Tevatron experiments double-team Higgs boson

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Tevatron experiments double-team Higgs boson
Scientists from the CDF and DZero collaborations at the U.S. Department of Energy's Fermilab have combined Tevatron data from the two experiments to advance the quest for the long-sought Higgs boson. Their results indicate that Fermilab researchers have for the first time excluded, with 95 percent probability, a mass for the Higgs of 170 GeV.

This value lies near the middle of the possible mass range for the particle established by earlier experiments. This result not only restricts the possible masses where the Higgs might lie, but it also demonstrates that the Tevatron experiments are sensitive to potential Higgs signals.

"These results mean that the Tevatron experiments are very much in the game for finding the Higgs," said Pier Oddone, director of Fermilab.

Combining results from the two collider experiments effectively doubles the data available for analysis by experimenters and allows each experimental group to cross check and confirm the other's results. In the near future, the Fermilab experimenters expect to test more and more of the available mass range for the Higgs.

The Standard Model of Particles and Forces--the theoretical framework for particle physics--predicts the existence of a particle, the Higgs boson, that interacts with other particles of matter to give them mass. The mechanism by which particles acquire different mass values is unknown, and finding evidence for the existence of the Higgs boson would address this fundamental mystery of nature.

Continued: Tevatron experiments double-team Higgs boson

That's pretty neat. Also, to remind people that the LHC (7 TeV) is about 7 times the energy of the Tevatron (1 TeV). It'll be pretty cool to see what experimental data is gathered when they start looking for the Higgs boson particle. The LHC plans to start up this month.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Schrödinger's Cat

Continued: Tevatron experiments double-team Higgs boson

That's pretty neat. Also, to remind people that the LHC (7 TeV) is about 7 times the energy of the Tevatron (1 TeV). It'll be pretty cool to see what experimental data is gathered when they start looking for the Higgs boson particle. The LHC plans to start up this month.

We better party it up now, because when that LHC fires up it's going to create a black hole and destroy the universe!!

I don't fully understand most of this stuff but I still think it will be neat seeing what they will discover when that thing goes live.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

We better party it up now, because when that LHC fires up it's going to create a black hole and destroy the universe!!

Yeah, what a complete load of BS, eh?
Creating black holes would be a good thing.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I kind of wrote that last post in haste, so let me explain it a little bit now that I have time. This should probably go in the original thread about the black holes at the LHC, but that's an old thread and I wasn't around to reply to most of those posts that I'd like to refute.

"The compression of the two atoms colliding together at nearly light speed will cause an irreversible implosion, forming a miniature version of a giant black hole. [...] Any matter coming into contact with it would fall into it and never be able to escape. Eventually, all of earth would fall into such growing micro-black-hole, converting earth into a medium-sized black hole, around which would continue to orbit the moon, satellites, the ISS, etc." Walter F. Wagner and Luis Sancho lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Honolulu.

That's basically the point of view of these two loonies in Hawaii. Why is this frivolous lawsuit in the US? We aren't even a member of CERN, just an observer. The only thing it would do (if it wasn't already thrown out), would be to deny our scientists a chance at being a part of important discoveries, which is just stupid. As to the point of Wagner and Sancho, they don't even have science to back their statements up; and the above quote is factually incorrect. This is a compete stance from ignorance. As for the energy being created, cosmic rays hit particles in the atmosphere at much higher energies (10^20 eV) than anything that the LHC can ever produce (10^12-10^13 eV). If black holes are created at the LHC, we can possibly learn a lot from the experimental data. Even if they were created, they would instantaneously fizzle from existence. People have to understand also how weak gravity is compared to the other fundamental forces. It is insignificant at that scale. In fact, one of the most important things that we can hopefully find out from our experiments is why gravity is so much weaker. I recommend reading "Warped Passages" by Lisa Randall for some interesting insights into gravity and branes.

