Higgs Particle, SUSY, and Maybe Even Psi

[EthanT]

More than a few people seem interested in physics on this board, so I thought I would post this here.

Looks like another round of results on the Higgs is due soon - about a month. It's very posssible that they will reach the 5-sigma significance for an official discovery too.

Also, it looks like more and more folks are thinking Supersymmetry (SUSY) is dead. I don't know what the current thinking is, but that's going to mean at least some trouble for Superstring theory, which as the name implies relies on supersymmetry.

Something else interesting. The LHC probably has the largest number of physicists/scientists ever looking (rather intensely and anxiously) at a single experiment, which is also indirectly detecting something in a statistical fashion. Wouldn't it be really exciting if an experimenter effect showed up here? Sheldrake talks about how the raw sciences like physics never consider experimenter effects and considers the possibility that the idea they're neglible (non-existant, really) could be an unfounded assumption. Seems like if experimenter effects could pop up anywhere in physics, it might be here. We'll just have to see if funny things happen to the Higgs signal.

I personally lean towards them actually being on to something and discovering the Higgs, which is exciting. But, I think it would be even more exciting if the found some type of experimeter effect happening ;-)

It’s exactly a month until new LHC Higgs results are to be unveiled at ICHEP. The machine has been running well, and right about now should be the cut-off time after which new data will arrive too late for analysis before ICHEP. So the integrated luminosity available for each experiment to analyze will be about 4.5 inverse femtobarns. See Tommaso Dorigo for an explanation of what this means. Very roughly, if the Higgs is there with a mass around 125 GeV, each experiment should see tentative signal similar to last year’s, with the combination of data from both years and both experiments likely reaching the 5 sigma standard necessary to declare discovery. If no signal similar to last year’s is seen, this will seriously re-open the possibility of no Higgs (or a very different Higgs than the SM one). Either way, should be very exciting.

For the other story people are following, the death of SUSY, see Nima Arkani-Hamed’s recent talk. He lists as “High Drama for 2012″ not just the Higgs, but also SUSY results on stops, gluinos and multileptons. Here I think most people have given up hope that evidence for SUSY will be found, so the high drama is the human one of how SUSY advocates will react as remaining possible SUSY hiding places are mopped up. The conference was in honor of Savas Dimopoulos, who has been working on SUSY models for more than 30 years, so Arkani-Hamed’s talk didn’t even acknowledge the possibility of no SUSY. He described the 2 alternatives available to physics as “natural SUSY”, which is just about ruled out, and various versions of “split supersymmetry”, where superpartner masses can be pushed arbitrarily high, out of the reach of the LHC or any conceivable experiment. He didn’t mention the version one commenter here recently brought up, “super-split supersymmetry”, which was an April Fool’s joke, but may be the direction the field is headed.

[JohnMurdoch]

As an idealist it is my opinion that the higgs boson particle cannot exist and I guess I am looking forward in them failing to confirm it's existence

From what I understand the higgs is suppose to be a particle that causes mass, so a particle which is responsible for the EM force. This notion is to me be absurd and an example of scientists tying to interpret QM mechanics in terms of the old paradigm - materialism.

It is an example of the historical fallacy, one trying to explain something by using what is trying to be explained as a part of the explanation.

Ex. Q)where did the first life form arise?
A) A comet from outer space containing life.

So life created life. Life is used to explain how life came about, how convenient.

Another example
Q) What are pebbles made of?
A) Discrete objects called atoms

So pebbles are made of smaller pebbles. Pebbles create pebbles. Lovely

Now with the higgs boson.
Q) How does mass (gravity/EM) which makes particles possible, how does it exist?
A) A particle exists which creates mass.

So a particle is used to explain the existence of particles, clear example of the historical fallacy. Particles create particles.

There is no particle that makes the existence of particles possible. No particles can exist without the prior existence of the forces. Forces are intangible and non-physical and they exist prior to physical world in which they govern. They do not exist in the physical world because they are the cause of the physical world.

