Higgs boson

[ox1111]

I am curious to see how the members feel about Higgs being confirmed and the research behind it. I personally am not impressed. I especially love their percentage of the particle they found being something else, which is loony math.

 

Results in particle physics are ranked on a scale from zero to five "sigma." Last December the ATLAS and CMS teams said their data showed a two-sigma likelihood that the Higgs particle has a mass of about 125 gigaelectron volts (GeV)—about 125 times the mass of a proton, a positively charged particle in an atom's nucleus.

 

They say higgs degrades to quarks rapidly after the collision. To me it seems if a particle behaves the way higgs is suppose to it would be very easy to find in a colider and I can’t buy this higgs field.

[zapatos]

How is the math loony?

[ox1111]

It is foolish to say what you found has less than a 3 in a million chance of being something different. I would not even know how to arrive a that answer. To me that is like saying you have a 3 in a million chance of knowing what you’re talking about. I find it amazing we live on a planet that found 121 new species last year on a planet we lived and evolved on for 200,000 year and then some yahoo comes out with 3 in a million. There is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 etc to infinity of shit we don’t know .

[zapatos]

It is foolish to say what you found has less than a 3 in a million chance of being something different. I would not even know how to arrive a that answer. To me that is like saying you have a 3 in a million chance of knowing what you’re talking about. I find it amazing we live on a planet that found 121 new species last year on a planet we lived and evolved on for 200,000 year and then some yahoo comes out with 3 in a million. There is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 etc to infinity of shit we don’t know .

It is foolish to say "It is foolish to say what you found has less than a 3 in a million chance of being something different" when your very next sentence is "I would not even know how to arrive a that answer."

 

Claiming something is 'loony' based on personal incredulity and an admitted ignorance of the process does not make a compelling argument.

[ox1111]

K, show an equation or some form of math that prove anything is any % of definitely being anything. Here is the problem, math can not dictate existence. Mathematicians and scientist might as well be the same thing these days and it is also foolish to believe just because math says something is possible it exists. The opposite is true as well, just because math says something can’t doesn’t mean it doesn’t. What it does mean is we don’t fully understand the situation.

 

P.S. People say numbers go on forever, they don’t, only in the human mind. In reality there is only one number =1.

[zapatos]

K, show an equation or some form of math that prove anything is any % of definitely being anything. Here is the problem, math can not dictate existence. Mathematicians and scientist might as well be the same thing these days and it is also foolish to believe just because math says something is possible it exists. The opposite is true as well, just because math says something can’t doesn’t mean it doesn’t. What it does mean is we don’t fully understand the situation.

For the most part, one giant strawman.

 

In reality there is only one number =1.

More unsubstantiated, off topic, pronouncements.

[ox1111]

 

Claiming something is 'loony' based on personal incredulity and an admitted ignorance of the process does not make a compelling argument.

 

 

K, show an equation or some form of math that prove anything is any % of definitely being anything.

 

You give nothing, and when ask to you give even less.

 

 

[zapatos]

 

You give nothing, and when ask to you give even less.

You made a claim; the onus is on you to provide the evidence. It is not my job to prove it wrong.

[ox1111]

No My post ask what people thought and I told them what I thought and then I gave them so reasons I believed this. You on the hand just make digs at my post and empty jabs with no good reason. If you have nothing to add or debate then kindly don't post anything.

[x(x-y)]

K, show an equation or some form of math that prove anything is any % of definitely being anything. Here is the problem, math can not dictate existence. Mathematicians and scientist might as well be the same thing these days and it is also foolish to believe just because math says something is possible it exists. The opposite is true as well, just because math says something can’t doesn’t mean it doesn’t. What it does mean is we don’t fully understand the situation.

 

Just because you don't understand it does not mean it is incorrect - perhaps you should study mathematics and physics in more detail before making such wild, nonsensical statements. Mathematics is beautiful for the very fact that is the most rigorous, logical and definite of all subjects - if one proves something in mathematics, then nothing can take that away from you; it is a definitive proof. Your statement of "mathematicians and scientists being the same thing these days" seems to hold no merit and has no substantiation behind it - why did you say such a thing?

 

If (pure) mathematics - where no assumptions have been made and everything has been derived, either directly or indirectly, from first principles - says that "something can't" (as you said it - quoted above) then that means that it absolutely can't.

