Physicists say they have found a Higgs boson

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by Vito Corleone, Mar 14, 2013.

  1. Vito Corleone

    Vito Corleone Lieutenant Junior Grade Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2012
    Location:
    Somewhere in Space and Time...
    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20130314/DA50T1382.html

    So, does this mean I'll see Warp Drive sometime before I die? I certainly hope so...
     
  2. Crazy Eddie

    Crazy Eddie Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Location:
    Your Mom
    No, it means CERN will be getting another grant and somebody you've never heard of will be getting a Nobel Prize.
     
  3. sojourner

    sojourner Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Location:
    A Long Time Ago...
    I'll wait till they find The Higgs Boson.
     
  4. YellowSubmarine

    YellowSubmarine Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2010
    What, no warp drive and no nothing? Can't we get at least a teleportation machine, a time machine or a pony?
     
  5. gturner

    gturner Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Location:
    Kentucky
    It should more properly say that the scientists had found a Higg's boson, because they have no idea where that one is at anymore. We pay them billions to find a particle and they don't even bother to keep track of it, or even slap an asset tag on it so they can keep it in inventory. Instead of chasing after the origin of mass, maybe they should hunt for the particle that gives objects expense.
     
  6. Timelord Victorious

    Timelord Victorious Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Location:
    Germany, Earth, the Solar System
    Well, maybe warp drive is a long way away still, but maybe one practical application of the Higgs Field might be artificial gravity and inertial dampeners.
    The higgs field is responsible for making us not fly at constant lightspeed after all.
     
  7. larryman

    larryman Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    No Warp Drive from a Higgs boson. But reducing ship-mass (by blocking the action of the Higgs particle) may allow development of these shuttles, for 'near' light-speed travel...

    [​IMG]
     
  8. YellowSubmarine

    YellowSubmarine Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2010
    I am no biologist, but I have a feeling your body won't survive for a long time with almost no mass. One neutron additional in water will kill you, totally reducing your mass sounds pretty gory.
     
  9. larryman

    larryman Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    ^ Perhaps... just balance the Higgs particle blocking, against the Relativity mass increasing from speed. So your body maintains a same mass - even at near light-speed.
     
  10. Asbo Zaprudder

    Asbo Zaprudder Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Location:
    On the beach
    Yeah, my thoughts as well. From http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2135/is-heavy-water-dangerous:
    Any force exerted on a zero rest mass particle would cause it to instantly accelerate to the speed of light. You'd probably disintegrate before you even felt sick.
     
  11. Edit_XYZ

    Edit_XYZ Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2011
    Location:
    At star's end.
    Not if you have no particle with mass in your body (you will jump to lightspeed in one piece). Or if your mass is small, but non-zero (admittedly, this would decrease significantly the potential of the technology).

    As for the mass of chemical elements - what matters is the relative mass of the interacting particles.
     
  12. Asbo Zaprudder

    Asbo Zaprudder Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Location:
    On the beach
    Lowering the rest mass increases atomic size. The radius of an atom is inversely proportional to the electron rest mass m, so the radius of atoms (R) would tend to infinity as m -> 0. Intermolecular (London) forces are roughly proportional to the ionization energy I over R^6, and as I is inversely proportional to R, this force would also quickly go to zero as 1/R^7.
     
  13. Mr. Adventure

    Mr. Adventure Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2001
    Location:
    Mr. Adventure
    Now that they've found the Force we need to get to work on the midichlorians.
     
  14. gturner

    gturner Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Location:
    Kentucky
    Not to mention that when you try to slap yourself in the forehead because you just realized a serious problem with being massless, your arm mass = 0 and bicep force is definitely not zero,so arm acceleration tends to infinity and something really bad is going to happen to your head.
     
  15. Asbo Zaprudder

    Asbo Zaprudder Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Location:
    On the beach
    Furthermore, as ionization potential is proportional to electron rest mass (which is where I got the 1/R from in my previous post), all the atoms in your body would soon be ionized by lower energy photons until even infra-red radiation from your own body or your surroundings turns you into a rapidly dispersing ionic plasma.
     
  16. Edit_XYZ

    Edit_XYZ Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2011
    Location:
    At star's end.
    Except you won't have 0 mass.
    A soon as you lower your mass to 0, you'll be flying at lightspeed, gaining relativistic mass.

    'The radius of an atom is inversely proportional to the electron rest mass m, so the radius of atoms (R) would tend to infinity as m -> 0' - due to the uncertainty principle, not due to mass attraction.
    As to your wavefunction, the uncertainty principle allows, due to your relativistic mass, for it to be 'squished up' in a region of space not much larger than the one you now occupy (photons don't occupy infinite space for the same reason).
     
  17. Asbo Zaprudder

    Asbo Zaprudder Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Location:
    On the beach
    The part about mass attraction is a straw-man argument that you have introduced. The rest of your argument is a mish-mash of concepts from relativistic and quantum physics.
     
  18. CorporalCaptain

    CorporalCaptain Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Location:
    "Who are you?"
    That's a neat discussion here.

    I'll chime in that, while there's no reason to doubt any of that, the idea that the Bohr radius is inversely proportional to electron mass has experimental support from the study of muonic hydrogen.
     
  19. Edit_XYZ

    Edit_XYZ Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2011
    Location:
    At star's end.
    If you knew that the relation between electron mass and atomic radius is due to the uncertainty principle, you sure didn't show it in your previous posts, Astro.

    And the rest of my argument is correct:
    Δx
    ·Δpħ/2
    Δx=atomic radius r
    Δp=Δv·m
    And the electron's mass is tiny to begin with.

    r
    /2)/(Δv·m)
    In words - the electron's mass can be as small as you wish (and rest or relativistic - it doesn't matter); if it's not 0, the wavefunction of the atom will be squished in a volume of space not much larger than the one it usually occupies.