[JTankers]

Schrödinger's Cat,

The science is unsettled. The plaintiffs arguments are credible, the original science in CERN's 2008 LHC Safety Report is unverified and disputed by Professor Rossler's work. (http://www.wissensnavigator.com/docu...oeroessler.pdf)

"Instantly fizzle from existence" is a fallacy. Hawking Radiation is disputed by multiple peer reviewed papers as an "open question" or does not exist. Recent speculation is that "Reverse Hawking Radiation" may feed black holes converting dark energy to dark matter.

Gravity is weak, but if a micro black hole captures an electron in orbit outside its event horizon it would become charged and attract protons. Cosmic ray created micro black holes (mbh) would have to be able to capture an electron that had a relativistic difference in velocity from the mbh. Dubious. Cosmic ray created neutral BH would not be captured by Earth. I am not aware of other credible independent arguments for causing black holes to hold a charge.

Dr. Rossler has been called "eminent" and "prestigious" by LHC defenders for good reason. He is the most credible independent authority on the subject of micro black hole safety. Dr. Rossler calculates that Hawking Radiation is not possible, micro black hole growth would be exponential and he implies that CERN is suffering from danger denial.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Originally Posted by JTankers

The science is unsettled. The plaintiffs arguments are credible, the original science in CERN's 2008 LHC Safety Report is unverified and disputed by Professor Rossler's work. (http://www.wissensnavigator.com/docu...oeroessler.pdf)

The plaintiffs don't even have a case; they have incredible and baseless claims. They are sensationalist, as is that paper you cited. I really don't know why a paper on science should have appeals to morality and spirituality (emotion and fear) in an argument against an experiment, because it should use scientific argument. Also, just look at the guy's sources... he cites himself twice and then the media and youtube. It's a joke. Here's a comment by Prof. Nicolai: http://environmental-impact.web.cern...Comment-en.pdf

"Instantly fizzle from existence" is a fallacy. Hawking Radiation is disputed by multiple peer reviewed papers as an "open question" or does not exist. Recent speculation is that "Reverse Hawking Radiation" may feed black holes converting dark energy to dark matter.

To be accurate, it would be ~10^-26 sec. before it collapsed. And the only information to fall in would be the constituent particles from the initial collision. There's a consensus of this by physicists that work in this field. This study has a good physics to back up their findings: http://doc.cern.ch/yellowrep/2003/2003-001/p1.pdf

Being disputed doesn't make it a fallacy. While Hawking Radiation doesn't have support of everyone, it does have a large consensus to be true. Until it is observed one way or the other, Hawking Radiation will continue to remain an open question. Many things in science are disputed, that is why science works. By preventing the experiments from being carried out, you ensure that we won't even try to find the answers to our questions. All based on dubious speculations by people on the fringe.

What is also in dispute is that these black holes would be created at all. The standard model would tell you that we need energies far beyond what is currently possible at the LHC. In fact, like I have said previously, cosmic rays hit particles in our atmosphere at higher energies all the time. Even if black holes can be created at these energies, it is possible that QM black holes are being created all the time from these collisions without destroying the Earth.

Gravity is weak, but if a micro black hole captures an electron in orbit outside its event horizon it would become charged and attract protons. Cosmic ray created micro black holes (mbh) would have to be able to capture an electron that had a relativistic difference in velocity from the mbh. Dubious. Cosmic ray created neutral BH would not be captured by Earth. I am not aware of other credible independent arguments for causing black holes to hold a charge.

Gravity is so weak on the quantum mechanical scale that it isn't even included in most calculations. Where are you getting this information that a black hole would capture an electron and grab it's charge and attract protons (and assumingly grow "exponentially")?

Dr. Rossler has been called "eminent" and "prestigious" by LHC defenders for good reason. He is the most credible independent authority on the subject of micro black hole safety. Dr. Rossler calculates that Hawking Radiation is not possible, micro black hole growth would be exponential and he implies that CERN is suffering from danger denial.

I wonder who exactly is calling this biochemist the most credible authority on micro black hole safety. No scientist would make that claim. What basis does he have to say something is impossible or that micro black hole growth would be exponential? Does he have experimental data that actual physicists are not privy to? I think they've actually been very patient at researching and addressing some people's concerns. Have you read the CERN report? Calling it 'danger denial' is just another dramatization on your part.

