Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Scientific American)   Physicists find a new "wiggly" particle that weighs 750 giga-electron volts and is a heavier cousin of the Higgs boson. That's 213 fluid octane-carats per hogshead cubit-hectares at sea level, if you don't know the metric system   (scientificamerican.com) divider line
    More: Cool, particle, new particle, brand new particle, largest particle accelerator, LHC, dark matter particle, possible new particle, particle physics  
•       •       •

1095 clicks; posted to Fandom » on 17 Dec 2015 at 10:52 AM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



44 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2015-12-17 8:50:31 AM  
What is it if I DO know the metric system?

What I know or don't know seems a weird thing to base on objective fact on.
 
2015-12-17 9:47:58 AM  

Pazuzu Smith-Jones: What is it if I DO know the metric system?

What I know or don't know seems a weird thing to base on objective fact on.


That should be 1.20163e-7 joules.
 
2015-12-17 10:06:54 AM  
Wiggle? Now we've isolated what makes this happen...

45.media.tumblr.comView Full Size
 
2015-12-17 11:01:12 AM  

Destructor: Wiggle? Now we've isolated what makes this happen...

[45.media.tumblr.com image 400x250]


if only the cats head was stabalized...
 
2015-12-17 11:03:03 AM  
Wow... such journalism much hype.

Actually, they "might" have found a new particle, but it's nowhere near certain.  They have a hint of a particle on one run that didn't show up on a previous run, so it could just be an error.

If it is a particle, theories for what it might be include gravitons or perhaps a SUSY particle... like a gluino.  My bet is it's literally nothing.

Posting incorrect summaries like this seriously hurt the credibility of journalists and indirectly the physicists who have said no such thing.
 
2015-12-17 11:06:15 AM  
If it's wiggly and heavy maybe we should name it the Homer Boson:

i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2015-12-17 11:07:39 AM  
ferrebeekeeper.files.wordpress.comView Full Size
 
2015-12-17 11:07:42 AM  
"That's 213 fluid octane-carats per hogshead cubit-hectares at sea level, if you don't know the metric system"

Goddam frickin' French.  It's all Napoleon's fault, you know.
 
2015-12-17 11:19:09 AM  

KingRamze: If it is a particle, theories for what it might be include gravitons or perhaps a SUSY particle... like a gluino. My bet is it's literally nothing.


I'd say it's almost certainly not a SUSY particle. TBH, these last two runs have been very bad for SUSY in general, which is running out of places to hide.

The smart money seems to be on either a heavier relative to the Higgs boson -- several credible versions of the theory call for more than one Higgs -- or your bet, i.e. that with more data the anomaly will disappear.
 
2015-12-17 11:20:18 AM  
First, The headline was hilarious, I'm not being pedantic to ruin the joke.

When I saw this comment:

Pazuzu Smith-Jones: What is it if I DO know the metric system?


I thought about it, and realized that an electronvolt was based on the charge of a single electron, and therefore not based in SI/metric units. I didn't think it was an Imperial unit, so I used the fount of knowledge that is Wikipedia, and it says that the unit electonvolt is an empirical unit, i.e. based on something physical, like a light year (which is actually based on 2 physical measurements).
 
2015-12-17 11:30:31 AM  

Galloping Galoshes: "That's 213 fluid octane-carats per hogshead cubit-hectares at sea level, if you don't know the metric system"

Goddam frickin' French.  It's all Napoleon's fault, you know.


Given that the basic unit of big collider experiments is the inverse femtobarn, it's hard to make up something sillier-sounding than what physicists have already invented.
 
2015-12-17 11:32:09 AM  
alabamanewsandleisure.files.wordpress.comView Full Size
 
2015-12-17 11:35:51 AM  
What is that in ounces Troy, subby?
 
2015-12-17 11:38:26 AM  
Hurr hurr! Let's revel in our ignorance!

The electron-volt is not a complicated concept: it's the amount of energy an electron gains (or loses) when passing through a 1-volt electromagnetic field. Since the whole point of particle accelerators is to shoot particles through strong magnetic fields, this happens to be a convenient unit of energy.

