tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13609842.post1284688634316089389..comments2023-10-30T09:26:32.732+00:00Comments on Now's the time: off cuts news queuingAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06972049290586377462noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13609842.post-81646950777429547852011-12-14T07:10:44.237+00:002011-12-14T07:10:44.237+00:00Higgs, in the 1960s, using mathematics, predicted ...Higgs, in the 1960s, using mathematics, predicted that his not-then-eponymous boson must exist. The LHC was built to confirm this prediction. Having been taught (in a very very tiny way) during my RAF service the relationship between the real world and mathematical expressions of it, I can see the thrill of spending billions of euros in proving Higgs was right about something so utterly fundamental.<br /><br />That is until I read the contrarian views of another scientist saying he was hoping that the LHC proved the boson didn't exist (proving a negative is supposed to be impossible, I thought) since it will invalidate Higgs maths and we'll all have to start from zero again. Science proceeds (or in some cases tries to proceed) by coming up with repeatable proof of theoretical postulates but I have to say I find this latest view somewhat anarchical and rather depressing. LHC has only been going a few months, can't we at least warm ourselves a little longer at the fire of positive thinking before all that tubing is turned into a massive garbage disposal unit?<br /><br />As to your question - the answer is likely to be as certain as the rest of the so-called answers in post-quantum physics, which is to say not certain at all.<br /><br />I like to think of George Osborne as a particle, though not the God Particle.Roderick Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16828395545197001637noreply@blogger.com