Timelapse video of the Higgs Boson Discovery plot evolution

11 Responses to Timelapse video of the Higgs Boson Discovery plot evolution

  1. Higgson says:

    Looks great! Suggested soundtrack: “God Saves the Queen” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN9EC3Gy6Nk

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      I get the God reference but what has the queen got to do with it?

      • Higgson says:

        Oh, not the Queen per se but the pride of British People since Peter Higgs is British (Similar to a nation’s anthem is played at the Olympic Game from the nation the winner originates).

        See “Statement from Prime Minister David Cameron on the announcement of the Higgs Boson” http://www.stfc.ac.uk/About+STFC/39282.aspx

        “All of those involved in this important discovery deserve huge acclaim, in particular the many UK scientists, researchers and businesses that have helped make the Large Hadron Collider such a tremendous success. And let’s not forget that this discovery started right here in Britain. The man behind the theory, Peter Higgs, was born and bred in Newcastle and did his ground-breaking work in Edinburgh.”

        “The search for the Higgs Boson has inspired so many to get involved in science over the years; hopefully today’s announcement will inspire the next generation of scientists too, helping to ensure the UK continues to be at the forefront of the next great scientific discoveries. From Higgs to DNA to Graphene, Britain is great for science.”

      • arivero67 says:

        Was there some similar statement, say, after the discovery of the electron?

      • Higgson says:

        I don’t know whether a similar statement was made in the case of the electron.

        Whether this new particle is the SM Higgs or not, it should be called a higgson (for some argued for this or) for the following reasons of mine: (1) The whole impetus of building LHC seemed to be searching for the Higgs; (2) The new particle has properties similar or cloasest to the SM Higgs; but (3) As a scalar particle of no spin, it should be distinguished from fermions (spin 1/2, 3/2 etc) and bosons (spin 1, 2 etc).

        We’ve entered the new era (rebirth) of particle physics. Higgson is likely not the God particle in the sense of:

        ——————————–
        The genuine “God particle” should have at least the following explanatory powers:
        a) Explanation of the creations of bosons and fermions;
        b) Explanation of gravitatonal force;
        c) Explanation of the strong force;
        d) Explanation of the weak force;
        e) Explanation of the electromagnetic force;
        f) Explanation of the origin of the Universe;
        g) Etc.
        ————————————-

        But the higgson is likely a shadow or one manifestation of the genuine God particle whether it is the SM Higgs or not.

    • Joel Rice says:

      I still think it ought to be called the Toilet Particle, in honor of Sheldon Glashow’s remark

  2. Great Video,

    The PeSla

  3. How about this …

    1. We live in a 3D universe because three are the minimum dimensions required to create massive particles.

    Why …

    2. I believe there is no such condition as a rest state (zero motion), every joules of energy is in motion (in transition). So when any point of energy expands (high density to low density or visa verse) whether it is the Big Bang or electron-positron annihilation, the process is not spontaneous, as Dirac theorized, put occurs in a finite time intervals, Planck’s time, tp, (or lower?). The energy-time uncertainty principle, Delta-E x Delta-t ~ h, also points to this time interval mechanism, i.e. the time in the energy-time uncertainty is the time interval the quantum state remains the same, unchanged. …

    So …

    If the time interval is not zero then there will be an expansion of “space”, Delta-X ~ Delta-t, i.e. motion and hence velocity. I speculate that c is the velocity that “came out of the wash” at the Big Bang, i.e. proportional to the initial conditions at t = 0. Hence if space (variable energy densities) is expanding at a finite velocity, c, then the distances between the isothermal “rays” will increase and hence create normal rays, the radiation is no longer collimated. It is this mechanism that creates vortices, “rotation” and hence oscillatory waves that lead to standing waves and “massive” particles.

    So …

    If I can further my speculation a bit more, I would say as we have seen so far through the SM, quanta, repetitive ans stable states of energy, will exist for the first fundamental “particle” created by the expansion, Higg’s boson.

    Hence, my question to you, Sir. Could the Higg’s boson = Dirac’s particulate aether?

