7 ms·

Peter Higgs, physicist who discovered Higgs boson, has died

945 points by grahameb 2y ago

brcmthrowaway 2y ago
Does the Higgs detection have any economic value, like room tenperature superconductors would? Or is it a scientific curiosity
- wavemode 2y ago
  It serves as an important confirmation of the Standard Model of particle physics, which is a foundational theory underpinning many other important discoveries. But the particle itself probably has no current practical application.
- openrisk 2y ago
  With the knowledge and technology of today there is arguably very little direct economic value to be had from this part of particle physics. One cannot preclude potential future implications though (it has happened many times in the past that understanding phenomena that were far removed from everyday experience created later the conditions for massive technological breakthroughs). Particle physicists and other researchers in fundamental science are also typically keen to point out at indirect effects. E.g., building the massive accelerators to detect particles pushes forward more conventional technologies. The Web was famously invented to serve CERN collaboration needs.
- godelski 2y ago
  > have any economic value Don't downvote them! This is actually a good question! (and gives us a chance to talk about why we should pursue these things!) It's also incredible difficult to answer! Can we define what it means? Direct or indirect? === Indirect (LHC) === Well one of the reasons the LHC was built was to find the Higgs. To do so, we had to invent a lot of shit along the way. Thing is, when you're pushing the bounds of human knowledge, you don't exactly have all the devices you need to measure and test everything. The WWW[0] is famously one of such "spin-offs" as we needed to connect scientists from around the globe to distribute the data from this project. Remember that it is an international project[1*]. There is also a lot about superconductors and refrigeration, both of which significantly contribute to modern medical devices. A lot for magnets, vacuum devices, and electronics, all of which have permeated into industry. These scientific projects also are a big political effort and demonstrate good will and can be grounds for collaboration and building democracies. The hosting countries also have a lot to benefit from as direct collaboration happens there. Just think of the force of putting a bunch of very smart people in a room together, especially when they are experts in very different things. It's difficult to predict the direct revenue, but at such a cheap cost, even small innovations can easily end up covering the costs. Certainly the internet has more than paid for CERN, in the form of tax revenues to each country compared to the cost they give, not to mention benefit to the public (especially considering other indirect aspects). === Direct (LHC) === Maybe a bit harder. There's some slides here [2] that claim CERN nets 3.3bn for 1993 - 2038. You can find much more detail here[3] and another independent one here[4]. I'd just like to note [4]'s last line in their abstract: We conservatively estimate that there is around a 90% probability that benefits exceed costs, with an expected net present value of about 2.9 billion euro, not considering the unpredictable applications of scientific discovery. === Specifically the Higgs === That's unfortunately impossible to say. To make use of it technologically we're at least 50 years away, which is to say "who the fuck knows". But also remember the cost is almost nothing. If we speculate, it is not unreasonable that the technologies that could be enabled through the understanding of this science (and the requisite further knowledge we'll need) could be insurmountable. We're talking about understanding how mass works. So if we're ever going to invent things like inertial dampeners (which would make mass an irrelevant aspect of transportation), mass effect drives, gravity generators, and so on, knowledge of the Higgs would be essential. But don't hold your breath on seeing technologies any time soon. Remember that we're playing the long game with science. It is good to think about short term, but never forget the long game. If you forget you may win battles but will lose the war. === Side Note About Money === The LHC is actually one way I like to think about the ultra billionaires (like Musk, Bezos, Gates types). The reason being that with that level of wealth we cannot ignore the effects of compound interest, as this plays a significant role. Let's take Bezos, the #2 on the list (behind Bernard Arnault) with $203.3B. We can ask, how many LHCs could Bezos make? We assume 10 years to build at 0.5B/yr and then 1B/yr to operate. We'll assume a 7% interest rate, compounded yearly, which means 14.231B/yr! So clearly Bezos is worth at least 14 LHCs! We could get more precision and actually compound, but the quick version gives us a sufficient lower bound to really put into perspective either