Shocking! CERN may not have discovered elusive Higgs Boson particle after all

First off, I am posting this artical in hopes that someone who is more knowledgeable than I on this topic could comment on this artical and it's possible claims .

The title use for this thread is a direct quote from the articles title and not some boisterous claim of mine .

original article

TextOne possibility is that the CERN team was seeing a theoretical particle dubbed the techni-higgs, he says. "This particle is in some ways similar to the Higgs particle -- hence half of the name." The Higgs and the techni-higgs sit at the center of competing models of the physics of the creation of the universe. The Higgs boson anchors the Standard Model of the fundamental forces that govern the basic building blocks of matter.

Has anyone ever heard this possible oversight ? Could the desire to find one thing closed their minds to other possibilities ?

Or is this opnion flat out wrong ??

a reply to: Max_TO

Yeah, it really is shocking. Really. That's why everyone is so shocked, including, but not limited to, Phage….

the techni-higgs

Great new name. Gotta give em credit.
Sure it's not sitting in the corner, and not in the center?
tetra50

I don't know about wrong but it is confusing:

"The current data is not precise enough to determine exactly what the particle is," says university researcher Mads Toudal Frandsen. "It could be a number of other known particles."

One possibility is that the CERN team was seeing a theoretical particle dubbed the techni-higgs, he says.

If it could a number of known particles why not say which ones instead of bringing up a theoretical one?

a reply to: Phage

Very good point . I found another link to this same story by the Science times . It would seem that this artical could in fact be the original source ?

However, in closing this artical also adds ..

And while the theory may just be that, a theory, the international research team believes that future experimentation with particle colliders will reveal the answers to the definite identities of what researchers at CERN are seeing now.

Which shows a desire to research further and an unwillingness to simply jump to conclusions, which seemed more the case in the originaly link posted .

a reply to: Max_TO

Which shows a desire to research further and an unwillingness to simply jump to conclusions, which seemed more the case in the originaly link posted .

Which is really what science is about.

All they are really saying is that the measurements are not precise enough to say that absolutely, positively it is the Higgs. But if it isn't, it's something really, really strange.

Frandsen and his associates discuss the possibility of the particle belonging to an entirely different theory of how the universe was created, looking to "techni-higgs particles" as the answer.

www.sciencetimes.com... htm

The measurement "problem" gives them wiggle room for their theory to slide in.

originally posted by: Phage
I don't know about wrong but it is confusing:

"The current data is not precise enough to determine exactly what the particle is," says university researcher Mads Toudal Frandsen. "It could be a number of other known particles."

One possibility is that the CERN team was seeing a theoretical particle dubbed the techni-higgs, he says.

If it could a number of known particles why not say which ones instead of bringing up a theoretical one?

I wasn't making fun of you in what I said. I was entirely serious, and know you are entirely….well, shocked. I have been to, for the record.

I hope that what's being reported isn't some crappy symbolic communication….as does happen, and is, right now. As this subject, imho, is far too important to mess around with it. But yes, your point is an excellent one: if it could be a number of known particles why not name them or explain more clearly all the way around…
tetra

a reply to: tetra50

My mood has been "shocked" for a couple of years now, I think. Can't be bothered with changing it.

a reply to: Phage

Yes, which was one of the issues I was hoping to have addressed regarding this report . Is it in fact science or a frindge claim .

So if it is "science", has this alternative theory ever been presented before ? Once again, I am no expert on this topic but if this is a long suspected possibility I wonder why it was never mentioned before ?

Makes more sense than the location of the 5 standard deviations at 125...then calling it the Higgs. Kinda like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Apparently, after spending so many billions on this project, they felt compelled to come up with a finding that would excite the World, rather than science for the sake of science.

The measurements satisfy standard physics interpretation at 5 standard deviations. Now that they are not so sure, are they also willing to throw out the 5 standard deviations "standard?"

I guess this can throw a wrench into the "Multiverse" crowd, as we may be (certainly trending toward 115) at the 125, which is considerably further from 140 and the Multiverse and much closer to a Special Creation model.

Just in time for Christmas.

Thank you, CERN, for your conCERN.

You mean the theories aren't panning out?

Imagine that. Back to smashing things together.

Maybe we should build a Bigger Bang?

If techni-quarks do exist, they would need some kind of force to bring them together to form particles, but none of the known natural forces of the Standard Model (gravity, the electromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force) would serve to bind techni-quarks into particles, suggesting an as-yet undetected force researchers have dubbed the technicolor force.

The Technicolor Force… is that like better than SVGA?

I read the article a couple of days ago. It seems that CERN should have had their information verified before releasing it. Another Higgs partical could be the cause of their results I guess. Now these people evaluating this just want to state that the evidence can fit other scenarios, they aren't saying that they definitely did not find the Higgs particle they said they found. Chances are probably highrr that CERN did not really find higgs though, the percentages were not listed in the article I read.

a reply to: rickymouse

Chances are probably highrr that CERN did not really find higgs though, the percentages were not listed in the article I read.