The cause of the macro world of objects and things doesn to be analagous to objects and things.

Anyway it is cool to watch what goes down at CERN and they could very well discover something incredible ie) something that destroys the materialist paradigm once and for all.. who knows

[Craig Weiler]

Originally Posted by JohnMurdoch

As an idealist it is my opinion that the higgs boson particle cannot exist and I guess I am looking forward in them failing to confirm it's existence

From what I understand the higgs is suppose to be a particle that causes mass, so a particle which is responsible for the EM force. This notion is to me be absurd and an example of scientists tying to interpret QM mechanics in terms of the old paradigm - materialism.

It is an example of the historical fallacy, one trying to explain something by using what is trying to be explained as a part of the explanation.

Ex. Q)where did the first life form arise?
A) A comet from outer space containing life.

So life created life. Life is used to explain how life came about, how convenient.

Another example
Q) What are pebbles made of?
A) Discrete objects called atoms

So pebbles are made of smaller pebbles. Pebbles create pebbles. Lovely

Now with the higgs boson.
Q) How does mass (gravity/EM) which makes particles possible, how does it exist?
A) A particle exists which creates mass.

So a particle is used to explain the existence of particles, clear example of the historical fallacy. Particles create particles.

There is no particle that makes the existence of particles possible. No particles can exist without the prior existence of the forces. Forces are intangible and non-physical and they exist prior to physical world in which they govern. They do not exist in the physical world because they are the cause of the physical world.

The cause of the macro world of objects and things doesn to be analagous to objects and things.

Anyway it is cool to watch what goes down at CERN and they could very well discover something incredible ie) something that destroys the materialist paradigm once and for all.. who knows

I've been thinking that even if this particle exists, I don't see how it can possibly do what they're claiming it can do. All of the other particles behave in much the same way with minor variations, but somehow this one does something completely different? It could be that I just don't understand the physics involved, but I have the image of a blackboard full of equations, except square in the middle, where there is a blank spot with the words: "Here be magic."

[4vektor]

Originally Posted by JohnMurdoch

Now with the higgs boson.
Q) How does mass (gravity/EM) which makes particles possible, how does it exist?
A) A particle exists which creates mass.

So a particle is used to explain the existence of particles, clear example of the historical fallacy. Particles create particles.

there is no fallacy. 1st, mass does not "make" particles (i.e., fields) possible, so the question is based on false premise. nor does gravity or EM, which are massless anyway. we don't know what makes particles/fields possible any more than why the universe exists at all, and with the characteristics that it has. mass is just a name we have given to a property that we observe.

2nd, higgs field does not "create" any fields so you are attacking a straw man. in the higgs mechanism simply the interaction of the given field (which by itself is massless due to gauge symmetry) and the higgs field IS mass. mass is scalar quantity. higgs field is scalar field. think of higgs mechanism a more refined picture of mass. we are used to thinking of mass as something we can kick around bc we are monkeys. but we have no idea what mass really is. maybe higgs mechanism is incorrect, but not bc of any such fallacies bc they are not present.

There is no particle that makes the existence of particles possible. No particles can exist without the prior existence of the forces. Forces are intangible and non-physical and they exist prior to physical world in which they govern.

every force is a bosonic particle/field. what do you mean the force exists prior to the particle/field? that is a meaningless statement. and were it intangible and non-physical you would never observe its physical effects, i.e., there would be no force. please give an example of a physical force that you claim is intangible, non-physical and exists prior to the physical world.

They do not exist in the physical world because they are the cause of the physical world.

i don't understand what the existence of any of the physical interactions would even mean outside the physical world, much less the assertion that they are the cause of the physical world. please explain that. they are not the 1st cause, or any cause, they are just descriptions of physical processes (meaning events that we observe).

