Higgs-Boson particle

[Autumnlicious]

Conveniently, many predictions of string theory can be only verified through impossible energies and means, making it not even falsifiable or as Peter Woight terms "Not even Wrong."

[Creed of Heresy]

In other words it's complete bullshit and has no place in scientific circles.

[Angrboda]

That's certainly a valid point, and such energies are stupid impossible at present. However a friend made a suggestion which I'm still mulling over at this point. His suggestion was, that, while a super collider the size of the solar system certainly seems an impossibility now, in the future, somewhere down the road, the only real obstacle to such a project may be economical or political, not engineering. Michio Kaku writes on similar such future impossibilities for those that are interested. (I'm familiar with his Physics Of The Impossible, but I believe he has written elsewhere on similar themes.)

[Anomalocaris]

The gap between the state of the art on the one hand, and the experimental verification of any flavor of string theory on the other, means string theory is currently evolving in multiple directions essentially blind. This has the effect of consuming the entire careers of skilled theoreticians without any possibility of their efforts be guided down the right direction by glimmers of experimental. This is a bad use of theoretical physics talents.

[liam]

just out of pure curiosity, does anyone reckon that, if they did not find this particle and so would have to abandon the standard model, they would actually tell anyone that? I mean, if you built a multi-billion pound facility and produced ridiculously hyped data, would there not be some bias to that?

Furthermore, it seems to me that in certain matters there is a tendency to manipulate facts to suit theories as opposed to manipulating theories to suit facts.

Perhaps my issues stem from a misunderstanding but I also have another issue, yet again on which I'm probably quite clueless. If the higgs-boson field gives particles it's mass when they move through it, and it is made by the higgs-boson particle, how is the higgs-boson expected to have mass? this seems to me to require an infinite regression of mass-ascription, could someone more knowledgeable in physics help me through this?

[Anomalocaris]

just out of pure curiosity, does anyone reckon that, if they did not find this particle and so would have to abandon the standard model, they would actually tell anyone that? I mean, if you built a multi-billion pound facility and produced ridiculously hyped data, would there not be some bias to that?

Don't you think we would be much less advanced than we are if science is as similar to religion as you seem to think?

BTW, higgs field is not made up of Bosons. higg's boson represents a local excitation of the higgs field.

[liam]

I don't know, perhaps that is true but it seems that there is little in astrophysics and quantum physics which seems to be more than theoretical mathematics. I concede that there HAVE been large advances and I certainly didn't compare it to religion. What I do take issue with is that it certainly does require faith in the conclusions and the inductive way that it attempts to explain theories by non-conclusive evidence. There is a lot about science that isn't as unquestionable as it would wish.

So, it is my assumption, that the presence of the Higgs-Boson that evokes a reaction in the field, causing mass?

[Creed of Heresy]

Furthermore, it seems to me that in certain matters there is a tendency to manipulate facts to suit theories as opposed to manipulating theories to suit facts.

You'll have to be a bit more specific on this, cuz I really haven't heard anything like that happening and holding up for very long. Scientific pursuits are a very large field and you have to realize that people have to follow the procedures to continue to advance the field; if you are working off of a faulty procedure, you're not going to advance anything. If the foundations are flawed, the structure collapses. It would behoove nobody in the scientific community to lie and manipulate data for something as major as information on the Standard Model because beyond that, all information would be faulty and would result in little if any progress, and someone will point it out sooner rather than later. And you're talking about HUNDREDS of scientists on this project, ALL of them keeping silent about this manipulation? We begin to get into conspiracy theory at that point and general silliness. Science works because it is a field of constant peer evaluation. Either you are right, or you are wrong; and everybody else will prove it either way. There is just as much to be gained from disproving as proving. Don't mistake science for religion: Chanting "we are right" just because we want it to be so is not how science has accelerated human understanding; it did it by saying "I might be right!" "Nope, sorry, you're wrong, here, here, and here. Oh, and here, too." "Shit, alright, let's see if THIS works..." "Yup, THAT works but that still doesn't." "Then let's fix this, and that will alter that as well, too." "Eureka!"

[NoraBrimstone]

Not finding the Higgs Boson could be even more exciting. It could mean something even more fantastic is going on.

[Creed of Heresy]

Not finding the Higgs Boson could be even more exciting. It could mean something even more fantastic is going on.

Progress in either direction is awesome. Proof or disproof would in equal measure help our explanations.