Peter Higgs has been found to be correct in his prediction of a mass giving particle. Scientist at CERN have confirmed a new particle that has all of the hallmarks of being the elusive Higgs Boson. Peter Higgs was over whelmed by the discovery in the last few days. The Boson has been independantly verified by two competing experiments and teams of scientist. The Fourth of July will never be the same again. Congrats to Peter Higgs ( a great candidate for the Nobel) and the two teams at CERN for their tenacious pursuit of the ekusive particle. Proves the theory that any thing is possible if you apply enough brain power to solve the problem. This years Nobel committee will definately have some awards to give out in theoretical physics, particle theory and string theories. Pete Higgs should get at least one for his prediction and subsequent proof of the existance of the Boson particle.
Bob

 

Congrats to Peter Higgs ( a great candidate for the Nobel) and the two teams at CERN for their tenacious pursuit of the ekusive particle. Proves the theory that any thing is possible if you apply enough brain power to solve the problem. This years Nobel committee will definately have some awards to give out in theoretical physics, particle theory and string theories. Pete Higgs should get at least one for his prediction and subsequent proof of the existance of the Boson particle.
Bob

Unfortunately, the Nobel Prize (at least in the sciences) can only be awarded for work performed in the year leading up to the award (not sure what the official cutoff dates are). So the two teams are eligible, but Peter Higgs is not.

And don't forget that the achievement involved not only enough brain power, but enough brute force physical power, as well. Given a big enough hammer, anything looks sufficiently like a nail for the differences not to matter .

 

I think if they can give a Nobel to Obama they can give one to Peter Higgs.

 

The Nobel Peace Prize is a different critter and its awarding has gotten more and more politicized and bizarre as time goes on. Even by their one strange criteria, Obama's was out in left field because his wasn't awarded for anything he had accomplished at all, but rather for his supposed potential to accomplish some undefined wonderful thing at some undefined point in the future.

 

...they can give one to Peter Higgs.

I think they can too. However, it would seem prudent to wait, despite the fact that Hawking was quoted as saying he should get the prize this year. Typically such an award can not be made for a theoretical discovery until it has been clearly proved experimentally. It may still take some time before a there is enough confidence that the experimental discovery is sufficiently in line with the theoretical predictions. Often 10 or 20 years may elapse before an award is made, although this one might be awarded any time within 5 years.

As an example, Hawking can't get a Nobel prize for his prediction of Hawking radiation, which causes a black hole to evaporate, because it has never been observed. He is also not likely to get the prize because he will surely die before it becomes feasible to measure the effect (it is very very very hard to measure).

As another example, Yakawa received the prize for his theoretical prediction of mesons. The prize was not awarded until they were experimentally discovered and found to have mass exactly in line with his predictions.

Einstein received his in 1921-22, and it was ostensibly for his 1905 work on the photoelectric effect. Why he never got one for General Relativity is a travesty that makes no sense to me; but that's another story.

 

As I was writing the last post, I was wondering whether the prize could be awarded in the year the results are verified.

Here is the Wikipedia info:

Nobel's will provides for prizes to be awarded in recognition of discoveries made "during the preceding year". Early on, the awards usually recognised recent discoveries. However, some of these early discoveries were later discredited. For example, Johannes Fibiger was awarded the 1926 Prize for Physiology or Medicine for his purported discovery of a parasite that caused cancer. To avoid this embarrassment, the awards increasingly recognised scientific discoveries that had withstood the test of time. According to Ralf Pettersson, former chairman of the Nobel Prize Committee for Physiology or Medicine, "the criterion ‘the previous year’ is interpreted by the Nobel Assembly as the year when the full impact of the discovery has become evident.

So you are right. I hope they do give it to him, because once he passes, he most definitely is no longer eligible.

 

Boy, when they say "God is everywhere", they're not kidding!!

 

Boy, when they say "God is everywhere", they're not kidding!!

Everywhere, and yet invisible unless you know how to look.

 

Everywhere, and yet invisible unless you know how to look.

Okay, let's see if I can say this without it offending anyone....


The particle is invisible, and all you can see is the evidence that it was there. Isn't that how people see God? They can't see anything physically, only the evidence that *he* was there....

Okay, that's enough philosophy for me today

 

Yes GOD loveth humanity so much that he gaveth his only son.
But unto teh tree of effervescent wisdom thou shall not lyeth.

For evermore at least until now, Higgs boson found so GOD cannoth hide anymore, that is.

Or it's rather they change something in the matrix. Always when that happens a black cat is seen.

 

Or it's rather they change something in the matrix. Always when that happens a black cat is seen.

Deja vu happens when the matrix is changed. Doesn't necessarily have to involve a black cat.

 

Deja vu happens when the matrix is changed. Doesn't necessarily have to involve a black cat.

Yes but creepy things could be hiding inside double walls. Including but not limited to Higgs Boson emitters.

 

In which reference frame the Higgs boson was found ?
=.

 

The Higgs Boson May Have 'Five Faces'

And they've come up with a doozy:
maybe there isn't just one Higgs boson
(the as-yet-undiscovered subatomic particle believed to impart mass);
maybe, instead, there are five different versions,
with similar masses but different electric charges.

http://news.discovery.com/space/the-higgs-boson-may-have-five-faces.html

==.

 

Anyone find it a little funny that the "God Particle" is what "imparts Mass"....?

