I saw this yesterday, but forgot to post it.
http://www.physorg.com/news198202639.html
Possible higgs discovery.
The Higgs particle is a very big deal for the physics community. The non-existance of the Higgs would invalidate the standard model of particle physics, which is one of the cornerstones of physics since around 1970. If this theory is found to be incorrect, it means that much of physics research since 1970 is completely wrong and a lot of careers, indeed much of the entire field will be on the line.
They may well have found the Higgs. On the other hand, this may be a pre-announcement that turns out to be wrong. If the Higgs does not exist, I suspect there will be several "pre-announcements" over the next few years before they give up on it. Failure to find the Higgs is very anathema to the entire physics community.
They may well have found the Higgs. On the other hand, this may be a pre-announcement that turns out to be wrong. If the Higgs does not exist, I suspect there will be several "pre-announcements" over the next few years before they give up on it. Failure to find the Higgs is very anathema to the entire physics community.
That statement makes my head ache!icarus wrote:And of course, it is pseudo-science to require the non-existence of experimental evidence for theoretical invalidation.
If I'm interpreting it correctly, you are saying that a hypothesis should not be promoted to a theory till the experimental evidence is in. The problem then becomes, what is the experimental evidence needed? The standard model successfully predicts a lot of things. Where do you draw the line? How do you react when the answers are iffy? Do you shoot the bum, of pat him on the shoulder, and say "OK lets get back to work and figure this out"?
Much of the responses seems to be based on politics and personality. It seems that not only must ideas be discarded as understanding increases (hopefully) but so must individuals. Anybody that thinks scientists are altruistic and not cut throat competitive would be dissapointed by history.
Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.
I'm not too happy with the standard model. Sure it can predict. But epicycles were good at prediction too.
i.e. you can have "engineering" models that do not conform to reality.
Accuracy of prediction is not proof of validity. It may just mean we have not gone deep enough and await further data/tools for a more coherent model to be discovered.
i.e. you can have "engineering" models that do not conform to reality.
Accuracy of prediction is not proof of validity. It may just mean we have not gone deep enough and await further data/tools for a more coherent model to be discovered.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
The Standard model is not a theory or an hypothesis. It is a model. By definition, all models are flawed. All that the Higgs Boson can do is confirm the usefulness of the model. It cannot confirm its validity as it is just a model.MSimon wrote:I'm not too happy with the standard model. Sure it can predict. But epicycles were good at prediction too.
i.e. you can have "engineering" models that do not conform to reality.
Accuracy of prediction is not proof of validity. It may just mean we have not gone deep enough and await further data/tools for a more coherent model to be discovered.
What is the difference between ignorance and apathy? I don't know and I don't care.
They were carefull to emphazie the blog was a rumer. They did not deny it till
"We will have new and exciting results from our SM Higgs searches at ICHEP [the International Conference on High Energy Physics, which begins in Paris next week] , but no three-sigma evidence. More data are needed for that."
Perhaps they will narrow the possible size range further. Or perhaps they have some evidence, but not enough to reach three standard deviations of confidence, or perhaps none of the above.
Concerning theories vs models, I guess quantum mechanics is a useful model, not necessarily a theory (especially as it has unresolved relationships with gravity and realitivity(?) and must invoke fanciful methods to resolve conflicts.
Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.
I thought that's what you meant.icarus wrote:No, wrong, that is not what I am saying.you are saying that a hypothesis should not be promoted to a theory till the experimental evidence is in.
How can you really, truly know that you have 'NOT found' something?
Reference Karl Popper, pseudo-science, unfalsifiable hypotheses.
On the topic of 'dis-proving' something, I took a computer science class once upon a time which dealt with logical and mathematical proofs. One of the topics discussed was proving a negative. Maybe it's impossible or just really hard to do this with the Higgs Boson, but, can't scientists sometimes prove the non-existence of something (or, more accurately, the invalidity of the hypothesis of a things existence) by doing a sort of Proof-By-Contradiction.
What I mean is, if I remember correctly, in a Proof-By-Contradiction, you start with two things: 1) one or more things you already know to be true, and 2) by assuming the thing you are trying to prove false is correct (that is, you are trying to prove it's false, so you assume it is true), then show that if it the idea being tested is true, it leads to a result that contradicts the thing(s) you previously already knew to be true, so the second thing must be false.
Can't experiments sometimes do something like that to definitively falsify a theory?