the wealth of Bezos or how cheap the LHC is. However your want to frame it. FWIW, with the same lazy analysis we get Forbes top 10 as: Arnault @ 15.2 LHCs, Bezos @ 14.2 LHCs, Musk @ 13.72 LHCs, Zuckerberg @ 12.7 LHCs, Ellison @ 10.7 LHCs, Buffett @ 9.6 LHCs, Gates @ 9.2 LHCs, Page @ 9.1 LHCs, Ballmer @ 8.8 LHCs, and Brin @ 8.8 LHCs. I'm just saying, we could afford a lot of LHCs... [0] https://www.home.cern/science/computing/birth-web https://www.home.cern/science/computing/birth-web [1*] I wanted to take a minute to mention the cost, so we can better guestimate the ROI. The project took 10 years to build and cost about $5bn and costs about $1bn/yr to operate, with Germany being the largest contributor and only contributing 21%[1^]. I'm not sure how it works, but the Federal budget is about 370B euros but total gov spending was 1.76T for 2021. That would be 0.065% of the federal budget or 0.014% of the total spending. Pretty fucking cheap if you ask me! [1^] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CERN#Participation_and_funding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CERN#Participation_and_funding [2] https://fcc-cdr.web.cern.ch/webkit/press_material/Brochure_A5_SocioEconomic_EN.pdf https://fcc-cdr.web.cern.ch/webkit/press_material/Brochure_A... (site: https://fcc.web.cern.ch/society https://fcc.web.cern.ch/society) [3] https://indico.cern.ch/event/760053/contributions/3152652/attachments/1720884/2784363/Cost-Benefit_Analysis_of_the_Large_Hadron_Collider.pdf https://indico.cern.ch/event/760053/contributions/3152652/at... [4] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0040162516000731 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00401...
hobo_mark 2y ago
He didn't discover the Higgs, but he formulated it (along with other people) in 1964. Its discovery was not until 2012.
- freddealmeida 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - ajross 2y ago
    The same is true of every other boson, except arguably photons in the classical limit (e.g. you can put a multimeter on an antenna and detect them "non-probabalistically"). The Higgs detection is sound. A quick check of wikipedia says 5.9 sigma. Good enough for me, anyway.
    - bee_rider 2y ago
      > e.g. you can put a multimeter on an antenna and detect them "non-probabalistically" I think I get what you mean, but we should be clear—every measurement is probabilistic, right? We can measure photons with low enough inaccuracy that we don’t bother quantifying the probability that they might not exist. But, it is actually on some philosophical level a difference of degree, not type. I’m pretty sure.
      - ducttapecrown 2y ago
        What does it mean for a measurement to be probabilistic? I'm a math grad student, so still a layman, but here's the way I think about it: Every particle travels over every possible path as the wave spreads out. Once you measure the particle, it tells you a path. So the measured value of the particle is probabilistic, not the measurement.
    - dguest 2y ago
      I don't know where you get 5.9 sigma but that might have been the confidence at the time it was discovered in 2012. Since then the LHC took a lot more data and the confidence is more like 20 sigma. That said, these days it's harder to find a paper that gives a confidence for discovery, since they are all quoting the signal strength with respect to the standard model prediction. They generally measure this within about 5%, see for example https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.05498 https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.05498
hiddencost 2y ago
Glad he got to see the confirmation before he went.
akumetsu 2y ago
Sad to hear, I remember the excitement over the experimental evidence once his particle was detected. I'm always amazed by theoretical predictions that can actually be verified plus it was interrsting to hear about the higgs boson as part of my studies shortly after it was detected. Nowadays it seems many theoretical predications are not even close to being verifiable in the coming years or with the current and planned tech. Unless we are talking about superconductivity at room temperature ofc
freddealmeida 2y ago
[flagged]
- archgoon 2y ago
  I believe that several citations of your assertions is in order.
toomuchtodo 2y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Higgs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Higgs
- neom 2y ago
  Just to add a couple more good Higgs resources courtesy of the fine folks at PBS Space Time: How the Higgs Mechanism Give Things Mass - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0Q4UAiKacw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0Q4UAiKacw Could the Higgs Boson Lead Us to Dark Matter? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2yLMY6Mpw8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2yLMY6Mpw8 Where Is The Center of The Universe? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOLHtIWLkHg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOLHtIWLkHg (For me personally, I gave a massive sad sign when I saw this on the homepage. I really liked him a lot for a few reasons: He did his thinking in isolation, for a long period of time walking around the Scottish highlands . He was a keen disciple of interdisciplinary thought being pivotal to innovation. He appears to have imagined things and thought about things in a pretty weird way for his time, although that might seem obvious, how well he grappled with the reality of weirdness is exemplary. 힝)
