CERN Scientists Looking for the Force 284
An anonymous reader writes "National Geographic has a fascinating article on the God Particle, which can help explain the Standard Model and get us closer to explain the Grand Unified Theory. The obligatory Star Wars-angle summary is even better: 'CERN's scientists, the fine people who brought us the W and Z particles, anti-hydrogen atoms and hyperlinked porn web pages, are now hard at work building the Large Hadron Collider to discover something even cooler: the Force. Yes, that Force. Or like physicists call it, the Higgs boson, a particle that carries a field which interacts with every living or inert matter.'"
Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)
They will inevitably come to the dark side.
Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's all fine and good... (Score:5, Funny)
...but shouldn't they be focusing on something much more worthwhile?
Like a working model of a lightsabre. Now that'd be really cool...
Re:That's all fine and good... (Score:4, Funny)
The keeps of the force will use the force to stop. (Score:2)
Atheism (Score:5, Funny)
I misread that. (Score:2, Funny)
Hadron...
Dammit, too much time on Slashdot
But you are... (Score:2)
Well, it's dyslexic... Or is that a simple misspelling, different from dyslexia?
Experimental particle physics sounds like fun... (Score:5, Funny)
From a linked article:
That's the essence of experimental particle physics: You smash stuff together and see what other stuff comes out.
and you get to do it with really expensive, shiny toys :)
*A wave of magnetic flux passes* (Score:5, Funny)
proper translation (Score:3, Funny)
the Large Hadron Collider, they are building
brought us the W and Z particles, the fine people did
anti-hydrogen atoms and hyperlinked porn web pages, they brought us as well, they did
to discover something even cooler, they are
the Force, it is
that Force, yes, it is
carries a field, it does, the particle
interacts with every living or inert matter, it does
the Higgs boson, it is
call it so, physicists do
Grand Unified Theory (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Grand Unified Theory (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Grand Unified Theory (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well, good bye little blue planet ... (Score:4, Funny)
(for the mods, its a reference to the scifi show Lexx
mitichlorians (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
such a thing as "overpopularising" science (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh dear. This is just increasing the number of people who thing that Star Trek is real. I realise that they're merely out to sell copy, but you'd hope that National Geographic would retain some sense of integrity.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps so. Another way of looking at it is that they're trying to explain the article in such a way that allows more individuals - and motivates more individuals - to actually take an interest in, and have a chance of understanding this.
Also, from what I understand from reading the articles, technically they are correct (if a little simplistic). Both affect all particles, living or inert.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to be one to pick a nit (especially this geeky a nit), but Star Trek science is bad, but Star Wars science is non-existent. Popularizing science using Star Wars is like popularizing science using Pokemon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They did, as far as I can tell; I couldn't find any sign of references to "The Force" in their article [nationalgeographic.com]. That crap is from the Gizmodo article [gizmodo.com].
Re: (Score:2)
In Other (Real) News (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We go to Digg [digg.com] for that.
What the hell is a Higgs Boson?? (Score:2)
Bugger (Score:2)
Good Test For Heim Theory... (Score:2, Interesting)
Living or inert? (Score:3, Funny)
Tibet is in Berkeley now? (Score:3, Informative)
I couldn't help noticing this statement though :
"He has long, gray hair and a long, white beard and, with all due respect, looks as if he belongs on a mountaintop in Tibet."
Those physical features are notably absent from the stereotypical mountain top Tibetan dweller - ie the Tibetan monk. Ah, using Google images shows a couple of people with long beards, but not typical, judging from the results.
My guess is that he's talking about the Unix lab named "Tibet" at Berkeley University where you'll undoubtedly find many such specimens.
Yes, I made that up - I've no idea if there's a Unix lab named "Tibet" at Berkeley.
Fun with spelling (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What? (Score:5, Informative)
No. According to Newton's Law of Gravitation the force of gravitation allows two particles with mass to attract one another.
This doesn't cover all particles.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What? (Score:5, Informative)
Space doesn't curve (Score:3, Informative)
That's why physicists are so keen on finding a so called "God Particle", because gravity still can't be explained. We can model its effects, but since space doesn
Re: (Score:2)
The Higgs boson isn't what transfers gravitational force between objects, so finding it won't help there. (And one could argue that the Higgs field is a mathematical model, too.)