It's meaning is equivalent to Joules, but at a different scale (1 Joule is about 6 quintillion electron volts). This makes the ev useful for measuring incredibly tiny amounts of energy- i.e. the energy levels that occur when you manipulate single particles. Joules are more appropriate for measuring the energy levels that occur when manipulating whole kilograms of material at a time.
 
2015-12-17 11:45:22 AM  

Fubini: Hurr hurr! Let's revel in our ignorance!


I bet you're a lot of fun at parties.
 
2015-12-17 11:47:00 AM  

Fubini: Hurr hurr! Let's revel in our ignorance!


You don't get invited to parties much anymore, do you.

I for one was certain it was measured in Megaparsecs per Planck length.
 
2015-12-17 11:51:02 AM  

Fubini: Hurr hurr! Let's revel in our ignorance!

The electron-volt is not a complicated concept: it's the amount of energy an electron gains (or loses) when passing through a 1-volt electromagnetic field. Since the whole point of particle accelerators is to shoot particles through strong magnetic fields, this happens to be a convenient unit of energy.

It's meaning is equivalent to Joules, but at a different scale (1 Joule is about 6 quintillion electron volts). This makes the ev useful for measuring incredibly tiny amounts of energy- i.e. the energy levels that occur when you manipulate single particles. Joules are more appropriate for measuring the energy levels that occur when manipulating whole kilograms of material at a time.


Hurr Durr

e=mc^2

We physicists talk about mass in MeV and GeV because of this guy:

upload.wikimedia.orgView Full Size


And it makes the math easier.
 
2015-12-17 11:53:10 AM  
Now all that's left is to build another collider and repeat the results
 
2015-12-17 11:58:03 AM  
Whatever. How many parsecs does it last?
 
2015-12-17 11:58:36 AM  
31.media.tumblr.comView Full Size
 
2015-12-17 11:59:32 AM  

StopDaddy: Whatever. How many parsecs does it last?


Just long enough to make the Kessel run.
 
2015-12-17 12:02:30 PM  
what is it in rhode island ergs ?? i measure all my energy in rhode island ergs.
 
2015-12-17 12:03:34 PM  

Destructor: Wiggle? Now we've isolated what makes this happen...

[45.media.tumblr.com image 400x250]


Try wrapping tape on cat paws as a substitute.
 
2015-12-17 12:05:47 PM  

Sensei Can You See: I bet you're a lot of fun at parties.


Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: You don't get invited to parties much anymore, do you.


Yes.
 
2015-12-17 12:19:49 PM  

LonMead: StopDaddy: Whatever. How many parsecs does it last?

Just long enough to make the Kessel run.


Just what I wanted. Thank you for your participation.
 
2015-12-17 1:21:51 PM  

Fubini: Hurr hurr! Let's revel in our ignorance!
It's meaning is equivalent to Joules,


Its, not it's.

/derp
 
2015-12-17 2:28:59 PM  

KingRamze: Wow... such journalism much hype.

Actually, they "might" have found a new particle, but it's nowhere near certain.  They have a hint of a particle on one run that didn't show up on a previous run, so it could just be an error.

If it is a particle, theories for what it might be include gravitons or perhaps a SUSY particle... like a gluino.  My bet is it's literally nothing.

Posting incorrect summaries like this seriously hurt the credibility of journalists and indirectly the physicists who have said no such thing.


I assume this is a jab at Fark rather than the article. The article is quite clear (as in, first word of the title) that all results are very preliminary.
 
2015-12-17 3:54:37 PM  

Flt209er: KingRamze: Wow... such journalism much hype.

Actually, they "might" have found a new particle, but it's nowhere near certain.  They have a hint of a particle on one run that didn't show up on a previous run, so it could just be an error.

If it is a particle, theories for what it might be include gravitons or perhaps a SUSY particle... like a gluino.  My bet is it's literally nothing.

Posting incorrect summaries like this seriously hurt the credibility of journalists and indirectly the physicists who have said no such thing.

I assume this is a jab at Fark rather than the article. The article is quite clear (as in, first word of the title) that all results are very preliminary.


Yep.  It seems that badmouthing journalists because "they don't know anything about science lol" is one of Fark's favorite pasttimes, so of course you knew some shlub was going to do it even when the article is perfectly accurate.

The article even answered the question I had ("Is this finally that supersymmetry crap that theorists keep trying to shove down our throats?"  "No").
 
2015-12-17 4:09:51 PM  
No, it's not "defying the laws of physics".  They haven't "found a new particle".  They found one peak that looked similar in two different setups that look similar enough that they could be the same phenomena.  Maybe.  Could be a statistical anomaly.  Could be random error.  Could be a mechanical or electrical sensing issue.

This is the experimental physics equivalent of screaming "ALIENS!!!!" when seeing a strange light in the sky for the second time.
 
2015-12-17 4:40:23 PM  

Khellendros: No, it's not "defying the laws of physics".  They haven't "found a new particle".  They found one peak that looked similar in two different setups that look similar enough that they could be the same phenomena.  Maybe.  Could be a statistical anomaly.  Could be random error.  Could be a mechanical or electrical sensing issue.

This is the experimental physics equivalent of screaming "ALIENS!!!!" when seeing a strange light in the sky for the second time.


Fortunately, neither statement appears in the article. The article explicitly states, multiple times including in the title, that it could be nothing. And defying the "known laws of physics" is perfectly cromulent, if overly flamboyant, way of stating what was better said in the first paragraph: the new particle has no predicted place in the current standard model. No one is screaming "ALIENS!!!" here, and I think most of us would also prefer if no one was screaming "JOURNALISTS!!!" as well.

aerojockey: The article even answered the question I had ("Is this finally that supersymmetry crap that theorists keep trying to shove down our throats?" "No").


Seconded; although I wasn't holding my breath that the answer was going to be yes. Still, hopefully this will reveal something more interesting than a loose fiber optic cable.
 
2015-12-17 4:45:51 PM  

Khellendros: No, it's not "defying the laws of physics".  They haven't "found a new particle".  They found one peak that looked similar in two different setups that look similar enough that they could be the same phenomena.  Maybe.  Could be a statistical anomaly.  Could be random error.  Could be a mechanical or electrical sensing issue.

This is the experimental physics equivalent of screaming "ALIENS!!!!" when seeing a strange light in the sky for the second time.


You make it sound like someone saw a blip and immediately called the press. Which I guess someone did do, in the summer, and the LHC responded that they would check things out, make sure no one spilled coffee on the floop angulator, and if the result still had statistical significance in December, they would make an announcement then.
They did that. And ten papers weren't submitted yesterday to explain this because everyone was up all night writing. Smart people have been looking at this for half a year now. It's almost certainly not a mechanical or sensing issue.
No one is claiming this is a confirmed discovery. All anyone, including the author of this article, has said is that something weird is showing up, and maybe next year we'll have a better idea of what, if anything, it is.
 
2015-12-17 5:00:59 PM  

rumpelstiltskin: Khellendros: No, it's not "defying the laws of physics".  They haven't "found a new particle".  They found one peak that looked similar in two different setups that look similar enough that they could be the same phenomena.  Maybe.  Could be a statistical anomaly.  Could be random error.  Could be a mechanical or electrical sensing issue.

This is the experimental physics equivalent of screaming "ALIENS!!!!" when seeing a strange light in the sky for the second time.

You make it sound like someone saw a blip and immediately called the press. Which I guess someone did do, in the summer, and the LHC responded that they would check things out, make sure no one spilled coffee on the floop angulator, and if the result still had statistical significance in December, they would make an announcement then.
They did that. And ten papers weren't submitted yesterday to explain this because everyone was up all night writing. Smart people have been looking at this for half a year now. It's almost certainly not a mechanical or sensing issue.
No one is claiming this is a confirmed discovery. All anyone, including the author of this article, has said is that something weird is showing up, and maybe next year we'll have a better idea of what, if anything, it is.


Which, to extend your argument slightly, is still cooler than shiat. Scientists don't scream eureka, we say, "hmm, that's odd." 99% of the time, it's just noise or error. That other 1%, though...
 
2015-12-17 5:24:37 PM  

KingRamze: Wow... such journalism much hype.

