Skip to comments.Fermilab Experiment Hints At Multiple Higgs Particles
Posted on 06/15/2010 9:41:08 PM PDT by dila813
"Recent results from the Dzero experiment at the Tevatron particle accelerator suggest that those looking for a single Higgs boson particle should be looking for five particles, and the data gathered may point to new laws beyond the Standard Model. 'The DZero results showed much more significant "asymmetry" of matter and anti-matter beyond what could be explained by the Standard Model. Bogdan Dobrescu, Adam Martin and Patrick J Fox from Fermilab say this large asymmetry effect can be accounted for by the existence of multiple Higgs bosons. They say the data point to five Higgs bosons with similar masses but different electric charges. Three would have a neutral charge and one each would have a negative and positive electric charge. This is known as the two-Higgs doublet model.'"
I wish Climate Science was able to entertain the idea that their theory is wrong as easily as Physicists are willing to.
This is how science is supposed to work.
This is just data that hints that they may be wrong, yet they are willing to consider it.
In Climate Science, the observation must not be adequate or you are a denier.
It’s about time for another major Physics breakthrough.
Oh they are. You just don't hear about the ones who do.
It is good science, just no one knows how we are going to use this information.
I hope that we surprise ourselves with an application for this.
Now there’s a clever idea. Pack the leaking casing with anti-bosons!
I thought the get bought up on charges in the World Criminal Court if they did that.
It’s not good science.
Which part, that Physicists are willing to entertain alternative theories or that there are multiple Higgs Particles?
Based on what?
That there isn’t any application for it? I would agree with you on that.
Good Science just means you have a theory and you have an experiment that can adequately probe and test it.
Explain to me your “multiple Higgs Particles” please.
Go to the link
You have no, as in zero, objectivity. Must suck.
You would think that these kinds of breakthroughs in supersymmetry would come from CERN now, and not Fermilabs.
Wow you are TROLLING hard.
Where is the regular FR, and what did you do with them?
yes, absolutely none, now go away
Yep, explain why you’re acting like a child about it first.
I guess a few billion dollars doesn’t always buy you the best science.
It’s very simple. If there could be a particle called a Higgs Boson, why not several such particles, differing in some way?
This leaves it up to you to explain why the Higgs Boson must be unique.
Somebody didn’t take their medical marijuana today
Go read the paper, I am not the Physicist.
Read about the DZero Experiment.
Go to the url and go the linked papers and articles.
I go to Fermilab once a week and mingle with some of these scientists, only they don’t necessarily talk shop, and even if they did I wouldn’t understand them. Science wasn’t my strong subject, but still fascinating I think.
One has never existed.
Higgs boson "is thought to be the mediator of mass." That is kind of important, IMO. E. E. "Doc" Smith could be right about something, after all:
Inertialessness: Spaceships are able to vastly exceed the speed of light by eliminating the inertia of their mass. When the "inertialess drive" (which does not actually provide propulsion) is turned on, the "free" (inertialess) ship instantly attains a velocity at which the force of the ship's propulsion jets is matched by friction of the medium through which it travels (such as widely scattered hydrogen molecules in the vacuum of space), avoiding the Einsteinian light-speed limit on normal (inert) matter, and so attaining a speed of about 90 parsecs per hour at touring speed and about 120 parsecs per hour at full blast. The vacuum of Intergalactic space is even more rarefied, and the speed there is about 100,000 parsecs per hour. An inertialess drive unit is called a "Bergenholm" after the scientist (actually an Arisian student appearing to be a human) who improved and perfected the original inertialess drive.
Oh boy, well you just want to be a child about it. Troll.
These are the kind of explorations that will make anti-gravity and faster than light travel possible someday.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You then call names.
It’s not clear at all what the heck he is talking/griping about, partly due to the lack of complete sentences. The basic, original form of the Standard Model includes in its spectrum of particles the Higgs particle, a massive, spin-0 particle that plays an important role in imparting masses to other particles that, at average energies of interaction higher than a certain value (corresponding to a particular phase transition), have zero masses. (”Spin zero” means that the “field operator” associated to the particle, a certain mathematical quantity, “transforms as a scalar under Lorentz transformations,” which means it remains invariant under arbitrary Lorentz transformations.) It is not possible to go into the entire content of particle physics in posts on a website, but there is nothing controversial about any of this - it is standard material taught in any graduate program in particle physics. Thus far, this particle has not been observed in experiments. There is now some data available Fermilab that points to (not yet conclusively) a variation on the original, default version of the Standard Model (there are many variations that have been hypothesized over the years, including the double Higgs variation that is relevant to this article: the double Higgs variation has already been written about for several years).
Other than the inertial-less drive (forgotten about that one!), yours is the only interesting post on the thread.
Personally, I like knot theory (not to be confused with string theory) as an elegant Grand Unified Theory. That or Pharaoh being the earthly avatar of the sun god Ra; whatever gets the chicks, you know.
To paraphrase, “it’s the same electron!”
Oh my, the pagans were right.
I wonder if the unit would fit my Road King?
Well, both knot theory and string theory are hypothesized approaches to incorporating a quantum-mechanically consistent description of the gravitational force into a description of the *other* three forces. Neither knot theory nor string theory are usually referred to as “grand unified theories.” The phrase “grand unified theory (GUT)” is usually meant to refer to expanding the Standard Model (which, strictly speaking, unifies TWO forces, namely electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force - that is why the original Standard Model is also referred to as “electroweak theory”) in such a way as to incoporate the third of the four known forces, namely, the strong nuclear force. So, the Standard Model (the electroweak theory) describes in a unified way the electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces (two of the four forces), quantum chromodynamics (QCD) explains the strong nuclear force, models that combine both QCD and electroweak theory are referred to as “grand unified theories” (thus describing three of the four forces), and string theory, knot theory and other approaches, are attempts to weave all four forces (i.e., including gravity) together in a single decription that is consistent with both quantum mechanics and relativity. Not easy.
I propose that we cap and tax these particles immediately.
It’s a good thing our imbecile “representatives” in the Congress don’t understand the first thing about particle physics, or you can bet your life they would be trying to cap and tax elementary particles.
Don’t let Baraq, Pelosi, etc hear about this stuff