[Scott]

Originally Posted by JohnMurdoch

As an idealist it is my opinion that the higgs boson particle cannot exist and I guess I am looking forward in them failing to confirm it's existence

From what I understand the higgs is suppose to be a particle that causes mass, so a particle which is responsible for the EM force. This notion is to me be absurd and an example of scientists tying to interpret QM mechanics in terms of the old paradigm - materialism.

It is an example of the historical fallacy, one trying to explain something by using what is trying to be explained as a part of the explanation.

Ex. Q)where did the first life form arise?
A) A comet from outer space containing life.

So life created life. Life is used to explain how life came about, how convenient.

Another example
Q) What are pebbles made of?
A) Discrete objects called atoms

So pebbles are made of smaller pebbles. Pebbles create pebbles. Lovely

Now with the higgs boson.
Q) How does mass (gravity/EM) which makes particles possible, how does it exist?
A) A particle exists which creates mass.

So a particle is used to explain the existence of particles, clear example of the historical fallacy. Particles create particles.

There is no particle that makes the existence of particles possible. No particles can exist without the prior existence of the forces. Forces are intangible and non-physical and they exist prior to physical world in which they govern. They do not exist in the physical world because they are the cause of the physical world.

The cause of the macro world of objects and things doesn to be analagous to objects and things.

Anyway it is cool to watch what goes down at CERN and they could very well discover something incredible ie) something that destroys the materialist paradigm once and for all.. who knows

First example - that is not an answer of how did life start. It could be an answer of how did life start on Earth. They are very different though.

Second example is sound. Can you go farther - sure. It is a bad example since there is not a rock atom, so it gets into a mixture of different atoms and molecules. What is water made of? A hydrogen-oxygen-hydrogen atoms with about a 109 degree bend.

For Higgs I'm not sure exactly why you are bringing in EM into it. My understanding of that level of the particle model is far from comprehensive. The Caveman Science aspect of this is the Higgs is the part that gives mass - looking down at smaller levels than the proton, neutron, and electron. I was thinking it was below the quark level, though I could be wrong at that. (If someone knows the placement in the model feel free to add)
I don't see why you are saying they are creating the Higgs particle to allow particles - Photons and other particles without mass would not need the Higgs to exist. In fact, if Higgs do not exist then they are not needed for any particle to exist. It is (or might be) part of our model of what matter is made of - the model may or may not be right. The standard model has done a great job allowing the prediction of countless things that at the very least make it by far the best model so far.

[4vektor]

Originally Posted by Scott

For Higgs I'm not sure exactly why you are bringing in EM into it.

no reason whatsoever. higgs mechanism leaves photon itself (the EM gauge boson) massless. and charged fermion matter fields (quarks and leptons) do not need higgs to acquire a charge and therefore interact electromagnetically. they would just remain massless.

I don't see why you are saying they are creating the Higgs particle to allow particles - Photons and other particles without mass would not need the Higgs to exist. In fact, if Higgs do not exist then they are not needed for any particle to exist.

the other fields/particles exist anyway. when you add higgs field they interact with it to produce mass terms. if the higgs field is there, it is there whether we like it or not, we didn't create it, and it does not create other particles.

when you do QFT, the symmetries of the action dictate the field content. if mass terms violate gauge invariance, you can't write them, and the field is massless. if you are clever enough to introduce another field (with whatever transformation properties) that consistently couples, fine. noone can tell that you that field is no good. if the interaction terms produce a mass term, fine. if results agree with what's observed (i.e., the field actually needs to be massive), you have a good theory.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by 4vektor

no reason whatsoever. higgs mechanism leaves photon itself (the EM gauge boson) massless. and charged fermion matter fields (quarks and leptons) do not need higgs to acquire a charge and therefore interact electromagnetically. they would just remain massless.



the other fields/particles exist anyway. when you add higgs field they interact with it to produce mass terms. if the higgs field is there, it is there whether we like it or not, we didn't create it, and it does not create other particles.

when you do QFT, the symmetries of the action dictate the field content. if mass terms violate gauge invariance, you can't write them, and the field is massless. if you are clever enough to introduce another field (with whatever transformation properties) that consistently couples, fine. noone can tell that you that field is no good. if the interaction terms produce a mass term, fine. if results agree with what's observed (i.e., the field actually needs to be massive), you have a good theory.