 

The Higgs Boson May Have 'Five Faces'

And they've come up with a doozy:
maybe there isn't just one Higgs boson
(the as-yet-undiscovered subatomic particle believed to impart mass);
maybe, instead, there are five different versions,
with similar masses but different electric charges.

http://news.discovery.com/space/the-higgs-boson-may-have-five-faces.html

==.

You do realize this story was published in June 2010? The current discovery is current and evidence has been repeated and confirmed, while that story is based on very weak experimental evidence. Or, judging from the date, it was written off as a anomaly, you need multiple observations to confirm this stuff.

With physics, you need to check your dates as well as the facts. Reporters are not good scientists.

Concerning CERN: Cliff Burgess on the discovery of the Higgs boson

 

Reporters are not good scientists.

Concerning CERN: Cliff Burgess on the discovery of the Higgs boson

Concerning CERN:
Cliff Burgess on the discovery of the Higgs boson
http://phys.org/news/2012-07-cern-cliff-burgess-discovery-higgs.html
===…

My comment.
=.
Dirac was one of the first who said how vacuum is important.
" The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t correctly
describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description
of something more complex? "
/ Paul Dirac ./
And Cliff Burgess ( himself a theoretical particle physicist
and professor of physics and astronomy ) forgot Dirac name.

In 1928 Dirac said that ‘ virtual particles’ exist in vacuum
but until now we don’t know their essence.
Why?
Because as ‘a theoretical particle physicist and professor
of physics and astronomy’ said :
‘Suppose you were interested in the properties of fish and how
they move and why some fish move faster than others given
the same amount of effort. This would be very hard if you
did not understand what water was.
In order to understand properly the motion of fish, you must first
also understand the environment through which they move.’
=.
It means that to know properties of fish- particles at first we need
to understand environment – VACUUM through which the
fish- particles move.
=.
But today.
Today physicists refuse to take vacuum as a real conception
as a fundament of Universe.
Book : ‘Dreams of a final theory’
by Steven Weinberg. Page 138.
‘ It is true . . . there is such a thing as absolute zero; we cannot
reach temperatures below absolute zero not because we are not
sufficiently clever but because temperatures below absolute zero
simple have no meaning.’
/ Steven Weinberg. The Nobel Prize in Physics 1979 /
=.
Therefore theoretical physics full with abstractions and puzzles.
P.S.
The most fundamental question facing 21st century physics will be:
What is the vacuum? As quantum mechanics teaches us, with
its zero point energy this vacuum is not empty and the word
vacuum is a gross misnomer!
/ Prof. Friedwardt Winterberg /
==.

 

Quotes do not make science you know. I tend to disregard them entirely nowdays, unless they are on a signature and I like them.

You keep using dated material that may or may not apply, while folks are posting things that happened this month. Books are good, but they go in and out of vogue, no matter who wrote them.

BTW, "Dreams of a Final Theory" was published in 1992. In terms of particle physics, that is ancient. You really do need to look at dates.

 

Concerning CERN:
Cliff Burgess on the discovery of the Higgs boson
http://phys.org/news/2012-07-cern-cliff-burgess-discovery-higgs.html
===…

My comment.
=.
Dirac was one of the first who said how vacuum is important.
" The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t correctly
describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description
of something more complex? "
/ Paul Dirac ./
And Cliff Burgess ( himself a theoretical particle physicist
and professor of physics and astronomy ) forgot Dirac name.

In 1928 Dirac said that ‘ virtual particles’ exist in vacuum
but until now we don’t know their essence.
Why?
Because as ‘a theoretical particle physicist and professor
of physics and astronomy’ said :
‘Suppose you were interested in the properties of fish and how
they move and why some fish move faster than others given
the same amount of effort. This would be very hard if you
did not understand what water was.
In order to understand properly the motion of fish, you must first
also understand the environment through which they move.’
=.
It means that to know properties of fish- particles at first we need
to understand environment – VACUUM through which the
fish- particles move.
=.
But today.
Today physicists refuse to take vacuum as a real conception
as a fundament of Universe.
Book : ‘Dreams of a final theory’
by Steven Weinberg. Page 138.
‘ It is true . . . there is such a thing as absolute zero; we cannot
reach temperatures below absolute zero not because we are not
sufficiently clever but because temperatures below absolute zero
simple have no meaning.’
/ Steven Weinberg. The Nobel Prize in Physics 1979 /
=.
Therefore theoretical physics full with abstractions and puzzles.
P.S.
The most fundamental question facing 21st century physics will be:
What is the vacuum? As quantum mechanics teaches us, with
its zero point energy this vacuum is not empty and the word
vacuum is a gross misnomer!
/ Prof. Friedwardt Winterberg /
==.

^^^Who is this guy???

 

Quotes do not make science you know.
I tend to disregard them entirely nowdays, unless they are on a signature and I like them.

You keep using dated material that may or may not apply, while folks are
posting things that happened this month. Books are good, but they go
in and out of vogue, no matter who wrote them.

BTW, "Dreams of a Final Theory" was published in 1992.
In terms of particle physics, that is ancient.
You really do need to look at dates.

Perhaps you didn’t understand that Cliff Burgess
( himself a theoretical particle physicist and professor
of physics and astronomy ) said at data.
He said: ‘you must first also understand the
environment ( vacuum) through which they (particles) move.’
=.
All the best.