So I Found It! The Higgs Bosun!!

[RATTER15]

Well actually I found a youtube video explaining exactly what the Higgs Bosun actually is "for Dummies"

So now I know that it is made by something I don't understand, out of something I dont understand.

I now know I am more stupid than I originally thought!!!

and I didnt need Higgs to tell me that!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iimom5WPrSA

[gness]

"What comes out doesn't have to be a re-arrangement of what went in"

I like that, Ratter.......I'll remember it next time I get complaints about my cooking......☺

[Graham-W]

As I understand it, without the Higgs Boson there is no explanation for mass in any of the particles we know about so far. Without mass there can be no gravity. Without gravity the universe wouldn't work. The universe does work and there is gravity so the Higgs Boson does exist. All we have to do is prove it.
??Simple??

[RATTER15]

//All we have to do is prove it.//

I thought they had proved it!

Wasnt that what all the hoohaa was about a few years back?

[Graham-W]

Two years ago CERN found a new particle in the mass region which fitted the theoretical Higgs Boson. Other theories predict several types of Higgs Bosons which have yet to be discovered.

[Peter Pedant]

Higgs said I think

{ basically it is the gluey stuff holding things together ]

and he said: if you have a cocktail party ( people in the room are particles see ) and Margaret Thatcher comes into the room ( she is a paricle too and not the higgs B ) then the Higgs boson is the rumour running around the room that MT is present

[Old_Geezer]

Maybe you need a "Higgs Boson for SuperDummies !" :-D

[Old_Geezer]

My take on it is that it is the Higgs field that is important, as "stuff" moving through it gets slowed and thus appears to have mass.

You can not have the field without a particle as they are different ways of looking at the same thing, thus a particle was predicted.

The supercollider was able to smash things together and appeared to show evidence of the existence of this particle for a short while. And that is taken to have confirmed the theory.

You may get more info for the Science forum by those more knowledgeable that I.

[Khandro]

Every time there is any mention of withdrawing the astronomical cost of this exercise (cern) there always appears to be another 'verge of a breakthrough'.
It's a known fact that this crew are leading a life of Riley down there.

[RATTER15]

"Higgs Boson for SuperDummies !" If only!!!

[Old_Geezer]

Hope for lunch, had time to look at the video. Was it just me that seemed to lose the edges of the picture ?

Yes, I think that if you already have a feel for it this is pretty good at explaining; but I can see if one is trying to start from scratch it may not be so clear. I think what one does is read/watch a number of different explanations, and gradually it dawns on one what they are all on about.

I think one point to get from this is that they are shoving matter in, converting it to energy, and then expecting the energy to naturally convert to matter, but it need not be the same that provided the energy in the first place. That was annihilated. Which is why you may have put bacon and eggs in the pan and turned up the heat, but tomato soup came out.

One other thing it does well is stress we still have plenty of unknowns. And just as well. It'd be boring if we already knew everything :-)

[Old_Geezer]

>:-(
HOME for lunch
as typed

[jim360]

Khandro's speaking utter nonsense, as usual. In fact so far the LHC hasn't lead to all that much that is "new", strictly speaking, and a lot of the things that were expected to have been seen haven't yet appeared in the data. In itself this should blow Khandro's ill-informed post out of the water. Never mind the point that the world-wide web, the very medium he's using to criticise the LHC, came out of CERN as an effort to enable particle physicists to share data more freely. Lucky him.

For that matter, the Higgs boson was predicted 50 years ago, and the LHC experiment was dreamed up a long time later, so it was hardly dreamed up as an excuse to get more money. Indeed, famously (in the field) one paper proposing a mechanism to detect it even went so far as to note that, given how difficult it would be to find, it might not be even worth looking for it (I'll find the relevant citation late,r but it was a paper from the 1970's by John Ellis). Thankfully, the community ignored that.

I wrote my own explanation for this a while back -- if anyone's interested I'll try to dig it up.