Actually, they "might" have found a new particle, but it's nowhere near certain.  They have a hint of a particle on one run that didn't show up on a previous run, so it could just be an error.

If it is a particle, theories for what it might be include gravitons or perhaps a SUSY particle... like a gluino.  My bet is it's literally nothing.

Posting incorrect summaries like this seriously hurt the credibility of journalists and indirectly the physicists who have said no such thing.


Ars Technica's article was much better.

They spend much more time noting that signals with this level of statistical significance pop up all the time, only to disappear later when more collisions happen.
 
2015-12-17 5:52:13 PM  
Hey that's mine! I lost that!

You...you wanna maybe buy it?
 
2015-12-17 6:52:31 PM  
How many farktons is that?  Or, since we're talking energy here, how many jiggawatts?
 
2015-12-17 8:02:11 PM  
I think the reason the scientists are so excited about this possibility is they really, really want to find something unexpected and beyond the Standard Model because as it is now, I don't think they have any good idea which way to go new-theory-wise.

IMHO, we should have built the Superconducting Super Collider instead of the International Space Station (as Congress was going to fund only one of those endeavors). The ISS really hasn't done much of anything other than enrich the builders of it plus they plan on deorbiting it about ten years from now. The Collider might have been able to expand our fundamental understanding.
 
2015-12-17 9:02:19 PM  
I think they should call it the "boson's mate"
 
2015-12-17 9:24:07 PM  
more study needed.

don't get your panties in a bunch yet
 
2015-12-17 9:55:01 PM  
This is not finding a needle in a haystack.

This is finding hay that is slightly longer than the rest of the stack.
 
2015-12-17 10:23:42 PM  

drumhellar: They spend much more time noting that signals with this level of statistical significance pop up all the time, only to disappear later when more collisions happen.


True, but I doubt all of those anomalies get ten papers written about them.  There seems to be something about this one that people find very interesting.  Perhaps it made it through all of the filters they apply other anomalies unscathed; it could still be a statistical fluke but they've ruled out common explainations.  Or maybe this particular anomaly is more interesting than most if it turns out to be the real deal.

I'd be interested to see if prior anomalies could be reanalysed with more current knowledge, and maybe some of them were actually real.  I would imagine that, due to quantum fluctuations, there can be occasions where reactions happen at low probability even when the particles are not supposed to be energetic enough, but it turns out to be a common reaction at higher energies.
 
2015-12-17 11:40:57 PM  
"That's 213 fluid octane-carats per hogshead cubit-hectares at sea level, if you don't know the metric system"

Yeah? At what temperature?
 
2015-12-18 8:38:41 AM  

lordargent: "That's 213 fluid octane-carats per hogshead cubit-hectares at sea level, if you don't know the metric system"

Yeah? At what temperature?


Surface.
 
2015-12-18 10:12:19 AM  

aerojockey: True, but I doubt all of those anomalies get ten papers written about them. There seems to be something about this one that people find very interesting. Perhaps it made it through all of the filters they apply other anomalies unscathed; it could still be a statistical fluke but they've ruled out common explainations. Or maybe this particular anomaly is more interesting than most if it turns out to be the real deal.


This is not my area of expertise*, but my suspicion is that most anomalies are in places where they know what to expect, so the expectation is very high that they'll go away with more data. This anomaly is in a place where they would hope to see excesses if we're going to find physics beyond the Standard Model. So there's more excitement.


I'd be interested to see if prior anomalies could be reanalysed with more current knowledge, and maybe some of them were actually real. I would imagine that, due to quantum fluctuations, there can be occasions where reactions happen at low probability even when the particles are not supposed to be energetic enough, but it turns out to be a common reaction at higher energies.

Apparently, if you looked long enough and hard enough at the data from Lawrence Livermore, there's probably a couple of handfuls of events that, in retrospect, were Higgs bosons. Of course, even if they'd had the analytical power to find them at the time, it still wouldn't have amounted to statistical significance.
 
2015-12-18 10:12:55 AM  

czetie: This is not my area of expertise*,


*Full disclosure: I don't actually have an area of expertise.
 
Displayed 44 of 44 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.