Finding a Higgs boson thus strongly supports the supersymmetric Standard Model, which in turn supports the notion that string theory is indeed the right approach to nature. If so, it is very likely that more confirmation of the existence of the Higgs boson will be discovered in the next few years at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, where data collection will begin in March 2001.
See what we're tweeting about
dbiello me too! MT @jason_pontin: About conspiracy theories, I always think: if only someone *were* in charge. http://t.co/0RoZNnsaIu
JenLucPiquant "[Smolin] made me question my opinions, and though I came out holding on to them, I learned something on the way." http://t.co/6cBwIoDB5O dbiello and he's off! RT @ErnestMoniz: Honored to be back here at @energy. Looking forward to hitting the ground running. http://t.co/KVIQs4H6wU
Deadline: Aug 31 2013
Reward: $100,000 USD
The Geoffrey Beene Foundation Alzheimer’s Initiative (GBFAI) is launching the 2013 Geoffrey Beene Global NeuroDiscovery Challenge whose
Deadline: Jun 29 2013
Reward: $7,000 USD
The Seeker for this Challenge desires proposals for chemical methods that could rapidly degrade a dilute aqueous solution
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
4 Comments
Add CommentDr. F. Tengelin was quicker than me or more brave than me. I was just thinking of saying the same thing. Let me make his statement more precise. Prof. Steve Weinberg who developed the electro weak theory and shared the Nobel prize with two others is the author of the most authoritative book on quantum field theory. In volume 3 of his book The Quantum Theory of Fields published by Cambridge University Press in 2000 he states on page 192 that the inverse super symmetric unification coupling of all fundamental gauge forces is 17.5. This value is given by his equation 28.2.19. Finding this result scared me quite a bit because I used Prof. El Naschies result which comes to 24.28. This is a large discrepancy. I repeated the calculation again and again but I always found 24.28 and never 17.5. To make things worse Prof. El Naschie noticed immediately that 17.5 must be a miscalculation and said that the exact integer value must be 26. That means 17.5 must be wrong and 24.28 is only an approximation to the exact value which is 26. He said it is obvious that 26 must be correct. He directed me to his paper in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 35, p. 862 (2008) entitled Non-perturbative super symmetric quantum gravity coupling. I am desperate to know who is right and who is wrong? This result will not affect either the career of a Nobel laureate or the career of a well established professor but it could be devastating for me. I would be extremely grateful to anyone who could help me decide who is right, Prof. Weinberg or Prof. El Naschie. Please send me your answers as quick as possible to the address below.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAyman Elokaby
Dept. of Physics
University of Alexandria
Egypt
Dr. F. Tengelin was quicker than me or more brave than me. I was just thinking of saying the same thing. Let me make his statement more precise. Prof. Steve Weinberg who developed the electro weak theory and shared the Nobel prize with two others is the author of the most authoritative book on quantum field theory. In volume 3 of his book The Quantum Theory of Fields published by Cambridge University Press in 2000 he states on page 192 that the inverse super symmetric unification coupling of all fundamental gauge forces is 17.5. This value is given by his equation 28.2.19. Finding this result scared me quite a bit because I used Prof. El Naschies result which comes to 24.28. This is a large discrepancy. I repeated the calculation again and again but I always found 24.28 and never 17.5. To make things worse Prof. El Naschie noticed immediately that 17.5 must be a miscalculation and said that the exact integer value must be 26. That means 17.5 must be wrong and 24.28 is only an approximation to the exact value which is 26. He said it is obvious that 26 must be correct. He directed me to his paper in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 35, p. 862 (2008) entitled Non-perturbative super symmetric quantum gravity coupling. I am desperate to know who is right and who is wrong? This result will not affect either the career of a Nobel laureate or the career of a well established professor but it could be devastating for me. I would be extremely grateful to anyone who could help me decide who is right, Prof. Weinberg or Prof. El Naschie. Please send me your answers as quick as possible to the address below.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAyman Elokaby
Dept. of Physics
University of Alexandria
Egypt
IMO Higgs boson doesn't exist in the same way, like distinguished particle responsible for CMBR noise doesn't exist. What does exist is the mixture of CMBR photons with certain power distribution and what we are observing during LHC collisions is such a power distribution too. I'd even expect, the power distribution of quantum fluctuations at quantum scale would mirror the power distribution at cosmological scale in accordance to the dense aether model, AWT.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn this model the observable Universe appears like area of water surface observed with its surface ripples. At the small distance the visibility scope is limited, because surface ripples are dispersing with Brownian noise into underwater. At the large scale the same dispersion occurs, so we can expect the geometric similarity here. The AWT predicts, this distribution should correspond the dodecahedron symmetry, corresponding the most compact, still regular spherical particle packing. At the cosmological scale the power spectrum of quantum fluctuations follows this geometry well, so we can expect the same agreement even at the quantum scale.
I went to college for ever. I made good grades, and i have been following CERN! I have always believed unverifiable that there were, by quantum theory, other universes. Parallel universes. I like Brian Greene's "Fabric of the Cosmos" series on NOVA on PBS, but for arguments sake i can see that space is a fluid that can be manipulated! If we create a sensor capability, then we may be able to examine the universe or universes by instruments, and let science, engineering and technology catch up in a million years or so. I state that i feel dark matter is just another faster that light state of matter. Dark matter does not entangle like light! These geometeric patterns may fit the model of a mathematical hypercube?We may have to draw geometeric models from observed patterns and not the other way around. The earth is not a sphere and the gravitational fields may have their own quirky shapes. In this way there may be a GUT model, but with vague commonalities. Fringe knowledge to keep the universe from blowing up! Maybe Einstein was right! We do not have the type of dice GOD has. Our knowledge of our reality is very inadequate! We are just now scratching the cosmic level question on the outer most surfaces! Just our pathetic level of knowledge about the essence of the constituents of life. Our world is full of life, and we are still fundamentally ignorant of it! My statements are general not specific like others comments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this