Re:Space doesn't curve (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, in general relativity, gravitation is linked to energy and momentum, not just (rest) mass (well, to the stress-energy tensor [wikipedia.org], which includes not just energy and momentum per unit of space - energy and momentum density - but the flux of energy and momentum), which is why, for example, photons, with no rest mass, are still affected by gravity [wikipedia.org] and affect other particles through gravity [wikipedia.org].
Re:Space doesn't curve ... or does it? (Score:3, Interesting)
Secondly, it is not necessarily true to say Space doesn't curve. We are three-dimensional beings and thus cannot perceive anything in the fourth dimension. That is not to say that space-time is a physical dimension. It is a handy mathematical model which may or may not have an actual physical representation. The simple fact is, that if there is a fourth physical dimension to space, and
Re:Space doesn't curve (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Spacetime does exist and is very real. There are at least 4 dimensions of space (string theorists suggest 10) and one of time. They are not mathematical models at all - they are very much real.
Gravitational lensing is an example of a physical manifestation of such. Light (ie photons) has no mass and therefore is not subj
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What? (Score:5, Interesting)
It doesn't. Curved space is a perfect explanation for why things moving in a straight line curve through space, aka planets, stars, light, etc. But nobody is sure why the gravity attracts to objects together in the first place. The theoretical graviton is supposed to transfer force in the same way that the other forces are transmitted but none has been seen because the energies required are phenomenal. Phenomenal as in about a billion times what the LHC can produce. Gravitons - in theory again - act at Plank lengths (10-33 cm) which is why its hard to test.
Nobody was sure why electromagnetism produced electricity for a while either even though Faraday had proven the relationship through observation. This had to wait for relativity and the concept of electrons to explain. Magnetism is caused by the time dilation of electrons as they travel down the wire - yes its a relevalistic effect of the transmission of electricity.
Gravity is not cracked yet.
Re:What? (Score:5, Informative)
Cue the bowling ball on the mattress with the marble moving towards it. That's a reasonable analogy of what goes on.
Then cue quantum mechanics, which takes such a delightful model and tosses it on its head.
Re:What? May the... (Score:2)
Re:What? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What? (Score:4, Interesting)
I've been wondering about the same thing, particularly when it comes to the marbles-on-a-rubber-sheet analogy. The sheet is obviously curved because our familiar Newtonian gravity pulls the ball/marble downwards. But that curvature then becomes Einsteinian gravity. So the analogy is a prime example of circular reasoning.
A somewhat related issue is, why is the speed of light constant? Special relativity seems merely an observation of how the universe works, not a particular insight as it doesn't explain the basic premise.
Re: (Score:3)
LS
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
To those who would then say "Aha! So clearly photons do interact with gravity!", it's important to note that photons may be affected by the curvature of spactime, but they don't have mass and thus don't interact gravitationally. For instance, photons cannot attract each other gravitatio
Photons have mass equivalence (Score:2)
For instance, photons cannot attract each other gravitationally (whereas matter does), and a photon won't attract matter gravitationally.
Photons do attract matter gravitationally. It causes the perihelion shift of Mercury, which is one of the tests [wikipedia.org] that lead to wide acceptance of general relativity.
Under general relativity, "spacetime curvature" replaces the "force of gravity" as a paradigm. Photons make their own little divots in spacetime in accordance with the mass equivalence of E=mc^2.
Re: (Score:2)
No. The curvature of space-time caused by the sun causes the perihelion shift, it has nothing to do with photons.
Otherwise you are correct.
Re:MOD PARENT IGNORANT (Score:5, Funny)
Don't Be So Rude! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Question for the Polite Physics Guy (Score:5, Informative)
Let's start with your followup question: the curvature of space is no more a "mental model" than other objects more modern science, such as photons, DNA, or other galaxies. It is a fact in the following sense: the world around us behaves (to a great accuracy) as if it is "really" curved, there "really are" electrons and photons, "there is" a big molecule called DNA with a double-helix structure etc. If you want, a pattern of dots on a photographic plate [oregonstate.edu] is a "fact". The double helix [wikipedia.org] is a mental model that explains this fact. But the distinction is not useful when you're doing physics. If you accept that the goal of physics is to predict the behaviour of the world to a given accuracy, you should also accept that it is not useful to make the distinction between what the world "really is" and what it "appears to be" (for our purposes here -- not as a metaphysical question).