 

P.S. People say numbers go on forever, they don’t, only in the human mind. In reality there is only one number =1.

 

I hope you're joking, that's utter nonsense.

[ox1111]

Math and science were used together, but people once respected that math was learn from nature. In no way does math control nature. Math is like a computer, it only does what it is programmed to do, unless you are god you have no definite proof your variables truely stand for what you say they do, nor can you say their are no other circumstances that would change the out come.

 

1 is the only true number, all other number is mans attempt at making it easer to understand groups of 1. Nature either exists=1 or doesn’t.

[x(x-y)]

It sounds to me that you are just very bad at mathematics and therefore are bitter and try to make out that mathematics is to blame when you yourself just don't understand it.

[ox1111]

It sounds to me that you are just very bad at mathematics and therefore are bitter and try to make out that mathematics is to blame when you yourself just don't understand it.

You give no useful info or debate. Keep ur opinions to yourself.

[swansont]

It is foolish to say what you found has less than a 3 in a million chance of being something different. I would not even know how to arrive a that answer.

 

It's the number you get from a 5-sigma event.

http://www.physicscentral.com/buzz/blog/index.cfm?postid=5248358123737529836

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/07/17/five-sigmawhats-that/

 

Basically it means that there's that probability of the signal being random noise, because of the amount of data that has been gathered — you can get random spikes in data, but they tend to average out as you gather more. The nature of statistics tell you what the chances of it is being a false signal.

 

That you are not impressed has basically zero weight in the discussion.

[ox1111]

I read both and pretty much was what I knew. The article that I read the discovery was only a sigma-4 but they gave a different percentage for the particle they found being something other than a Higgs. Sorry can’t find it.

The first link you gave said they stopped using 3-sigma events because many turned out to be proven wrong. Then it said last year their was a 6-sigma event proven wrong. It seems they need a different system.

Hey, maybe higgs will hold on, but I don’t believe it will.

[chefgareth32]

Being that I am neither mathematically smart or a scientist and am mearly a chef my opinions on this matter are obviously worthless...but.....

I agree that the maths behind any theory are just a recreation of nature and can not be absolute.

If I am wrong then fair enough but am I not correct that darwin's theories had a huge input to quantum mechanics and did he not study nature !!! !!!!!

 

also in addition all maths are based on equations if in any instance the major equations are disproved then all the math means nothing. imagine if you will that e=mc2 is wrong.....where does your math stand now, yet nature will hold its value indefinately ??

 

also in addition all maths are based on equations if in any instance the major equations are disproved then all the math means nothing. imagine if you will that e=mc2 is wrong.....where does your math stand now, yet nature will hold its value indefinately ??

 

also in addition all maths are based on equations if in any instance the major equations are disproved then all the math means nothing. imagine if you will that e=mc2 is wrong.....where does your math stand now, yet nature will hold its value indefinately ??

 

sorry for the repitition my phone lost the plot !

[uncool]

ox1111:

 

The calculation that was made was approximately the following:

 

Consider the possibility that the Higgs boson doesn't exist - that the Standard Model by itself is actually a good model of particle physics up to and including the entire range of the LHC. That is what's called a "null hypothesis". The calculation then determines how likely it is that the data that were found would have been found if we are given that that hypothesis is true. If the probability is low enough, then we can "reject" the "null hypothesis", and see that our "alternative hypothesis" of Standard + Higgs is far better than the "null hypothesis" at explaining the data that were found. Once that has been established, the Standard + Higgs becomes the new "null hypothesis" against which other hypotheses are checked.

=Uncool-

Edited December 28, 2012 by uncool

[swansont]

I read both and pretty much was what I knew. The article that I read the discovery was only a sigma-4 but they gave a different percentage for the particle they found being something other than a Higgs. Sorry can’t find it.

The first link you gave said they stopped using 3-sigma events because many turned out to be proven wrong. Then it said last year their was a 6-sigma event proven wrong. It seems they need a different system.

 

The six-sigma example was given to differentiate between random and systematic error. The neutrino data's issue was about the location of the peak, not about the existence of it.

 

Hey, maybe higgs will hold on, but I don’t believe it will.

 

…

[ox1111]

Looking back, Mmmmm higgs, not so much.