backtop


Print 64 comment(s) - last by Just Tom.. on Dec 16 at 8:48 AM


  (Source: BBC)
Two separate experiments at the Large Hadron Collider bring scientists closer to elusive building block of Universe

For a week, anticipation has been building for the press conference held this morning by scientists from the European Organization for Nuclear Research in Switzerland. Speculation abounded that they would announce evidence of the misnamed "God particle," the Higgs boson, which gives all matter mass.

So, now that 8 a.m. ET on December 13, 2011 has passed, are we any closer to finding the so-called God particle? Well, maybe.

According to the BBC, researchers at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in Switzerland say that two experiments there may have resulted in glimpses of the Higgs boson. However, they do not have enough evidence yet to make a solid claim.

So why all the fuss? 

"The Higgs is the final piece of the Standard Model of Particle Physics which is, itself, the crowning achievement of subatomic physics. Called the 'God Particle' by some, the Higgs is responsible for giving all the other flecks of matter in this Universe the remarkable property we think of as mass. Physicists have been hunting the Higgs for decades," explains Adam Frank at NPR's 13.7 blog.

Evidence of the Higgs would be one of the most significant scientific advances in 60 years. 

The two separate experiments at the LHC — Atlas and CMS — have been searching for the basic building block of the Universe independently. "Because the Standard Model does not predict an exact mass for the Higgs, physicists have to use particle accelerators like the LHC to systematically look for it across a broad search area," the BBC reports.

Both experiments have reportedly seen a data "spike" around a mass of 125 Gigaelectronvolts. While this isn't enough to confirm the Higgs' discovery, it is enough to generate mass excitement (pun definitely intended) in scientific circles.

Perhaps now all the citizens CERN recruited to help find the Higgs can go back to their day jobs.

Sources: BBC, NPR



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Woohoo
By FITCamaro on 12/13/2011 11:10:24 PM , Rating: 0
Creationism is only an alternative viewpoint to explain how we got here.

In what way does it seek to replace science? Creationism doesn't try to disprove the laws of physics, how cells convert food to energy, how the brain works, quantum physics, etc.

I agree religion doesn't belong in a science class. But since liberals have eliminated theology from schools, where else except when teaching evolution do you talk about it? It doesn't go with history either (actually in my school ancient history class went pretty parallel to the Bible since the Bible is one of the oldest accounts of ancient history.

Like it or not, America is a vastly predominant Christian nation, founded by men of faith who were perfectly ok with Christianity being taught in schools. It was that way until the last 70 years. In the early days of American public schools back to the early 1800s, students were taught to read and write with religious texts. Church was held in the Capitol. Washington D.C. is abound with religious writings (which many atheists are doing their damnest to have removed).

No one is trying to force anyone to believe anything. Learning about a religion doesn't make them believe it. It certainly didn't for me.


RE: Woohoo
By Paj on 12/14/2011 7:20:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In what way does it seek to replace science? Creationism doesn't try to disprove the laws of physics, how cells convert food to energy, how the brain works, quantum physics, etc.


Literal creationism does all of these things.

How could the earth have been created 6000 years ago, considering what is known and proven concerning radioisotope decay?

How could a volume of water exist in the atmosphere sufficient to cover the entire surface of the earth to the depth of Mt Everest? Any animal with lungs would have died.

I agree that learning about religion is fascinating, but it should be taught as philosophy, not theology. Personally I am agnostic - I cannot prove or disprove the existence of a god, as a simply do not have the means to do so.


RE: Woohoo
By Just Tom on 12/16/2011 8:48:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
How could the earth have been created 6000 years ago, considering what is known and proven concerning radioisotope decay?


I am an atheist but that is fairly easy to explain. Surely, if some being had the capability to create an entire universe that same being would be able to create an universe that appeared older than it was. Maybe as some sort of subtle cosmic prank.


"We basically took a look at this situation and said, this is bullshit." -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng's take on patent troll Soverain

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki