/sci/ - Science & Math

Motherfockers from bbc are fast inded

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16301908

>mfw

>The chi_b(nP) quarkonium states are produced in proton-proton collisions at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV and recorded by the ATLAS detector. Using a data sample corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 4.4 fb^-1, these states are reconstructed through their radiative decays to Upsilon(1S,2S) with Upsilon->mu+mu-. In addition to the mass peaks corresponding to the decay modes chi_b(1P,2P)->Upsilon(1S)gamma, a new structure centered at a mass of 10.539+/-0.004 (stat.)+/-0.008 (syst.) GeV is also observed, in both the Upsilon(1S)gamma and Upsilon(2S)gamma decay modes. This is interpreted as the chi_b(3P) system.

you mean teh "God particle" ? lawls at name

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-cb3p-particle-large-hadron-collider.html

>Not the Higgs you bunch of stupid faggots

so..... is that chi faggot really a Higgs boson?

This is not the Higgs, you idiot

(It is called God's particle) AND (it is Higgs boson)
this means
Peter Higgs is GOD !!!

not higgs, nothing to see here

>>4174110
but you see, the irony is in the name, for the very particle would deny the existence of it's nickname

Can someone explain what it will mean for us to find the Higgs Boson? Thickfag here.

>>4174084
This is not the Higgs.

>>4174135
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16116236

>>4174132

Higgs field = responsible for what we see as "mass" of all particles

Higgs Mechanism = The process by which the Higgs field gives "mass" to the other particles

Higgs Boson = A side effect from the Higgs field and Higgs mechanism. If the Higgs field does indeed exist we should see this "Higgs Boson" around. This particle has alot of well known properties (if it exists).

If we discover the Higgs boson, it affirms (to some point) that the Higgs field exists, and explain why particles have mass.

Understanding of the Higgs Boson and the Higgs field, will hopefully led to our ability to manupulate the Higgs Field. This basically gives us that ability to control mass, and therefore the ability to control certain aspects of gravity.

Just like we manipulate the EM field today (this gives us pretty much all our tech) we hope one day to make tech based on "mass" manipulation as well.

>>4174173
So by "manipulating gravity" we can for example remove x-% of gravity around a spaceship here on earth, which means costs of space-exploration will be cut in tenfold and we are a few steps closer to colonizing the milky-way?

>>4174173
>Just like we manipulate the EM field today

No all current technology moves charges around, none can vary the charge on a particle. There is no serious talk of this being able to alter mass at will.

>>4174182
more likely means that some asshole somewhere will make an acorn have the same mass as earth and plummet us into the sun.

but yeah, that could work too.

>>4174182
Yes. That is a strong possibility.

What "may" be done is to have some kind of "platform on earth" that decreases your mass, or increases it. Ships could then easily get into space, explore, and comeback.

Being able to "reduce" or "increase" the inherit mass of objects, would change how much they were pulled by "gravity", but shouldn't change the inner dynamics of the objects as a whole. Which is great news.

>>4174206
GLORIOUS

Imagine, instead of building prisons with cells and huge facility complexes. One could just create a pair of shoes, increase the mass of said shoes, and equip it on inmates.

wow, you're quite slow on this one OP. It was news a week ago.

>>4174206
>That is a strong possibility.
No it isn't. Find me one scientific paper which says this is a possibility.

>>4174222
burden of proof lies on the hands of the one who's the most mad

>>4174220
Id you actually read the article you would realise this is a different story.

>>4174229
I will not read the story

>>4174227
you made the claim this is possible. There is no citation i can give which will prove no one has written a serous paper about this, you however, can give one citation which would prove otherwise.

Unless you were talking bollocks.

>>4174192
Your right about the EM field. I was just making a vague simplification for the reader though. Manipulation of a "fundmental property" is perhaps better wording. The end result is correct though, manipulation of mass.

>There is no serious talk of this being able to alter mass at will.

Actually there is a lot of talk about that shit, from the people working on that shit at CERN (or the other labs). That stuff isn't discussed publically, because ya'll overreact to pretty much everything you shouldn't and underreact to the actual important shit. Basically, the public is fucking retarded. You won't officially hear the plans for "mass maniuplation" until we at least get the Higgs Boson (probably a good number of years after that).

However that is very very very far down the line right now, hence no public statements yet, and no point at getting ya'll all excited and in your public retarded stupor

>>4174236
i'm not that anon, i just wrote the 1st law of proving facts on /sci/

>>4174238
>That stuff isn't discussed publically

Complete horseshit. Piss off to /x/, you can't back up your statements and have to result to making shit up.

