There might be no such thing as a Higgs Boson...

However, there is a Higgs Field and something propagates that field the same sort of way that electricity is propagated as a current in a wire or lightning.

It might not be a single particle. I might be a new particle or combination of particles or new set of particles with new properties.

In that case, particle physics will go back to the drawing board and start with a new theory.

But if there is a Higgs Boson, then the current models of particle physics will be confirmed.

Either possibility is exciting. Either is of course possible.

It's a little like Schrodinger's Cat, until we find the particle, we cannot determine what it is.

moi621 (imported) wrote: Sun May 06, 2012 7:15 pm Cainanite

I just think they should have renamed the Neutrino with mass to differentiate it from the massless particle.

Like Neutrino Plus, because Neutrino+ , might be confused with a positively charged Neutrino.

Leave the door open to the massless particle, or Neutrino.

Moi

Is and Are and Will Be and Has Been Before. Therefore, Is.

The Neutrino did not change. Our instruments changed. The Neutrino is the Neutrino. The only thing that changed was our ability to measure it. Venus didn't change when we learned those clouds weren't made of water vapor. Only our understanding of it changed.

We once thought Mars had man-made canals on the surface. Should we change the name, now that we know it doesn't?

We don't change the name of something just because we were wrong about our opinions of it. There are a lot of people I've been wrong about too. Should they change their name, every time I get it wrong? It would make things bloody confusing.

And what of the massless, chargeless particle.

My Neutrino? When they find it will the name, Neutrino have been usurped by a more massive bully?

Yes, similar to planet and that asteroid and the Binary Planet system Pluto/Charon?

Okay, I accept it is a Binary Planet System with a small moon. But, too small to be like

Earth/Moon or Pluto/Charon.

They never get it right. They just get the publications.

Moi

moi621 (imported) wrote: Sun May 06, 2012 8:22 pm And what of the massless, chargeless particle.

My Neutrino? When they find it will the name, Neutrino have been usurped by a more massive bully?

Yes, similar to planet and that asteroid and the Binary Planet system Pluto/Charon?

Okay, I accept it is a Binary Planet System with a small moon. But, too small to be like

Earth/Moon or Pluto/Charon.

They never get it right. They just get the publications.

Moi

I think you need to get a job at the LHC and propose they start looking for a massless and chargeless particle. Particles can (at least so far observed) be either massless or chargeless, but not both. Every particle is at least some kind of force carrier.

You are right of course. They never get it right. The publications only tell us where we currently are in our understanding. They are landmarks on the path, never the destination.

True, good research always takes you in a direction that you did not expect, That is the beauty of it, and Pluto is back to being Micky's pet, no longer a heavenly body to be worshiped. Eight is enough, we did not need that tiny asteroid in our planet system, to many other like sized asteroids in the same area.

Science, don't you just love it, its self correcting when needed, like the death of a planet, but who needed Pluto anyway?

River

I NEED PLUTO!

I grew up with it.



Seriously, the problem with science today is the lame "name game" that goes against their definitions.

A biological, "species" can breed and produce a fertile off spring.

A simple definition that today is continuously misused and mistaken for

varieties or populations within a species.

Witness, as I argued for decades, Neanderthal should properly be termed

Homo sapien neanderthal (Genus, Species, Variety/Population)

And not a separate species.

If you come from a population outside of Africa, you have an "active" immunity gene

courtesy of Neanderthal. Not a marker but, an active gene. Neanderthal linage = Same species.

Moi

And the term for a

moi621 (imported) wrote: Sun May 06, 2012 8:22 pm massless, chargeless particle

should be reserved for a Neutrino as it was defined in the sixties.

Where have you been? the last show I watched on the origin of man Neanderthal and us are NOT related.

Pluto is not a Planet,

What else have you missed?

River

Well actually River, the redhead gene is from Neanderthals.

That's why they are great lovers (beastly, no holds barred sex) And we hump them wildly over it.

Not from what I watched on Nova. Three part series, of being human.

River

moi621 (imported) wrote: Sun May 06, 2012 6:31 pm Typing slowly.

I was at UCI when Frederick Reines was a major name. Late sixties. The word, Neutrino was not foreign to those of us on campus. And a Neutrino was defined as having no mass. Today it does have mass. It did not live up to its' definition but we still call it a Neutrino.

The Higgs Boson may not live up to its' billing either once researched.

Maybe we should be looking for the God String and not the God Particle.

Because of my let down over Neutrino mass,

moi621 (imported) wrote: Sun May 06, 2012 6:31 pm ]
I choose not to believe in the Higgs Boson

and be hurt by Science again.

The late sixties was a time of disillusionment.

I do hope that ma
[/quote]
ke more sense now, if not provoke a little smile.



I just love skepticism. Nothing would be more exciting in particle physics than to not find the Higg's Boson. For all we know, the whole concept of the Higg's field is wrong. This whole thing about building the LHC and the ten billion dollars it cost, is to find the Higg's boson. If there is no Higg's, then the Standard Model is wrong. That would be kinda cool, because it means we have to start over with a new theory.

I also don't believe in Dark matter or dark energy. They are just nice ways of saying our current theory of gravity is wrong. I think the whole idea of point particles is wrong. I think M-theory or some derivative of it is going to be a more accurate description of the universe. Of course, I don't know and the nice thing is, neither does anyone else. I personally like the new idea that the expansion of the universe is not speeding up, but instead time is slowing down.

I also don't buy into the dark matter explanation for why stars towards the outside of galaxies are going as fast as the ones closer to the center. Laws of physics are laws until even one thing does not fit the law. The law of gravity as we know it does not explain the observations, therefore the law fails. So making up dark matter to keep the law alive is contrary to the scientific method. The truth is, our understanding of gravity also fails at the quantum level also. It's time to admit we just don't know, instead of making up all this fictitious crap that is not supported by observations.

Elizabeth