    ————————————————————————————————

    How close am I in my interpretation of a “particle”?

    In the standing spherical wave concept, the energy in that sphere (packet) is E = h * c / lambda. where h is Planck’s constant, c is the speed the peak moves in the sphere and lambda is 2r (r is the spacial radius of the sphere).

    It takes the “peak” energy (density?) 720 degrees to make one cycle around the sphere (oscillating 90 degrees at a time from the center to the “surface” (amplitude?) of the sphere and back to the center).

    The spin is the intrinsic rotation of the peak around an axis to complete one cycle (through x, y and z, i.e. 720 degrees). This intrinsic rotation is what gives the “particle’s angular momentum.

    The electric charge is a measure of the effect by the “electric” field created by the peak oscillating between the center of the sphere to the “surface”. The electric field is the gradient of energy created in a grid of all the particles in the universe.

    The mass is the measure of the momentum transferable from one particle to another and is created by oscillatory motion of the peak confined in a spherical space (quantum confinement, quanta space).

    Speculations from my interpretation:

    1) The radius of the sphere for any type of particle is derived by the principle of least action, the resultant effects of all the fields acting on the particle.

    2) The attraction force, quantum gravity, is created by the oscillatory nature of the “wave” within the spherical space. When the peak moves to the surface it creates a negative pressure (tending towards “empty” space in the center) and by the principle of least action must return to the center. Like all other fields, gravity likewise is the summation of these (quanta) negative pressures by all the particles in the universe. hence, the gravity “wells” are greatest where there is a dense coalescing of particles, galaxies, stars, planets, etc.

    3) These oscillations that some have coalesced to “particles” (standing waves) where created by the expansion of the energy, space, and time system. The expansion of the universe (energy and space) could not be done isotropically because of the time factor, i.e. instantaneity is not possible and hence energy expanded in a non-uniform densities. These variations in energy densities patterns grow more and more complex leading to the “coalescing” of space, (formation of “particles”).

    4) The fields and particles have a duality in the sense that all the particles create the fields and each particle effects another through these fields.

    ————————————————————————————————————-

    Fields Particles

    Are fields the interaction of particles of the same characteristics (quantum numbers)?

    In reality the universe is a collection of different particles at different densities and arrays. The fundamental being either the Higgs (or similar) or the graviton (or similar). In other words, as the universe cooled down the first array of particles (and hence filed) were (was) created (coalesced), (Higgs, graviton, something else). As the temperature further dropped more type particles were create (coalesced at different quantum numbers), some interacted with the fundamental field and some did not (reasons could be coincidence of Nature and nothing to do about meeting human’s math).

    So, I ask the question, if everything is made of energy at different densities, then what is energy?

    PS; What is energy?

    I would like to quote Narendra Katkar in one of his papers, “The Speed of Light, A Fundamental Retrospection to Prospection”

    “The Universe is a process of Absolute transformation,
    from Cosmic Primal Energy, CPE to Quantum to
    Radiation and back to CPE Vacuum State.
    CPE → QE → RE→ CPE
    Energy is never created neither lost.
    “Everything essentially is Energy”
    What is Energy? …!!! ”

    http://www.jofamericanscience.org/journals/am-sci/am0705/18_4719am0705_113_127.pdf

  4. Talking about evolution, it seems LHC is in machine development right now, testing 25ns bunches.

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      I dont think they will want to use 25ns this year though. Who knows, if it goes well they might switch for the last run, but it would mean less luminosity. The experiments have coped well with the pile-up so there is no need for 25ns until 2015 when luminosity will climb higher. Except that LHCb could get twice as much lumi at 25 ns.

      Once they have the MD out of the way they can do a good long physics run up to the next stop. They seem to do better without interruptions so it makes sense.

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      Now they are squeezing down to 20cm and may go to 10cm. They could double or even quadruple the luminosity. No wonder they did a high pile-up test first. I wonder if we might see some of this in use after the next technical stop.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 276 other followers

%d bloggers like this: