This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

The LHC (again)

13»

Comments

  • So wrong... on so many levels.

    Popular physics is hard.
  • Explain. For then we learn even more!
  • edited July 2012
    It is very hard to explain particle physics using analogies without subtly misrepresenting other concepts. For example:

    True: an "interaction term" between, e.g., the electron field and the higgs field in the Lagrangian leads to a "mass term" for the electron field. This "mass term" in part makes it so that when you derive the equations of motion for the electron a mass shows up in the classical sense of a particle having a mass.

    False: Trying to visualize this as excitations of the electron field "bouncing" of the Higgs field implies that relative motion with respect to the rest frame of the Higgs field is important (the collisions in the direction of motion of the electron slow the electron more than the collisions in the other direction speed it up). This is effectively similar to the theory of the Luminiferous Aether and violates Newton's first law.

    The physicist in me can appreciate the allegorical nature of the above analogy but the educator cringes at the false inferences.

    To be clear; I don't think the video is bad, it does a good job of telling a lie which is what popularizing science is all about ;-).
    Post edited by Dr. Timo on
  • Did you check out the other videos he has on the topic? He explains it in a few ways.
  • A very nice article in the NY Times about the Higgs yesterday.
  • It's back in the news, and new particles have been discovered!
  • edited April 2014
    Few people realise that those kind of new particles (hadronic resonances, meaning unstable combinations of quarks) are discovered all the time, like several times a year.
    Post edited by Dr. Timo on
  • Dr. Timo said:

    Few people realise that those kind of new particles (hadronic resonances, meaning unstable combinations of quarks) are discovered all the time, like several times a year.

    Is there anything particularly important about them, or is it like when someone makes a new sandwich by combining pickles, peanut butter, and chocolate (that is, technically new, but useless)?
  • They are important in that they help us verify, improve and fine tune the model we have of how quarks from bound states. This area of particle physics is called non-perturbaitve QCD and it in turn is very important for improving the accuracy of high energy particle physics experiments. The outcome of those experiments can not be calculated from theory alone with any accuracy because the non-perturbative component of the calculations has to be calculated using methods that require experimental input beyond basic physical constants.

    However, since any single "new" particle impacts this process very little, there is usually not much of a press circus attached to it. Here, the fact that it was the LHC (usually these particles are discovered at CERN with one of the smaller accelerators there), and that it was a more interesting combination of quarks than usual, has led to it receiving more attention.
  • edited August 2016
    Post edited by Daikun on
  • We've still got the Higgs boson, and that ain't bad.
  • Yeah, that december thing was a bit unseemly because it is fairly certain that the authors knew their "findings" would be nullified with additional research. Meanwhile everyone gets on the bandwagon and publishes 300+ papers on the 750GeV particle and what it could mean. It's good practise and I assume a lot of grad students got some exercise in writing but otherwise not so useful.

    Now we just wait for SUSY, the previous wait period didn't work out so well.
  • edited September 2016
    Assuming SUSY is valid and we're not just in a hologram controlled by our future selves.

    Nah but symmetry would be nice.
    Post edited by SWATrous on
Sign In or Register to comment.