TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Yes, we did discover the Higgs

281 点作者 EvgeniyZh7 个月前

17 条评论

lokimedes7 个月前
Not long after the initial discovery, we had enough data for everyone at the experiments to simply run a basic invariant-mass calculation and see the mass peak popping up.<p>Once I could &quot;see&quot; the peak, without having to conduct statistical tests against expected background, it was &quot;real&quot; to me.<p>In these cynical times, it may be that everything is relative and &quot;post-modern subjective p-hacking&quot;, but sufficient data usually ends these discussions. The real trouble is that we have a culture that is addicted to progress theater, and can&#x27;t wait for the data to get in.
评论 #41944282 未加载
评论 #41946357 未加载
评论 #41944320 未加载
评论 #41946859 未加载
mellosouls7 个月前
The article here is responding to an original blog post [1] that is not really saying the Higgs was not discovered (despite its trolling title), but raising questions about the meaning of &quot;discovery&quot; in systems that are so complicated as those in modern particle physics.<p>I think the author is using the original motivation of musing on null hypotheses to derive the title &quot;The Higgs Discovery Did Not Take Place&quot;, and he has successfully triggered the controversy the subtitle ironically denies and the inevitable surface reading condemnations that we see in some of the comments here.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.argmin.net&#x2F;p&#x2F;the-higgs-discovery-did-not-take" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.argmin.net&#x2F;p&#x2F;the-higgs-discovery-did-not-take</a>
评论 #41944229 未加载
评论 #41946039 未加载
评论 #41946338 未加载
stephantul7 个月前
I think it is good this post was written, I learned a lot, but it makes me sad that it was prompted by such an obvious trolling attempt.
评论 #41943843 未加载
ayhanfuat7 个月前
Here is Ben Recht’s response: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.argmin.net&#x2F;p&#x2F;toward-a-transformative-hermeneutics" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.argmin.net&#x2F;p&#x2F;toward-a-transformative-hermeneutic...</a>
评论 #41949459 未加载
评论 #41947751 未加载
评论 #41949804 未加载
dekhn7 个月前
For every time I see a criticism like Recht&#x27;s (and Hossfelder&#x27;s), I ask &quot;could this theoretical scientist go into the lab and conduct a real experiment&quot;. I mean, find some challenging experiment that requires setting up a complex interferometer (or spectroscope, or molecular biology cloning), collect data, analyze it, and replicate an existing well-known theory?<p>Even though I&#x27;m a theoretical physicist I&#x27;ve gone into the lab and spent the time to learn how to conduct experiments and what I&#x27;ve learned is that a lot of theoretical wrangling is not relevant to actually getting a useful result that you can be confident in.<p>Looking at Recht&#x27;s publication history, it looks like few of his papers ever do real-world experiments; mostly, they use simulations to &quot;verify&quot; the results. It may very well be that his gaps in experimental physics lead him to his conclusion.
rob_c7 个月前
Just to pile on &#x27;Ben&#x27;, but sorry to break it to machine learning computing enthusiasts.<p>We(particle physicsts) have been performing similar, and in a lot of ways much more complex analyses using ML tools for decades in production.<p>Please stop shrouding your new &#x27;golden goose&#x27; of AI&#x2F;ML modelling in mystery it&#x27;s &#x27;just&#x27; massively multi-dimensional regression analyses with all of the problems, advantages and improvements that brings...<p>Why is there some beef that nature is complex, if you had the same vitriol toward certain other fields we&#x27;d be worrying about big-pharma&#x27;s reproducibility crisis just at the top of the ice-berg of problems in modern science, not that most people are illiterate when it comes to algebra...
rsynnott7 个月前
Honestly, while it&#x27;s an interesting article, I&#x27;m not sure why one would even give the nonsense it&#x27;s addressing the dignity of a reply.<p>Hadn&#x27;t realised Higgs&#x27; boson denialism was really a thing.
评论 #41944015 未加载
12_throw_away7 个月前
The article this is responding to is some of the worst anti-science, anti-intellectual FUD I&#x27;ve seen in a while, with laughably false conceits like (paraphrased) &quot;physics is too complicated, no one understands it&quot; and thus &quot;fundamental research doesn&#x27;t matter&quot;.<p>Worse, the author of the original FUD is a professor of EE at Berkeley [1] with a focus in ML. It almost goes without saying, but EE and ML would not exist without the benefit <i>a lot</i> of fundamental physics research over the years on things that, according to him, &quot;no one understands&quot;.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;people.eecs.berkeley.edu&#x2F;~brecht&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;people.eecs.berkeley.edu&#x2F;~brecht&#x2F;</a>
评论 #41970909 未加载
评论 #41949664 未加载
nyc1117 个月前