dotnet00 2y ago
The story of how Higgs predicted his mechanism was part of what got me into physics as a kid. It fit 10 year old me's obsession with the 'soft-spoken genius' archetype perfectly and formed a pillar in my belief that 'genius' was made through hard work (and some amount of luck) rather than being born with it. The announcement of the detection at the LHC is a core memory of mine, I still distinctly remember where I was, what I was doing and very excitedly trying to explain how cool it was to my parents at the time.
- KingFelix 2y ago
  That is awesome, we need some more amazing scientists in the public eye to inspire the young. I know there are a lot of amazing scientists, but somehow need to get them on tiktok or something? Can you share the story?
  - moelf 2y ago
    Specific to Particle physics and Peter Higgs, this book (https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/frank-close/elusive/9781668612026/ https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/frank-close/elusive/978166...) by Frank Close is fantastic.
  - dotnet00 2y ago
    My parents had a hard time explaining my dad's job to me, so they just told me he was a scientist because he had a masters in physics (he was a diplomat). Like any little kid, my parents were my heroes, so of course this led me to becoming obsessed with scientists and reading up on science stuff, eg trying to read my sister's university textbooks. I developed a hobby of reading up on and sharing factoids I found online, and found one about the 'god particle'. At first I thought it was cool because it seemed to basically talk about a particle that causes mass (of course, this was actually wrong, but that didn't really matter to a 10 year old), but reading about how it was predicted 40-50 years ago and the largest single machine humanity had built was being used to try to find it made it my favorite factoid and I'd excitedly start talking all about it the moment anyone showed even the slightest bit of interest. In 2012 when the detection was announced, we were on a short 2-3 day vacation in Dubai and were having breakfast in the hotel. The TV was right next to us, and seeing the news I was trying (and failing) to explain to my parents how the Higgs boson had been predicted 50 years ago and it took that long for the technology to finally catch up to be able to verify it, and how this would represent one of the last remaining pieces of the standard model (although back then I didn't quite grasp that the standard model was not a full theory of everything). I was trying to explain to them the size of the LHC, how it was the biggest single machine we've built, how when they were turning it on for the first time, there were fears about it creating micro-black holes which might swallow the Earth. I think that while we need scientists in the public eye, we don't need them as social media entertainers, a lot of well known science communicators on social media come off as attention-seeking charismatic fakes/frauds to me (eg NDT). Stuff like the interviews and documentaries Stephen Hawking had appeared in (or to a lesser extent, the ones Michio Kaku has appeared in) did much more for me in being inspired, even without having known what research they were known for. I think we could also do with more books like Hawking's 'A Brief History of Time' and encouraging kids to read them. Also, instead of over-simplifying everything and passing off scientists as geniuses in the traditional sense, we should be more open in showing that the people who made these discoveries or predictions were not inherently born with it, the vast majority of them were completely normal people who worked very hard to build skills in the thing they enjoyed. Another discovery I feel was somewhat similar is that of discrete time crystals, casually predicted in 2012, turned out to actually be possible in 2018 and has a similar 'cool' factor.
UncleSlacky 2y ago
Lame claim to fame: Higgs was the PhD supervisor of one of my university professors. He told us that Higgs left a message on his desk before going hiking one weekend to the effect that he'd had a great idea and would tell them all about it when he got back.
- ColinWright 2y ago