Here's a recent paper on this subject: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...807.3349v1.pdf
Another: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...806.3381v1.pdf

[JTankers]

I read and appreciate the safety reports. What is missing is two to four [or more?] years for verification of the safety arguments before collisions begin.

CERN's SPC committee notably called the speculative science in the safety reports "unverified" for good reason. http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/acc...0&confId=35065

Have you read what British solar physicist Dr. O'Neill who is "enthusiastic" about the LHC wrote on his astroengine.com site about nuclear physicist and lawyer Walter Wagner after a 2.5 hour interview with him?

• "the first thing that struck me was the breadth of knowledge he had on the subject"

• "Wagner is far from being a fantasist or “crank”"

• "I admire Wagner’s spirit, he is following through with a lawsuit he believes in"

[ioneill]

Originally Posted by JTankers

Have you read what British solar physicist Dr. O'Neill who is "enthusiastic" about the LHC wrote on his astroengine.com site about nuclear physicist and lawyer Walter Wagner after a 2.5 hour interview with him?

• "the first thing that struck me was the breadth of knowledge he had on the subject"

• "Wagner is far from being a fantasist or “crank”"

• "I admire Wagner’s spirit, he is following through with a lawsuit he believes in"

Hi JTankers, good to see you again!

I also said in the article I wrote on Astroengine.com (Channel 4 Report About LHC Safety | astroengine.com

• "his views are more in the realms of speculation, rather than being based on the actual physics predicted"

• "Using the LHC to recreate some of the conditions the moment after the Big Bang is based on robust physics theory. Micro black holes and strangelets are not."

• "Even if a micro black hole could be produced, robust physics theory predicts they will fizz out of existence in an instant."

• "There is practically no way strangelets can be produced (LHC energies are too low)."

Yes, Wagner certainly had a very good breadth of knowledge on the subject, but it doesn't mean he is right. He certainly isn't a crank either (a "crank" is a whimsically eccentric person) - Wagner knows what he is doing and he believes in his cause. That is great, I admire him - it does not mean I agree with him. There are some very serious flaws in his arguments physically and logically.

Also, I have concerns that he is suing just because he can (and has an awful lot of time on his hands). He also tried to sue the US RHIC (which he failed), warning that strangelets could be produced. Alas, hundreds of science-runs and possibly millions of heavy particle collisions later: no strangelets, no end of the world (and certainly no micro black holes). Strangelets are hypothetical particles.

Walter was a nice guy to chat to, but he has some fantastical views. His ideas about what the LHC could do belongs in science fiction and not in a lawsuit. His concern that he wants an experiment to be 100% safe before it is turned on is also not realistic - no experiment is 100% safe! Not even classical experiments. Turning on the kettle is not safe. School physics experiments are not 100% safe. This criteria does not belong in society, it belongs in fantasy. The LHC safety board has done exhaustive studies into the safety of the accelerator and the energies we are looking at do not pose a danger, not by a very long shot.

Lets not cloud the science we are going to gain from the LHC with flimsy, fantastical theories of the end of the world.

Cheers, Dr. Ian O'Neill (the British solar physicist)

[ioneill]

Originally Posted by JTankers

Have you read what British solar physicist Dr. O'Neill who is "enthusiastic" about the LHC wrote on his astroengine.com site about nuclear physicist and lawyer Walter Wagner after a 2.5 hour interview with him?

* "the first thing that struck me was the breadth of knowledge he had on the subject"

* "Wagner is far from being a fantasist or “crank”"

* "I admire Wagner’s spirit, he is following through with a lawsuit he believes in"

Hi JTankers, good to see you again!

I also said in the article I wrote on Astroengine.com (Channel 4 Report About LHC Safety | astroengine.com

• "his views are more in the realms of speculation, rather than being based on the actual physics predicted"
• "Using the LHC to recreate some of the conditions the moment after the Big Bang is based on robust physics theory. Micro black holes and strangelets are not."
• "Even if a micro black hole could be produced, robust physics theory predicts they will fizz out of existence in an instant."
• "There is practically no way strangelets can be produced (LHC energies are too low)."