Next, you are confused because you are trying to use two different mental pictures of gravity at the same time, and probably don't have a good mental picture of photons. So I will analyze the situation from the points of view of both Newtonian mechanics+Special relativity and General Relativity. In Newtonian gravity, particles are affected by gravity which is an interaction between all pairs of particles. If A attracts B then B attracts A, in fact with the same magnitude of force. The interaction is proportional to the mass, so an object of "zero mass" won't interact with anything, but such an object doesn't make sense anyway (what happens to F=ma in this case?).
Now what about electromagnetic radiation? You can treat it either as a electric and magnetic fields filling space, or as composed of photons. In either case, it has momentum (do you know about light sails [wikipedia.org]?) and also energy (you can be heated by sunlight!). Special relativity says (E=mc^2) that if you have energy you also have mass. You can now make a naive model in which the elecromagnetic field generates gravity according to its energy density (every small piece of space contains some elecromagentic field, this has energy and hence mass; it is a source of gravity), or you can make a model in which each photon generates gravity according to its mass. In the second case you can even calculate the effect of other masses on the photon -- the deflection you will see for a photon passing near the sum is about half what is observed in practice.
The picture above is not self-consistent. The reason is that Newtonian mechanics allows for action-at-a-distance (gravitational fields propagate at infinite speeds) which cotnradicts relativity. A better picture is that of General Relativity: the space itself is now allowed to change with time. Now there are two separate effects: first, bodies moves along the analogue of "straight lines" in a curved space; second, the curvature of space changes with time -- both under its own effect (gravitational radiation, if you want) and under the effect of the "contents" of space. The "contents" including everything in space. That includes elecromagnetic radiation -- it has mass, momentum, and can act as a source for gravity, by changing the curvature of spacetime.
Part o
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless you are going to invoke "relativistic mass" (fewer and fewer physicists use this term—mainly because a relativistic mass is the same damned thing as relativistic energy, given the correspondence between mass and energy), photon
Re: (Score:2)
By having momentum and energy, even if they don't have rest mass, and by living in a world where, it appears, Einsteinian gravity (i.e., general relativity), where it's energy and momentum, rather than just (rest) mass, that matters, rather than Newtonian gravity.
Re: (Score:2)
Photons aren't supposed to have mass
Peasant at witch trial: "What about really *big* photons?"
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a good deal above my head as an undergrad, but I do understand that the Higgs boson is somehow involved in giving rise to the nature of all other particles [wikipedia.org].
Brian Greene explains it pretty well in layman's terms in his book, The Elegant Universe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's much weirder than Star Wars (Score:5, Informative)
But this all has nothing to do with Gravity in the sense of "things attracting each other due to their mass", or rather "mass curving space-time". The Standard Model does not incorporate Gravity in the picture (that's why it's called the Standard Model of Particle Physics, not Physics as a whole). The theory for this force is (still!) called "General Relativity". Despite a lot of really intelligent people (no self-compliments here, I have stopped working in the field as I felt way too stupid for it) trying really hard, we still don't have a generally accepted theory for how Gravity and the other, (quantum) theories can be combined in a principled manner. CERN might help a lot with this but, ultimately, we might have to wait till the big crunch, if it ever comes, to see how all those fields really unite.
But really people, why do we need Star Wars to make this sound cool? This is an amazing universe of ours. It doesn't need George Lucas to make Light and Magic.
Re: (Score:2)
No. It would mess up the currently accepted model, the universe would tick along just fine. Sorry for being pedantic, I just get kinda ill when pe
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Among other advantages over the Standard Model, the Heim model predicts particle masses from the fundamental physical constants, predicts the existence of dark energy, explains all four fundamental forces, and suggests novel ways the speed of light could be exceeded.
Re:Here's a question: what if it's not there? (Score:5, Insightful)
Christ I sounded like a politician right there...but it's true.
Re:Here's a question: what if it's not there? (Score:5, Informative)
If they don't find a Higgs boson, they're still stepping into a massive new range of collision energy. I think the LHC will produce collisions with a total energy of 14TeV (I haven't read about this for a while).
This step up allows all sorts of other interesting experiments to be run too.
Not to mention, GP smells a little under-the-bridge. But so does every post related to religion on slashdot.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I could get behind that...
Re: (Score:2)
The flag will be pink, naturally...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Here's a question: what if it's not there? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
So that's why the Web (another CERN invention) is used to collect pr0n!!!!
That would be incredible. (Score:5, Interesting)
No higgs boson would be utterly incredible.
No higgs boson would be like the sudden realization that there's no aether. When we had to swallow that one, the result was special relativity and the whole world changed.