  I wonder if he got the idea from Hardy, who before undertaking a journey on a very small boat sent a postcard saying he had proved the Riemann Hypothesis: Hardy stayed in Denmark with Bohr until the very end of the summer vacation, and when he was obliged to return to England to start his lectures there was only a very small boat available…. The North Sea can be pretty rough, and the probability that such a small boat would sink was not exactly zero. Still, Hardy took the boat, but sent a postcard to Bohr: “I proved the Riemann Hypothesis. G.H. Hardy.” If the boat sinks and Hardy drowns, everybody must believe that he has proved the Riemann Hypothesis. Yet God would not let Hardy have such a great honor and so He will not let the boat sink. -- https://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~mcleod/Riemann/Hardy.html https://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~mcleod/Riemann/Hardy.html
  - anthony__j 2y ago
    haha, that's pretty clever. makes you wonder if fermat was doing a similar prank with his margins
    - ColinWright 2y ago
      It's generally believed that Fermat thought he had a proof, but probably almost immediately remembered that not everything is a Unique Factorization Domain, so the "obvious proof" fails. Then he didn't bother returning to correct the error. So no, probably not. (+) I should go and learn more about the specifics of this to make sure I'm relating it correctly. EDIT: (++) OK, here's what I was thinking about: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/953462/what-was-lames-proof https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/953462/what-was-lam... EDIT2: (++) Second link with similar details: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/324740/fermats-proof-of-his-last-theorem https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/324740/fermats-proo...
robblbobbl 2y ago
Condolences.
runnr_az 2y ago
[flagged]
- lrivers 2y ago
  FABFOB
santbo 2y ago
RIP. Lucky who is born in an English-speaking country with a short name easy to remember by other English monolinguals. The "Higgs boson" has many fathers, but his name got attached to the concept for simplicity, giving him world fame and, ultimately, a Nobel prize when he likely didn't contribute significantly more than others, cf. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson#History https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson#History or https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_controversies#Physics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_controversies#Ph...
vazma 2y ago
I was incredibly fortunate to meet him at CERN the day before the Higgs boson announcement. As an intern, I encountered him the evening prior; he was dining alone in the CERN cafeteria, blending in like a kindly elderly gentleman. He was exceptionally humble and courteous. I feel so lucky that I mustered the courage to speak with him and shake his hand. Rest in peace, Mr. Higgs.
- teekert 2y ago
  These are the kind of opportunities one must take when they present themselves. Well done.
CapeTheory 2y ago
Massive in his field.
- callumw13 2y ago
  this is the kind of strong interaction I like to see on this website
jszymborski 2y ago
This has given me a case of the Higgs boson blues https://youtu.be/1GWsdqCYvgw https://youtu.be/1GWsdqCYvgw
jaredwiener 2y ago
But will there be a funeral mass?
- russelldjimmy 2y ago
  Yes, about 125.11±0.11 GeV/c^2
pfdietz 2y ago
It was a success for particle physics that they found the Higgs, but it was also a tragedy. Discovering the Higgs and nothing else new was the nightmare scenario for the LHC, and so it has come to pass.
- joshcryer 2y ago
  It really damaged string theory which is by far the greatest thing to happen with the LHC.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    Ah, a glass is half full person! :)
- vikramkr 2y ago
  Calling it a nightmare scenario is quite the overdramatic description of a successful experiment that validated a core prediction of the standard model
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    The scenario is a nightmare to people doing the work, since it seems to indicate there will be no new physics until energies at far beyond what can practically be reached. So, particle physics dies as an active field.
silverfrost 2y ago
Proposed - not discovered. He put it forward as an explanation, he didn't make the actual discovery.
crypto_mogul 2y ago
[dead]
adif_sgaid 2y ago
[dead]
taylorbuley 2y ago
BBC version https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-68774195 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-68774195
sohkamyung 2y ago
I read "Elusive: How Peter Higgs Solved the Mystery of Mass" by Frank Close and I found it an excellent read on the elusive Higgs Particle and the elusive Peter Higgs himself (Higgs went for a walk to hide from people on the day the Nobel Prize was announced).
trashface 2y ago
Higgs' bosons return to the universe
bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago
Just keep in mind that if this way present day, the Sabine hosenfelds of the world would be saying iTs NoT eVeN tEsTaBlE, and HN would be cheering her for fighting the evil corrupted mainstream academia.