Yes, Wagner certainly had a very good breadth of knowledge on the subject, but it doesn't mean he is right. He certainly isn't a crank either (a "crank" is a whimsically eccentric person) - Wagner knows what he is doing and he believes in his cause. That is great, I admire him - it does not mean I agree with him. There are some very serious flaws in his arguments physically and logically.

Also, I have concerns that he is suing just because he can (and has an awful lot of time on his hands). He also tried to sue the US RHIC (which he failed), warning that strangelets could be produced. Alas, hundreds of science-runs and possibly millions of heavy particle collisions later: no strangelets, no end of the world (and certainly no micro black holes). Strangelets are hypothetical particles.

Walter was a nice guy to chat to, but he has some fantastical views. His ideas about what the LHC could do belongs in science fiction and not in a lawsuit. His concern that he wants an experiment to be 100% safe before it is turned on is also not realistic - no experiment is 100% safe! Not even classical experiments. Turning on the kettle is not safe. School physics experiments are not 100% safe. This criteria does not belong in society, it belongs in fantasy. The LHC safety board has done exhaustive studies into the safety of the accelerator and the energies we are looking at do not pose a danger, not by a very long shot.

Lets not cloud the science we are going to gain from the LHC with flimsy, fantastical theories of the end of the world.

Cheers, Dr. Ian O'Neill

[JTankers]

Hello Dr. O'Neill,

Do you know where I can find a recording of your interview? I missed the original broad cast.

The organized safety opposition is not looking for 100% safety, that would not be reasonable. The US Federal lawsuit estimates the probability of danger may be calculated with a high degree of uncertainty as closer to 50%.

Hawking Radiation is disputed theory, have you read the Wikipedia article on Hawking Radiation? Hawking radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Professors Belinski, Helfer and Rossler have all written papers concluding that black holes do not radiate. Professor Unruh's paper concludes Hawking Radiation an open question. Most of these papers have been accepted for peer review by physics journals.

I don't know how long verification of safety arguments would take (GLAST space telescope, other?) but verification time (years) is clearly not in CERN's schedule or budget.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Thanks for stopping by, Dr. O'Neill. You have a nice site. It has promptly gone onto my favorites list.

Originally Posted by JTankers

Have you read what British solar physicist Dr. O'Neill who is "enthusiastic" about the LHC wrote on his astroengine.com site about nuclear physicist and lawyer Walter Wagner after a 2.5 hour interview with him?

I have now!

The organized safety opposition is not looking for 100% safety, that would not be reasonable. The US Federal lawsuit estimates the probability of danger may be calculated with a high degree of uncertainty as closer to 50%.

How can one even quantify a probability of danger when it isn't even known how likely it will be that LHC has the energy to create these micro black holes in the first place? I would say that it is unlikely it does have enough. However, I would think it would be extremely exciting if they did create these black holes.

Hawking Radiation is disputed theory, have you read the Wikipedia article on Hawking Radiation? Hawking radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To even get into a discussion that these black holes are actually created at the LHC, you have to cross into a "disputed theory" territory. Yet you don't seem to have a problem with that. It is only HR that you continually warn us is disputed.

[ioneill]

Do you know where I can find a recording of your interview? I missed the original broad cast.

Hey JTankers. Yes, once the recording becomes available I'll post it on Astroengine.com, I think it was an interesting chat with some good debates. I'm by no means an expert on the LHC, so it was a learning experience for me too.

The US Federal lawsuit estimates the probability of danger may be calculated with a high degree of uncertainty as closer to 50%

This is the main point about this crazy lawsuit. As Schrödinger mentioned:

How can one even quantify a probability of danger when it isn't even known how likely it will be that LHC has the energy to create these micro black holes in the first place?

Exactly right. Even the LHC safety board did not hazard a guess about how "safe" the LHC is. Black holes and strangelets do not have any probability in occurring, so how can you put an uncertainty of 50% on the safety of the LHC? I think we keep forgetting that MBH's and strangelets are in the realms of speculation.