>>4174222
>a scientific paper on possible uses of yet to be developed technology

Are you fucking retarded?
1) Scientific papers aren't written about tech
(do you see any scientific paper on the Ipad? or XBOX)

2) Scientific papers aren't written about shit in progress (or in the near future).

>>4174250
So according to you, ALL SCIENCE BEING DISCUSSED is instantly written for publication and made available to the rest of the world? Every conversation, every meeting...LMFAO.

Just like most professions, only FINAL WORK IS SHOWN OR MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.

Does your fail know no bound?

>>>/x/
Sure is 15 year old in here.

>>4174217
>mfw that idea is pretty good

>>4174261
Incoherent troll is incoherent

>>4174252
The jump from confirming the existence of the higgs field to somehow manipulating it is not technology, there is no basis in physics for a method on how to go about it. There are physics journals on commercial fusion but that isn't fundamental research.
To claim something is a "strong possibility" it must have a strong basis in research. Academia requires all research staff to publish as often as possible. So for it to have never been published it would have to be very new research indeed in which case in wouldn't be a strong possibility. Stuff on ongoing research is published all the time, the preliminary results on higgs for example.

>>4174258
If you read his post you would realise he was not suggesting that it was too bleeding edge to have any publications but instead that it was a conspiracy to keep the research a secret.

>>4174266
>To claim something is a "strong possibility" it must have a strong basis in research

If this was a scientific paper yes, but since it is 4chan...NOPE. No one is claiming shit in the immediate future son. People are just giving the possible uses for Higgs developed tech.

Hello /sci/entists, look at yourself. Now back to me, now back at yourself, now back to me. Sadly, you’re not manipulating gravity like me, but if you harness the Higgs field you could be just like me.

Look down, back up. where are you? You are in a spaceship, with an inertialess Higgs engine.

What’s in your hand? Back at me. I have it. It’s a mass of useless carbon. Look again, the mass is now DIAMONDS!

Anything is possible when you harness the Higgs field.

I’m on a neutron star.

>>4174269
>a conspiracy to keep the research a secret

You draw extremely shitty conclusions. No one is claiming any of that shit. No one is even claiming research on Higgs Technology has been done yet.

You are the prime example of why scientist don't tell you shit, UNTIL THEY ARE FINISHED OR NEAR FINISHED. You can't handle or understand the fucking truth.

This whole thread IS ABOUT FUCKING SPECULATION, SINCE WE AREN'T EVEN SURE THE HIGGS EXISTS YET. It isn't anyone fault but yours if you missed that important piece of info.

>>4174206
'Strong?'
It's about as vague and distant as anything --
confirming part of our theories about particle physics has NOTHING to do with our ability to change it.
We have known, for instance, about other subatomic particles for decades,
but remain unable to do anything practical with those.

So how you figure we'll leap over all of our other vast inabilities and start moving toward technologies from fiction is just weird.
It suggests a schizophrenic issue; the same one the press fails to understand so often.

>>4174281

>>4174285
I speculate that you'll be able to collect a jar of higgs bosons, which can be emptied out onto floor where they instantly turn into a magical pink unicorn. There's reasonable speculation and there's just making nonsensical shit up. Guess which you are doing.

Let's get back on track:
confirming the existence of any (let alone all) parts of the Higgs issues would be a huge step
First, it would be major confirmation most of our understanding of particle physics is on the right track -- not an insignificant issue.
Second, it would fit a huge piece of the ultimate physics puzzle: the way all things interact.

Let's avoid bogus speculation like 'what we could do if we can manipulate everything' -- this would be a big deal in the abstract.
It doesn't have to be applicable, it wouldn't be in any kind of near term.

>>4174291
You have some points.

However do you actually expect me to take all my time to try and explain the lastest ideas and theories of how to control mass through Higgs field manipulation to you?

This is at least 2 semesters of coursework on the subject (as most ideas in theortical particle physics do). If you are really interested in that shit, you should go to your local uni and take the fucking courses yourself, or get involved in the work.

/sci/ is all about dumbing down shit. If you want more info on any subject there are tons of places you can look, internet, books, professors, etc.

Good luck!

Can I have my jetpack now?

Science promised me a jetpack long time ago.

Where's my jetpack?

>>4174299
>believes in unicorns

>>4174206

>>4174306
> deflection
still not a citation.

>>4174206
oHHHH

>>4174173
>>4174173

They will never find a Higgs boson. Geometric theories of the universe are always successful, and bullshit particle theories are full of ad hoc bullshit. It is time for them to die.

>>4174586
Sure they're successful, I can describe anything I dont understand simply by making up new words and pretending they have any-fucking-thing to do with reality...

>>4174206
>"platform on earth" that decreases your mass, or increases it.

No more dieting, yaay!

>>4174593
what