945 points by grahameb 2y ago

Does the Higgs detection have any economic value, like room tenperature superconductors would? Or is it a scientific curiosity

wavemode 2y ago
It serves as an important confirmation of the Standard Model of particle physics, which is a foundational theory underpinning many other important discoveries. But the particle itself probably has no current practical application.
openrisk 2y ago
With the knowledge and technology of today there is arguably very little direct economic value to be had from this part of particle physics. One cannot preclude potential future implications though (it has happened many times in the past that understanding phenomena that were far removed from everyday experience created later the conditions for massive technological breakthroughs). Particle physicists and other researchers in fundamental science are also typically keen to point out at indirect effects. E.g., building the massive accelerators to detect particles pushes forward more conventional technologies. The Web was famously invented to serve CERN collaboration needs.
godelski 2y ago
> have any economic value Don't downvote them! This is actually a good question! (and gives us a chance to talk about why we should pursue these things!) It's also incredible difficult to answer! Can we define what it means? Direct or indirect? === Indirect (LHC) === Well one of the reasons the LHC was built was to find the Higgs. To do so, we had to invent a lot of shit along the way. Thing is, when you're pushing the bounds of human knowledge, you don't exactly have all the devices you need to measure and test everything. The WWW[0] is famously one of such "spin-offs" as we needed to connect scientists from around the globe to distribute the data from this project. Remember that it is an international project[1*]. There is also a lot about superconductors and refrigeration, both of which significantly contribute to modern medical devices. A lot for magnets, vacuum devices, and electronics, all of which have permeated into industry. These scientific projects also are a big political effort and demonstrate good will and can be grounds for collaboration and building democracies. The hosting countries also have a lot to benefit from as direct collaboration happens there. Just think of the force of putting a bunch of very smart people in a room together, especially when they are experts in very different things. It's difficult to predict the direct revenue, but at such a cheap cost, even small innovations can easily end up covering the costs. Certainly the internet has more than paid for CERN, in the form of tax revenues to each country compared to the cost they give, not to mention benefit to the public (especially considering other indirect aspects). === Direct (LHC) === Maybe a bit harder. There's some slides here [2] that claim CERN nets 3.3bn for 1993 - 2038. You can find much more detail here[3] and another independent one here[4]. I'd just like to note [4]'s last line in their abstract: We conservatively estimate that there is around a 90% probability that benefits exceed costs, with an expected net present value of about 2.9 billion euro, not considering the unpredictable applications of scientific discovery. === Specifically the Higgs === That's unfortunately impossible to say. To make use of it technologically we're at least 50 years away, which is to say "who the fuck knows". But also remember the cost is almost nothing. If we speculate, it is not unreasonable that the technologies that could be enabled through the understanding of this science (and the requisite further knowledge we'll need) could be insurmountable. We're talking about understanding how mass works. So if we're ever going to invent things like inertial dampeners (which would make mass an irrelevant aspect of transportation), mass effect drives, gravity generators, and so on, knowledge of the Higgs would be essential. But don't hold your breath on seeing technologies any time soon. Remember that we're playing the long game with science. It is good to think about short term, but never forget the long game. If you forget you may win battles but will lose the war. === Side Note About Money === The LHC is actually one way I like to think about the ultra billionaires (like Musk, Bezos, Gates types). The reason being that with that level of wealth we cannot ignore the effects of compound interest, as this plays a significant role. Let's take Bezos, the #2 on the list (behind Bernard Arnault) with $203.3B. We can ask, how many LHCs could Bezos make? We assume 10 years to build at 0.5B/yr and then 1B/yr to operate. We'll assume a 7% interest rate, compounded yearly, which means 14.231B/yr! So clearly Bezos is worth at least 14 LHCs! We could get more precision and actually compound, but the quick version gives us a sufficient lower bound to really put into perspective either the wealth of Bezos or how cheap the LHC is. However your want to frame it. FWIW, with the same lazy analysis we get Forbes top 10 as: Arnault @ 15.2 LHCs, Bezos @ 14.2 LHCs, Musk @ 13.72 LHCs, Zuckerberg @ 12.7 LHCs, Ellison @ 10.7 LHCs, Buffett @ 9.6 LHCs, Gates @ 9.2 LHCs, Page @ 9.1 LHCs, Ballmer @ 8.8 LHCs, and Brin @ 8.8 LHCs. I'm just saying, we could afford a lot of LHCs... [0] https://www.home.cern/science/computing/birth-web https://www.home.cern/science/computing/birth-web [1*] I wanted to take a minute to mention the cost, so we can better guestimate the ROI. The project took 10 years to build and cost about $5bn and costs about $1bn/yr to operate, with Germany being the largest contributor and only contributing 21%[1^]. I'm not sure how it works, but the Federal budget is about 370B euros but total gov spending was 1.76T for 2021. That would be 0.065% of the federal budget or 0.014% of the total spending. Pretty fucking cheap if you ask me! [1^] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CERN#Participation_and_funding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CERN#Participation_and_funding [2] https://fcc-cdr.web.cern.ch/webkit/press_material/Brochure_A5_SocioEconomic_EN.pdf https://fcc-cdr.web.cern.ch/webkit/press_material/Brochure_A... (site: https://fcc.web.cern.ch/society https://fcc.web.cern.ch/society) [3] https://indico.cern.ch/event/760053/contributions/3152652/attachments/1720884/2784363/Cost-Benefit_Analysis_of_the_Large_Hadron_Collider.pdf https://indico.cern.ch/event/760053/contributions/3152652/at... [4] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0040162516000731 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00401...

