Higgs and Englert win Nobel Prize in Physics

[imatfaal]

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2013/

 

The Nobel Prize in Physics 2013 was awarded jointly to François Englert and Peter W. Higgs "for the theoretical discovery of a mechanism that contributes to our understanding of the origin of mass of subatomic particles, and which recently was confirmed through the discovery of the predicted fundamental particle, by the ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN's Large Hadron Collider"

 

 

[Tridimity]

Higgs' reaction is to go on holiday and to leave his phone at home. Got to love the man's style.

[timo]

Not exactly the Nobel prize that will make history as "biggest surprise by the time it was awarded".

[michel123456]

I find it very bad that the Nobel Prize is never attributed post mortem.
The name of Robert Brout should have been mentioned. Unfortunately Brout died in 2011.

[StringJunky]

I find it very bad that the Nobel Prize is never attributed post mortem.

The name of Robert Brout should have been mentioned. Unfortunately Brout died in 2011.

In one way I agree but in another it's only a prize and dead people can't receive them. In the annals of science and its institutions I'm sure his contributions will be mentioned...this is the important thing.

[michel123456]

In one way I agree but in another it's only a prize and dead people can't receive them. In the annals of science and its institutions I'm sure his contributions will be mentioned...this is the important thing.

Well, a Nobel Prize has side effects. For example, Nobel Prizes are important for Universities. The total number of Nobel Prizes for a University makes it rise in the list of best institutions, enhancing the value of future papers from future academics, even enhancing the value of its studies and its students. The name of a brilliant scientist is not enough. I am sure there are other side effects. For example Englert's is the 11th for Belgium (all categories), making each single Belgian stupidly proud.

[imatfaal]

Well, a Nobel Prize has side effects. For example, Nobel Prizes are important for Universities. The total number of Nobel Prizes for a University makes it rise in the list of best institutions, enhancing the value of future papers from future academics, even enhancing the value of its studies and its students. The name of a brilliant scientist is not enough. I am sure there are other side effects. For example Englert's is the 11th for Belgium (all categories), making each single Belgian stupidly proud.

 

It definitely has side effects - and on the whole positive ones. I am sure that just a few more Belgian children will be swayed in the direction of science - that's good. Universities and departments reap the financial benefits for years to come - and it isn't just a transfer of funds from less fortunate institutions, it is often new money that would otherwise not go to academe.

[michel123456]

And there is also the human dimension.

 

Robert died not knowing he was right.

 

Robert who?

------------------

There is more to it:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10363648/Americans-miss-out-on-Nobel-Prize.html

 

"I had given up on it, I was beginning to think it wasn’t there."

 

[pantheory]

Petter Higgs is a cool guy but like the so-called discovery of dark energy, I think the Higgs particle is inconsequential, not part of any Higgs field, and that the Nobel committee has made another mistake. In time I believe these ideas and so-called discoveries will turn out to be something different. Higgs will probably not be alive at the time when such realizations are made so congrats to him, and I expect he will have fun spending the money, and deservedly highly respected for his remaining life

[StringJunky]

In time I believe these ideas and so-called discoveries will turn out to be something different.

Isn't that mostly the case? History tells us that Science gets closer to the truth but never arrives at it so it will follow that any idea is eventually found to not be all-encompassing and is only valid within certain limits. I think any experienced scientist expects an idea will be superseded eventually but it is 'right' for now.

Edited October 11, 2013 by StringJunky

[pantheory]

Isn't that mostly the case? History tells us that Science gets closer to the truth but never arrives at it so it will follow that any idea is eventually found to not be all-encompassing and is only valid within certain limits. I think any experienced scientist expects an idea will be superseded eventually but it is 'right' for now.

 

It is often the case that science takes two steps forward and one backward. For maybe the last 110s years I think science is taking the one step backward and hopefully in the coming ten years this period will end. Unforetunately I think dark matter, dark energy, the Higgs particle and much of modern physics for the last 110 years is still part of the one step backward. The turning point I expect to be about 2025 after the James Webb has been up for a few years. That's my take.

[swansont]

 

It is often the case that science takes two steps forward and one backward. For maybe the last 110s years I think science is taking the one step backward and hopefully in the coming ten years this period will end. Unforetunately I think dark matter, dark energy, the Higgs particle and much of modern physics for the last 110 years is still part of the one step backward. The turning point I expect to be about 2025 after the James Webb has been up for a few years. That's my take.

 

How will a telescope have an impact on high-energy particle physics?

[pantheory]

 

How will a telescope have an impact on high-energy particle physics?

 

Yes, It will not directly influence particle physics. But if the James Webb finds very old appearing galaxies at the farthest observable distances, along with ground scope arrays, also having high metallicities, then I expect a new round of epicycles will be in order for the Big Bang model. This would show that mainstream theorists are often unfamiliar with alternative explanations and models that might better explain observations and reality.

 

I think mainstream theorists, in modern times, have been too quick to believe and state that observations in general support mainstream theory. Many particle physicists, for example, contend that a so-called Higgs particle lasting maybe only a few trillionths of a second, does not prove the existence of a omni-present dense field of particles that gives mass to matter. The point is that mainstream theories in general may be too easily accepted as gospel by most scientists and layman. The problem, I think, is that there is rarely open discussions of alternative theory or ideas. Usually the existence of the many alternative ideas and models are not even known. Mainstream publishers rarely accept totally contrary alterative ideas, regardless of the authors or institutions. Alternative theory publications are rarely read by mainstream theorists and practitioners.

 

Now because of the Nobel Prize, I think that fewer future criticisms contradicting the findings of a Higgs field, will be written, accepted for publication, or even for discussion. I think such a decision to grant the Nobel Prize for the Higgs particle was very premature, as I think was the decision to grant the Nobel Prize for the discovery of dark energy. There is little doubt, however, that these scientists are worthy of the highest respect if not the Nobel Prize

Edited October 20, 2013 by pantheory