Really? Try this:

At 7 sigma, both the CMS and ATLAS teams are reporting that there’s only a 0.0000000001% chance that they haven’t found a Higgs-like particle.

www.extremetech.com...
If the "like" part bothers you, go ahead and take away some of those zeros.

originally posted by: intrptr

>> The Technicolor Force… is that like better than SVGA ?

** yes intrptr its way way better. its got so many billion pixels, that even fruit bats think they are worth buying.

>> Maybe we should build a Bigger Bang ?
** yep, thats the way of the world, struggle like lunatics with other peoples money, to blow the lot to hell. Surely its much better to build one heap of metal than feed the entire population of the starving section of the world ? god obviously agrees, since despite being "almighty" he cant be bothered with the starving either... hes far tooooo busy singing hymns to himself.

** after Oppenheimers team watched in stunned silence near Alomogordo, the Bhagavad Gita records Krishna took on his multi-armed form and " the radiance of a thousand suns burst at once into the sky". so just WHY do the CERN team think that could never happen again ?!

** there is - as usual in nearly all english sentences, some semantic confusion caused by lack of adequate Definitions. the Higgs Boson does not "give" mass to the other particles, it is just the heaviest one known so far. and neither does it "create" the Higgs Field, it just exists >IN it. its not yet clear the HF is not "gravity" itself... and maybe Dark Matter /energy /something actually PUSHES particles together Ballistically, since there is no Cognitively Credible way to explain ANY "attraction" forces at all across "space", despite everyone glibly using the math trick of simply reversing the signs, then believing there is no PUSH involved. Ballisticity is obvious. "attraction" is Magic. you only lap it up because it gives the right answers, NOT because it makes any sense. you can throw a ball at another and push it back a bit, but HOW are you going to make a ball come to you without something BEHIND it pushing it towards you ? you cannot. the Mind, and "Logic" are a direct parallel association with "the universe", that is WHY science has been so successful. until you can explain "attraction" it is a mis-conception, and you should be considering Pushing Gravity. the universe is a Giant Mind that blew itself to pieces, and we are now struggling to comprehend what happened, so that with new-found Wisdom we dont do it again. Theology incessantly confuses itself by the hebrews habit of assigning "personality" / EGO /"him" /"god" to the Background Plane of Cognition (BPC) which they also call "god", but really you should call BRAHMA, and THAT is not "personal" >IT is the last (and only) 2-dimensional concept in the otherwise totally 3-dimensional universe. if you splutter "we can have as many dimensions as maths wants", then you have only CHANGED the definition of your word "dimension" half way thru your sentences. Packetal Consciousness (KPC) matches / is Linked inseparably to Packetal Matter (particles). the Sphere of "self" (SOS) actually contains and defines Individuality. you could not exist without it. what happened Before BRAHMA nobody >could< "know", because we were all asleep. consciousness did not exist. the Final unanswerable Mystery (FUM) is Where / Why /How did it all come FROM, and even the smart-arse "god" doesnt know that. Kaman.

originally posted by: Phage
If it could a number of known particles why not say which ones instead of bringing up a theoretical one?

For the same reason, just because of the "brilliance" of it's author, scientific community has been considering Hawking radiation as a fact, even if it was never proved. And even when an other scientist demonstrates that this may well just be a huge BS, the master of illusion is still suposed to have the truth.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

You can't exactly compare the growing adoption of a scientific hypothesis that's been around for over 40 years with actual evidence behind it to a hypothesis that's been around for a month with no evidence behind it. And no, it wasn't (and still isn't) considered "fact", especially not because of his "brilliance".

I can't wait (well, yes I can, twiddling thumbs and all) for the CERN to start up again in 2015 with full power. During the next large run they should be able to add confirmation to their Higgs data. Lots of strange things to come (I'm one of those who "knew" early that quarks are not the basic building blocks of nature, they surely contain smaller divisions which make them up....so once again it's turtles all the way down).

Just to add a little levity to the subject. Does anyone know what Leon Ledderman said about nicknaming Higgs the God particle?
He say it's because they wouldn't let him call it the god-damned particle.
I read it in his book. If the universe is the answer what is the question.
I'm fascinated with this tiny world where things behave in such unexpected and almost magical ways.

So basically we know 0.000000000000002 about what's going on now !!!
Gotta start somewhere .

Ps I wonder how many plants ie men in blacks are working there .
And how can they be control measures when things are happening that wasn't meant to !
Earths death warrant has been signed !

a reply to: Denoli

CERN isn't the sort of place where a handful of people can fudge the results.

a reply to: Max_TO
Actually this possibility always has been entertained by most of us particle phycisists - CERN did discover a particle which could be Higgs, but we knew this didn't necessarily meant that it was the Higgs.

Hence this ambiguous statement in encyclopaediae such as wikipedia:

A Higgs boson of mass ≈125 GeV has been tentatively confirmed by CERN on 14 March 2013,[1][2][3] although unclear as yet which model the particle best supports or whether multiple Higgs bosons exist.[2]

This statement above was made in 2013. It's been quite some time the physics community knew this.