hobo_mark 2y ago

He didn't discover the Higgs, but he formulated it (along with other people) in 1964. Its discovery was not until 2012.

freddealmeida 2y ago
[flagged]
- ajross 2y ago
  The same is true of every other boson, except arguably photons in the classical limit (e.g. you can put a multimeter on an antenna and detect them "non-probabalistically"). The Higgs detection is sound. A quick check of wikipedia says 5.9 sigma. Good enough for me, anyway.
  - bee_rider 2y ago
    > e.g. you can put a multimeter on an antenna and detect them "non-probabalistically" I think I get what you mean, but we should be clear—every measurement is probabilistic, right? We can measure photons with low enough inaccuracy that we don’t bother quantifying the probability that they might not exist. But, it is actually on some philosophical level a difference of degree, not type. I’m pretty sure.
    - ducttapecrown 2y ago
      What does it mean for a measurement to be probabilistic? I'm a math grad student, so still a layman, but here's the way I think about it: Every particle travels over every possible path as the wave spreads out. Once you measure the particle, it tells you a path. So the measured value of the particle is probabilistic, not the measurement.
  - dguest 2y ago
    I don't know where you get 5.9 sigma but that might have been the confidence at the time it was discovered in 2012. Since then the LHC took a lot more data and the confidence is more like 20 sigma. That said, these days it's harder to find a paper that gives a confidence for discovery, since they are all quoting the signal strength with respect to the standard model prediction. They generally measure this within about 5%, see for example https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.05498 https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.05498

hiddencost 2y ago

Glad he got to see the confirmation before he went.

akumetsu 2y ago

Sad to hear, I remember the excitement over the experimental evidence once his particle was detected. I'm always amazed by theoretical predictions that can actually be verified plus it was interrsting to hear about the higgs boson as part of my studies shortly after it was detected. Nowadays it seems many theoretical predications are not even close to being verifiable in the coming years or with the current and planned tech. Unless we are talking about superconductivity at room temperature ofc

freddealmeida 2y ago

[flagged]

archgoon 2y ago
I believe that several citations of your assertions is in order.

