precisely, the Higgs mechanism endows gauge bosons in a gauge theory with mass through absorption of Nambu–Goldstone bosons arising in spontaneous symmetry breaking."

There. Now we all know.

_Howard wrote:

"In particle physics, the Higgs mechanism is a kind of mass generation mechanism, a process that gives mass to elementary particles. According to this theory, particles gain mass by interacting with the Higgs field that permeates all space. More precisely, the Higgs mechanism endows gauge bosons in a gauge theory with mass through absorption of Nambu–Goldstone bosons arising in spontaneous symmetry breaking."

There. Now we all know.

Many thanks, Howard... now I have to go do what I do with this information.

Don't forget to wipe thoroughly.

Yeah. You should be blushing, Howard.
You're a filthy beast, and you know it.

I'm not a filthy beast. I just have an extra Higgs boson in my DNA. It can be problematic.

Is it actually possible to have meaningful debates on topics like this? That is is to say, all the people here seem of average or above intelligence, but I don't think many (any?) of us understands a word of the explanation.

The philosophical issue might be 'what are we entitled to have opinions on?'.
After reading the above, I do not feel I am entitled to an opinion about Higgs bosons. So what about my opinion of - say - multiple reality model of the universe? It so happens that I don't like the multiple reality model, but is the fact that kp3 doesn't think its right significant?

As you can see I am out of practice in debating! No doubt I'll be upto speed shortly.

keithprosser3 wrote:

After reading the above, I do not feel I am entitled to an opinion about Higgs bosons.

Why not? You paid for it.

You are of course correct. I promise to take an opinion on Higgs bosons. Er, what are the choices?

Sadly, in a more perfect world, (notice I didn't say perfect), where money isn't funneled away to parts unknown without asking first, it might have behooved those Higgs boson people, to educate and inform. But obviously it didn't matter, did it? They got their Hadron Collider.
What I was getting at, was, when it was said:

Quote :

Without the Higgs boson to explain why electrons and matter have mass, Carroll said, "there would be no atoms, there would be no chemistry, there would be no life, so that's kind of important."

... I want to know how/why there's only this elusive boson to fit the bill. Maybe there's 6 others. Or 45. Or a billion. Seems kind of closed minded to me... not to mention, if you only find what you're looking for, there's the possibility a whole lot can be missed.
Like the erroneous finding of 'junk' DNA.

keithprosser3 wrote:

You are of course correct. I promise to take an opinion on Higgs bosons. Er, what are the choices?

1. Yes
2. No
3. Huh?

I must disagree a little with you Lisa. I think the information is 'out there'. One issue is how much a person really wants to know or find out. Most people are - I suspect - content to have a very superficial (ie practically non-existant) knowledge of Higgs. I'm more or less in that category, because I am resigned to never being up to speed on the cutting edges of quantum physics or cosmology, even though I am fascinated by them as a lay man.

If I was more motivated, I'd spend the time to know more, but its exponential in a way - to know more I'd need to know more background, and to understand the background I'd need more background... it would become full time occupation!

It is a shame that we are forced almost into a position resembing religious faith... we either accept 'this is so' on the basis of the pronouncement of our priest-scientists or give up the attempt to know or understand anything at all. Neither is a perfect prospect, but I think the latter is preferable?

The LHC was ridiculously expensive. Was it money well spent when what it helped discover is so esoteric harldy anybody knows or (really) cares about it? I've seen enough real poverty in Africa to think that sometimes spending priorities are seriously skewed, but I think if we stop scientific research (and the only research worth doing now is big-time - there isn't much you can learn using a test-tube and bunsen burner any more) then something very important about being human - hope for a better tomorrow? - would be lost.

We need big (incomprehensible) science and we need to fund aid for the third world. There is no optimum balance, and people will disagree about how much goes where. But as long as we do both I don't think there is too much to worry about - just plenty to argue about!

Of course, you're right about the way things stand.
But if I were allowed to vote, people would always come first.
There would be no other option. And I guess I wonder about how it came to be otherwise.

If by 'people come first' then I don't think you are in a minority. A quick squint at what is on the 'net indicates that the annual UK aid budget is (co-incidentally no doubt) roughly the same as the total LHC budget. Given the LHC is one-off and foreign aid is on-going, is that a fair balance? The UK government gave 1.4 billion to the arts last year.... no doubt most of it going to elitist art such as opera. Should that money be diverted to more utilitarian ends?

I suppose its only human nature to want a bigger slice of the pie to go towards their 'pet projects'. I would like to see more being done to alleviate 3rd world poverty (although giving cash is not what I think is all that is needed there). But I also want big science like the LHC and Hubble and to happen and for great operas to be staged.

I'm glad I'm not in charge of slicing up the pie, because it would beyond Solomon to cut it to satisfy everyone. I think there are simply too many options and decisions involved to make it a votable issue.

One "solution" - abolish all state intervention and let people put money where they want to as individuals. That might appeal to some ultra-libertarians, but it surely wouldn't actually work, would it?

keithprosser3 wrote:

One "solution" - abolish all state intervention and let people put money where they want to as individuals. That might appeal to some ultra-libertarians, but it surely wouldn't actually work, would it?

I don't know what an ultra-libertarian is. Or a democrat. Or a republican. Or any of the politically self serving invented words. Words designed to make people feel as though they're part of a group that feels the same way, no doubt. 'Groups' are imperative to politicians. So much so, that if you're not part of particular groups, your vote has no meaning. It is negated. This is also imperative to politicians. They cater to the fools that believe they've been empowered because their candidate was elected. Despite the similarity of needs and desires among every individual on the planet, politicians are only able to 'serve' as far as the not affecting the manner to which they'd like to be accustomed. And no matter what scandal might be associated with politics in general, and certain office holders in particular, it all seems to work out for them. But how could it not? Rather than demanding something better, the average fearful voter shuffles in to vote thinking how much worse it could be. And are grateful to be allowed to take care of the government and keep their own reduced portion in the process.
I have no doubt if people put money where they want as individuals, it would surely work.
It just wouldn't look like anything we've seen before. Which is exciting as hell.
Thinking that it surely wouldn't actually work means that the government has done it's job. I mean what would happen to them if we decided we didn't need them? Every last one of them, that is.
It would hate to think you have such renegade thoughts, Keith. It knows what's best. Doncha' know?

A refreshingly anarchistic post from you there Lisa! I have sympathy with your position, but strong doubts as to their practicality. In one way individual political control is possible (or more possible)more now than ever - is that we have the internet which provides an infrastructure that potentially empowers individuals. Representative government surely got invented with social structures became to large to allow everyone to be involved in decision making.... anything above a small village in other words.

But in practice I don't want to spend hours every day at my PC contributing to the running of the country. Sadly, there are people who would enjoy doing exactly that and they would end up running things by sheer persistence. To increase their influence they would rope in like-minded collaborators and before you knew it we would be back to the situation of being run by self-serving cliques.

Anarchism may be ok for a small commune, but surely it can't work for a country of nearly 300 million?

Of course it can't. Nor should it.
But again, we've been trained like the smartest monkeys.
We need to be reminded we have more than two choices.

If voting could change anything it would be made illegal.

keithprosser3 wrote:

If voting could change anything it would be made illegal.

Amen to that.