Professor Unruh's paper concludes Hawking Radiation an open question. Most of these papers have been accepted for peer review by physics journals.

I think it's a little optimistic to say "Hawking Radiation is an open question," as I said to Walter, HR is based on a 30-year foundation of rigorous physics study. There are thousands of publications that actually use HR to explain the observations of the Universe today. Granted, there are alternate theories, and they need to be investigated, but having scientific opposition (albeit a small collection of papers) does not make Hawking wrong.

We'll have to see if GLAST starts seeing little flashes of gamma-radiation soon! Now that is exciting science, going to some way to have observational consequences to the existence of HR and extra dimensions. I can't help but thing we are on the edge of some historic discoveries, let's get excited about it rather than being scared about something that won't happen (at least, to a high degree of accuracy )

Thanks Schrödinger! Glad you're keeping an eye on Astroengine. I've kinda been covering the Phoenix lander quite a bit of late, so expect some different, more cosmological articles soon ;-)

Cheers! Ian

[JTankers]

Our fate might be determined by a few scientists with "obsessive compulsive curiosity disorder".

Recent collider incidents (LHC Facts » Collider Incidents) suggest to me that we don't know what energies are required to create micro black holes. I find Dr. Rossler's theories credible compelling and far from convenient or self serving.

I was asked to pass on the following from one of a number of scientists who believe strangelet theory might be correct.

"Our recent effort now involves launching a strangelet detector, scheduled for launch aboard the last Shuttle flight, and to be positioned on the ISS to detect whether cosmic ray impacts might create strangelets, as some [including CERN] have suggested. If so, then we can prove LHC safety from strangelet production. IF NOT, then strangelets are not made in nature, but the Lead-Lead collisions at the LHC might produce the necessary conditions to make strangelets, which just might not fizzle away fast enough, particularly with all that low-Z Helium in the immediate vicinity [which might also be a necessary ingredient to create a stable strangelet]. If so, then we're [not in a good position]. ...strangelet searches are also planned at the LHC, because lots of theorists believe the LHC might be able to make strangelets."

Cheers,
JT

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Originally Posted by JTankers

Our fate might be determined by a few scientists with "obsessive compulsive curiosity disorder".

Is that also the way you feel about the scientists at the RHIC, which has been running since 2000 without destroying the world?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

It seems the first attempt will take place on Sept. 10:
CERN announces start-up date for Large Hadron Collider

[ioneill]

Originally Posted by Schrödinger's Cat

Is that also the way you feel about the scientists at the RHIC, which has been running since 2000 without destroying the world?

I do feel a little suspicious of Wagner's continuous attempts at suing particle accelerators. He used the same arguments against the RHIC eight years ago, and now the LHC. Naturally Walter needs financial backing to push ahead with these big lawsuits, I'm just wondering how much financial backing he does get.

It seems the first attempt will take place on Sept. 10:
CERN announces start-up date for Large Hadron Collider

Thanks for the tip-off! I'm going to cover that story on the LHC now ;-) Thanks!

[ioneill]

Hi Schrodinger:

Here's my Universe Today coverage of the LHC announcement: Get Ready for September 10th: CERN Announces LHC Switch-On | Universe Today

All very exciting!

Cheers, Ian

[motivez]

I guess if it does go horribly wrong as some people have predicted it'll be over before anyone has a chance to realize something has gone wrong.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Originally Posted by ioneill

Hi Schrodinger:

Here's my Universe Today coverage of the LHC announcement: Get Ready for September 10th: CERN Announces LHC Switch-On | Universe Today

All very exciting!

Cheers, Ian

Thanks for the update. It is extremely exciting.
BTW, I've subscribed to your RSS feed for Astroengine.com.

Cheers

[ioneill]

That's great! I hope you enjoy my posts. Naturally there will be lots of posts about the LHC, but also lots more cosmological stuff. If you find any articles of interest, drop me a line and I'll write something about it. I'm a big advocate of interactive blogging ;-)

Hope you are well! Also looking forward to discussing more on Liberty Lounge!

Best, Ian