toomuchtodo 2y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Higgs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Higgs

neom 2y ago
Just to add a couple more good Higgs resources courtesy of the fine folks at PBS Space Time: How the Higgs Mechanism Give Things Mass - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0Q4UAiKacw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0Q4UAiKacw Could the Higgs Boson Lead Us to Dark Matter? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2yLMY6Mpw8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2yLMY6Mpw8 Where Is The Center of The Universe? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOLHtIWLkHg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOLHtIWLkHg (For me personally, I gave a massive sad sign when I saw this on the homepage. I really liked him a lot for a few reasons: He did his thinking in isolation, for a long period of time walking around the Scottish highlands . He was a keen disciple of interdisciplinary thought being pivotal to innovation. He appears to have imagined things and thought about things in a pretty weird way for his time, although that might seem obvious, how well he grappled with the reality of weirdness is exemplary. 힝)

dotnet00 2y ago

The story of how Higgs predicted his mechanism was part of what got me into physics as a kid. It fit 10 year old me's obsession with the 'soft-spoken genius' archetype perfectly and formed a pillar in my belief that 'genius' was made through hard work (and some amount of luck) rather than being born with it. The announcement of the detection at the LHC is a core memory of mine, I still distinctly remember where I was, what I was doing and very excitedly trying to explain how cool it was to my parents at the time.

KingFelix 2y ago
That is awesome, we need some more amazing scientists in the public eye to inspire the young. I know there are a lot of amazing scientists, but somehow need to get them on tiktok or something? Can you share the story?
- moelf 2y ago
  Specific to Particle physics and Peter Higgs, this book (https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/frank-close/elusive/9781668612026/ https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/frank-close/elusive/978166...) by Frank Close is fantastic.
- dotnet00 2y ago
  My parents had a hard time explaining my dad's job to me, so they just told me he was a scientist because he had a masters in physics (he was a diplomat). Like any little kid, my parents were my heroes, so of course this led me to becoming obsessed with scientists and reading up on science stuff, eg trying to read my sister's university textbooks. I developed a hobby of reading up on and sharing factoids I found online, and found one about the 'god particle'. At first I thought it was cool because it seemed to basically talk about a particle that causes mass (of course, this was actually wrong, but that didn't really matter to a 10 year old), but reading about how it was predicted 40-50 years ago and the largest single machine humanity had built was being used to try to find it made it my favorite factoid and I'd excitedly start talking all about it the moment anyone showed even the slightest bit of interest. In 2012 when the detection was announced, we were on a short 2-3 day vacation in Dubai and were having breakfast in the hotel. The TV was right next to us, and seeing the news I was trying (and failing) to explain to my parents how the Higgs boson had been predicted 50 years ago and it took that long for the technology to finally catch up to be able to verify it, and how this would represent one of the last remaining pieces of the standard model (although back then I didn't quite grasp that the standard model was not a full theory of everything). I was trying to explain to them the size of the LHC, how it was the biggest single machine we've built, how when they were turning it on for the first time, there were fears about it creating micro-black holes which might swallow the Earth. I think that while we need scientists in the public eye, we don't need them as social media entertainers, a lot of well known science communicators on social media come off as attention-seeking charismatic fakes/frauds to me (eg NDT). Stuff like the interviews and documentaries Stephen Hawking had appeared in (or to a lesser extent, the ones Michio Kaku has appeared in) did much more for me in being inspired, even without having known what research they were known for. I think we could also do with more books like Hawking's 'A Brief History of Time' and encouraging kids to read them. Also, instead of over-simplifying everything and passing off scientists as geniuses in the traditional sense, we should be more open in showing that the people who made these discoveries or predictions were not inherently born with it, the vast majority of them were completely normal people who worked very hard to build skills in the thing they enjoyed. Another discovery I feel was somewhat similar is that of discrete time crystals, casually predicted in 2012, turned out to actually be possible in 2018 and has a similar 'cool' factor.

UncleSlacky 2y ago

Lame claim to fame: Higgs was the PhD supervisor of one of my university professors. He told us that Higgs left a message on his desk before going hiking one weekend to the effect that he'd had a great idea and would tell them all about it when he got back.