After all, the whole concept of the higgs is a scalar field permeating the whole universe giving things inertial mass. That field quantizes into these little happy things called Higgs Bosons, which, if Higgs was right, ought to be producible like any other particle by pumping enough energy into a small enough space enough times for the odds to be in the experimenter's favor. The fact that you ought to be able to make a higgs boson (and, to be cruely explicit, watch it decay in a rather unique way that leaves little doubt that what decayed was a higgs) is a prediction that's almost something of a side-effect of the existence of the higgs.
Higgs seems a lot like the logic of aether applied to the problem of inertia, at a high level. Aether, if you recall, was some stuff permeating the universe through which light travels as waves, giving it its observed properties.
Higgs plugs a hole in the standard model, that of inertia, that happens to also come from the same fundamental something (mass) that results in gravity. Higgs lets us just sort of ignore the whole inertial mass = gravitational mass thing and therefore not worry about annoying things like relativistic quantum gravity, which is enough to give anyone enough of a headache to be unable to apply enough duct tape to make it work (renormalize the infinities away). It also doesn't hurt that the energy levels we're playing with still leave gravity a pretty meaningless force, in terms of the magnitude of its effect on the actual behavior of particles.
If higgs isn't there, there's a lot of work to do in the standard model again. There would be answers we don't have, and some of those answers could very well go to the very nature of inertia and gravity itself. That would mean physicists can stop playing with toy models of 11-dimensional energy spaghetti branes (I'm not a fan of M theory just yet) and get back to some real work that's testable in the real world with a real supercollider, which we just happen to have build, called the Large Hadron Collider.
Right now, to make physicists deal with the holes in the standard model, without going straight to energy spaghetti branes, one has to bring up something annoying like neutrino oscillation. No higgs would be a field day.
No higgs would make the LHC immediately worth every cent, and woth every politician some physicist had to give head to to make it a funded reality.
I hope the Higgs boson isn't real.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
We're currently in the "godlike state". We believe there is one. We have some pointers leading us to believe there is one, just like the humans of all times had pointers leading them to think there is a God (or Gods, depending on your faith). The difference is, science has the means to verify or falsify its theories. Whether you can ever proof that there is a God
Re:Here's a question: what if it's not there? (Score:5, Interesting)
About a year ago I was lucky enough to attend an informal talk given by Dr Helen Heath of Bristol University, who is involved in the LHC project. At the talk, somebody asked pretty much the same question; what if it finds nothing? Isn't it an awful waste of money that could be spent on $GOOD_CAUSE?
The answer was this: While it certainly is an expensive great big hole in the ground, the project has been funded by taxes on European citizens, and there's quite a lot of them. The grand total came out at something like 2 pounds sterling (~$4) per taxpayer. It has already advanced our technology to the point where pretty much anybody would be happy with the cost.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Midichlorians don't explain the force (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Midichlorians don't explain the force (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, we all hate the midistupidans. Let's get over it already. We won't convince Lucas to cut them out of the new trilogy, so either endure it or refuse to watch it.
Sorry, but it's really getting old. It's a friggin' movie. Well, two trilogies, but it's not a religion for crying out loud. I'm with Sir Guinness here, who told a fan that he'll only sign his autograph if he won't watch the movie ever again. It's a movie. A fantastic movie (I'm talking Ep IV and V and to a lesser extent VI here), but still just a movie.
Yes, the second trilogy (I-III) can't hold a candle to the old movies, neither in quality, nor script, nor acting. So they weren't great. Ok. I didn't like the change in pace one bit, but it's still Lucas' movies. Not mine. I may say that I don't like it. But when I keep repeating that over and over and over and over even after the movies have been out for near a decade, I start to look like some kind of fanboy without a life.
For the sake of Pete, get over it already!
(Yes, I have plenty of karma to burn, now mod me Troll and keep whining about midiwhatever)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They knew, or rather *experienced*, that mass was due to spontaneous breaking of electroweak gauge symmetry by a scalar field?
(Hint: there's a lot more to this than "woo woo, there's something out there that interacts with everything". That's why some people are irritated by the Gizmodo quote in question.)
Higgs boson like mud... (Score:4, Informative)
Yes that is correct, the Higgs boson gives itself mass. If you use John Ellis' example of the Higgs field being like mud and the more the mud sticks to an object the heavier, and harder, to move it becomes. Well imagine you try to move a lump of mud. Mud sticks to mud so even just moving a lump of mud will be hard. This is what the Higgs boson is, metaphorically speaking.