Perhaps you are one of the few people here, who actually understand the higgs!

OK - so let me ask you. Let's say you have a proton in a EM field. Its acceleration is electromagnetic force/mass (at least in the non-relativistic limit). So I'd like to imagine that picture in terms of a higgs field instead of a number m_p - what should I imagine?

Also, if I think of the mass of an atom, part of the mass is related to the energy of the atom - push it into a higher energy level and its mass will increase slightly (E=MC^2). Is that mass related to higgs too?

Even though the higgs was dubbed the God particle (for reasons of hype, I guess), it is hard to see what relevance it has to psi.

David

[EthanT]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

it is hard to see what relevance it has to psi.
David

Hi David,

Take Dean Radin's recent double-slit experiment. It seems to show conscious intention can effect dynamics on the quantum scale.

With the Higg's/LHC we have 1000's of physicists now with their focus on this experiment (rather anxiously I might add). It also takes place on the quantum scale.

Also, the 3-sigma Higgs signal they currently have doesn't quite fit the standard model Higgs. This could be because they don't have enough data, it could be because the Higgs is more exotic than the simplest standard model Higgs, it could be because other unknown particles are interacting with the Standard Model Higgs, OR, maybe, just maybe, it's experimenter effect!

Sheldrake has argued that not accounting for experimenter effect in the raw sciences like physics may be an unfounded assumption. I think if that's the case, there should be at least a small chance it shows up at the LHC. Probably not, but, if Sheldrake is right, it's gotta show up sometime and the LHC is a good place to start looking.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by EthanT

Hi David,

Take Dean Radin's recent double-slit experiment. It seems to show conscious intention can effect dynamics on the quantum scale.

With the Higg's/LHC we have 1000's of physicists now with their focus on this experiment (rather anxiously I might add). It also takes place on the quantum scale.

Also, the 3-sigma Higgs signal they currently have doesn't quite fit the standard model Higgs. This could be because they don't have enough data, it could be because the Higgs is more exotic than the simplest standard model Higgs, it could be because other unknown particles are interacting with the Standard Model Higgs, OR, maybe, just maybe, it's experimenter effect!

Sheldrake has argued that not accounting for experimenter effect in the raw sciences like physics may be an unfounded assumption. I think if that's the case, there should be at least a small chance it shows up at the LHC. Probably not, but, if Sheldrake is right, it's gotta show up sometime and the LHC is a good place to start looking.

Yes, in this sense it might be relevant! Maybe experiments of this sort, which are so heavily dependant on statistics, may be susceptible to experimenter effects - and so become worthless!

I also actually suspect that physics must change to incorporate consciousness, and that might change a lot of physics theories.

David

[Scott]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Perhaps you are one of the few people here, who actually understand the higgs!

OK - so let me ask you. Let's say you have a proton in a EM field. Its acceleration is electromagnetic force/mass (at least in the non-relativistic limit). So I'd like to imagine that picture in terms of a higgs field instead of a number m_p - what should I imagine?

Also, if I think of the mass of an atom, part of the mass is related to the energy of the atom - push it into a higher energy level and its mass will increase slightly (E=MC^2). Is that mass related to higgs too?

Even though the higgs was dubbed the God particle (for reasons of hype, I guess), it is hard to see what relevance it has to psi.

David

You could have a charged massless particle in an EM field and it would have acceleration. Still no gravitational force.

I agree that the similarity of the formulas for EM force and gravitational force suggest some commonality. Trying to get the mathematics to work out in both of these equations at the same time has at this time eluded researchers.