ColinWright 2y ago
I wonder if he got the idea from Hardy, who before undertaking a journey on a very small boat sent a postcard saying he had proved the Riemann Hypothesis: Hardy stayed in Denmark with Bohr until the very end of the summer vacation, and when he was obliged to return to England to start his lectures there was only a very small boat available…. The North Sea can be pretty rough, and the probability that such a small boat would sink was not exactly zero. Still, Hardy took the boat, but sent a postcard to Bohr: “I proved the Riemann Hypothesis. G.H. Hardy.” If the boat sinks and Hardy drowns, everybody must believe that he has proved the Riemann Hypothesis. Yet God would not let Hardy have such a great honor and so He will not let the boat sink. -- https://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~mcleod/Riemann/Hardy.html https://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~mcleod/Riemann/Hardy.html
- anthony__j 2y ago
  haha, that's pretty clever. makes you wonder if fermat was doing a similar prank with his margins
  - ColinWright 2y ago
    It's generally believed that Fermat thought he had a proof, but probably almost immediately remembered that not everything is a Unique Factorization Domain, so the "obvious proof" fails. Then he didn't bother returning to correct the error. So no, probably not. (+) I should go and learn more about the specifics of this to make sure I'm relating it correctly. EDIT: (++) OK, here's what I was thinking about: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/953462/what-was-lames-proof https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/953462/what-was-lam... EDIT2: (++) Second link with similar details: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/324740/fermats-proof-of-his-last-theorem https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/324740/fermats-proo...

robblbobbl 2y ago

Condolences.

runnr_az 2y ago

[flagged]

lrivers 2y ago
FABFOB

santbo 2y ago

RIP. Lucky who is born in an English-speaking country with a short name easy to remember by other English monolinguals. The "Higgs boson" has many fathers, but his name got attached to the concept for simplicity, giving him world fame and, ultimately, a Nobel prize when he likely didn't contribute significantly more than others, cf. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson#History https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson#History or https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_controversies#Physics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_controversies#Ph...

vazma 2y ago

I was incredibly fortunate to meet him at CERN the day before the Higgs boson announcement. As an intern, I encountered him the evening prior; he was dining alone in the CERN cafeteria, blending in like a kindly elderly gentleman. He was exceptionally humble and courteous. I feel so lucky that I mustered the courage to speak with him and shake his hand. Rest in peace, Mr. Higgs.

teekert 2y ago
These are the kind of opportunities one must take when they present themselves. Well done.

CapeTheory 2y ago

Massive in his field.

callumw13 2y ago
this is the kind of strong interaction I like to see on this website

jszymborski 2y ago

This has given me a case of the Higgs boson blues https://youtu.be/1GWsdqCYvgw https://youtu.be/1GWsdqCYvgw

jaredwiener 2y ago

But will there be a funeral mass?

russelldjimmy 2y ago
Yes, about 125.11±0.11 GeV/c^2

pfdietz 2y ago

It was a success for particle physics that they found the Higgs, but it was also a tragedy. Discovering the Higgs and nothing else new was the nightmare scenario for the LHC, and so it has come to pass.

joshcryer 2y ago
It really damaged string theory which is by far the greatest thing to happen with the LHC.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  Ah, a glass is half full person! :)
vikramkr 2y ago
Calling it a nightmare scenario is quite the overdramatic description of a successful experiment that validated a core prediction of the standard model
- pfdietz 2y ago
  The scenario is a nightmare to people doing the work, since it seems to indicate there will be no new physics until energies at far beyond what can practically be reached. So, particle physics dies as an active field.

silverfrost 2y ago

Proposed - not discovered. He put it forward as an explanation, he didn't make the actual discovery.

crypto_mogul 2y ago

[dead]

adif_sgaid 2y ago

[dead]

taylorbuley 2y ago

BBC version https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-68774195 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-68774195

sohkamyung 2y ago

I read "Elusive: How Peter Higgs Solved the Mystery of Mass" by Frank Close and I found it an excellent read on the elusive Higgs Particle and the elusive Peter Higgs himself (Higgs went for a walk to hide from people on the day the Nobel Prize was announced).

trashface 2y ago

Higgs' bosons return to the universe

bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago

Just keep in mind that if this way present day, the Sabine hosenfelds of the world would be saying iTs NoT eVeN tEsTaBlE, and HN would be cheering her for fighting the evil corrupted mainstream academia.