This debate reminded me Matt Strassler&#x27;s recent post that most of the data observed in the accelerators are thrown away [1]:<p><pre><code> So what’s to be done? There’s only one option: throw most of that data away in the smartest way possible, and ensure that the data retained is processed and stored efficiently. </code></pre> I thought that was strange. It&#x27;s like there is too much data and our technology is not up to it so let&#x27;s throw away everything that we cannot process. Throwing data &quot;in the smartest way possible&quot; did not convince me.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;profmattstrassler.com&#x2F;2024&#x2F;10&#x2F;21&#x2F;innovations-in-data-collection-at-the-lhc&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;profmattstrassler.com&#x2F;2024&#x2F;10&#x2F;21&#x2F;innovations-in-data...</a>
评论 #41948083 未加载
评论 #41948085 未加载
RecycledEle7 个月前
The team behind the LHC laid out the criteria for discovering the Highs Boson before beginning their experiments.<p>They never came close to what they said they needed.<p>But they now claim they succeeded in finding the Highs Boson.<p>And the paper setting out the criteria has been memory holed.<p>I call BS in the Highs Bozo team.
plorg7 个月前
I think the person this article is responding to is just a crank, but it is interesting as a layperson to see the basic mechanisms for making this discovery laid out here.
scrubs7 个月前
Good gracious! C&#x27;mon! ... science people want science not nonsense not cheap symbolism.<p>The article to which the link responds is cynical. And in my experience cynical assessments are made by people more likely to engage in the cynical BS artistry they complain about. Moreover, social media in general in conducive to whining, and what-about-ism which detracts from what science and all natural philosophers take seriously.<p>We&#x27;re trying really hard to get away from the shadows on the the cave wall to the light whenever possible, and as often as possible.<p>And you know what else? The ``rush&quot; is huge when we do so. There&#x27;s a difference.
gklitz7 个月前
Any fool on a hill can confidently state that they don’t believe in gravity because there’s no proof for it and the matematisk theories are all complicated and bureaucratic. Why should he believe it?<p>But so what?
haccount7 个月前
The original blog post have a point in that much of scientific &quot;established fact&quot; springs from prestigious committee with great fanfare, a chain of reasoning is established, it&#x27;s cast forth with great force and splashes into a brainless media dissemination apparatus and that&#x27;s the truth we&#x27;re stuck with for, give or take, a human lifetime.<p>Though specifically making it an argument about particle physics results in a rather nebulous punching power against something for most of us have very weakly defined.<p>I might digress but cosmologists deserve focal criticism like this more for the cocksure way they&#x27;ve sold dark matter and the age of the universe. Both the phlogiston and the luminiferous aether was discarded after less contradictory observations than we today have against the former.
Vecr7 个月前
It&#x27;s lucky the predictions almost exactly matched. Otherwise the inference would have been a nightmare.
评论 #41943782 未加载
评论 #41944036 未加载
vurtdee7 个月前
&gt; This bump is what physicists call a resonance. It follows directly from energy and momentum conservation and special relativity that we teach first year undergraduates (hardly the ivory towers).<p>&gt; This bump or resonance is intimately tied to what physicists mean when they say ‘particle’. If you dig a bit deeper, the term resonance is also tied to one of the most elementary physical systems: the simple harmonic oscillator. Sure, when you treat these things quantum mechanically, it gets more sophisticated, but my point is it doesn’t require highfalutin mathematics and quantum field theory to say that we discovered a new particle at the LHC.<p>Goes on to completely omit this apparently trivial mathematics.
评论 #41934931 未加载
评论 #41934021 未加载
评论 #41943882 未加载
评论 #41943690 未加载
BurnGpuBurn7 个月前
I always loved the following thought experiment:<p>Lets&#x27; assume the Higgs boson doesn&#x27;t exist. A large group of scientists has spent 10 billion dollars of public tax payer money to create an experiment that will prove it&#x27;s existence. It cost them many years to do, decades, and most scientists have staked their entire career on the outcome of the experiment. Turns out, they were wrong, and the particle doesn&#x27;t exist.<p>Those scientists now have two options: 1) Being thruthful about the non-discovery, thereby suiciding their own careers (and income!), evoking the wrath of the taxpayer, and basically becoming the laughing stock of the scientific community. 2) Just make some shit up for a while and go on and enjoy your pension which is only a couple of years away.<p>What would you do?
评论 #41944752 未加载
评论 #41944696 未加载
评论 #41944597 未加载
评论 #41945019 未加载
评论 #41944744 未加载
评论 #41944616 未加载
评论 #41944622 未加载
评论 #41944839 未加载
评论 #41949380 未加载
评论 #41945695 未加载
评论 #41944712 未加载
评论 #41945340 未加载
评论 #41948587 未加载
评论 #41944751 未加载
评论 #41944704 未加载
评论 #41944600 未加载