Large Hardon Collider

[Zalius]

as long as i can skip stoichiometry, periodic table is worse than chocobo rides

[Woozie]

I nearly hard a heart attack when I saw the news this morning.

[Woozie]

LHC GOTCHU!

[Kuya]

Will Peter Higgs get a nobel peace prize after the discovery?

[Cadsuane]

Sorry to bug the thread with another calculus problem, but I'm honestly not sure how to go about this problem.

Express y" in terms of x and y:

xy = e^y

I think we can use chain rule now, but isn't the derivative of e^something = e^something? I was thinking of doing 1(x)y^0 = e^y for the first derivative, and then 0(y^-1) = e^y for the second, but that doesn't make any sense, and sounds far too simple, which means i know i did it right because calculus is all about making you its bitch with 3 page long answers to a question. besides which, it wouldnt make sense for one side to stay the same while the other changed. So how DOES one express the second derivative of xy = e^y in terms of x and y? I can't find anything in my notes about this, and my book has nothing on it either. ><

The idea is to use a concept called implicit differentiation along with the chain rule.

y is a variable, but it can be thought of as a function of x as well. It might help to replace all your y's with y(x)'s until you're comfortable with the concept. Let's go over the first step. Recall the product rule: d/dx(f(x)g(x))=f'(x)g(x)+f(x)g'(x). Hence the derivative of yx with respect to x is just d/dx(y(x))*x+y(x)*d/dx(x). So what's d/dx(y(x))? y'(x), of course. And d/dx(x)=1, obviously. So d/dx(yx)=y+xy'.

Differentiate both sides of the equation twice until you get an expression involving y'', then use plain jane algebra to write down what it is equal to, just like Woozie showed you. You'll get an expression y''=F(y(x),y'(x),x), that is, y'' as some function of y(x), y'(x), and x.

[Woozie]

Will Peter Higgs get a nobel peace prize after the discovery?

I'd be amazed if he doesn't. I'd like to see the guy who wins against Peter Higgs.

Also, from a Huffington Post commenter

I was trying to explain to my sister (not into science...barely believes in evolution) about just how 'that would be nice' important the "God Particle" was. I told to her to pretend she had a puzzle of about 30 pieces. She puts it together over many years. Finally, at the end, (wouldn't you know it) she's missing a piece. But if you stand up and look at the puzzle; you still pretty much know that it's a kitten hanging by a single claw from end of a knotted rope, and the caption reads "Hang In There". The only problem is that you can't actually see the lower left paw because that's the piece you're missing. Could it be that the lower left paw is an omnipotent cosmic cube? Could be. Could it be a human foot? Could be. Could it be The One Ring worn as an ankle bracelet? Could be. But most likely, it's a paw. That missing piece probably does not fundamentally change the outcome of the puzzle. On the other hand, you'd never call your puzzle 'finished' until you've searched under every couch cushion, in every drawer, behind every bookcase.

[Kuya]

In that same vein, what's next in terms of researching about the Higg's particle?

[Eliseos]

In that same vein, what's next in terms of researching about the Higg's particle?

From the brief articles I've read so far, the next big thing is to confirm it's the standard model Higgs. Right now they only know with certainty that it is a boson that is consistent with the Higgs.

[Chun Liroy]

We'll just wait, LHC will surely deliver.

[Chun Liroy]

AND IT HAS <3 I am excite.

[Tyche]

Here's an excerpt of what's next from the article I posted on my facebook earlier.

The physicists were a little reticent to call the discovery a "Higgs boson", preferring to call it the discovery of a "new boson". That's because they don't yet know its properties – and so can't confirm how similar it is to the Higgs of the standard model. "It's the beginning of a long journey to investigate all the properties of this particle," says Heuer.

One property that needs to be investigated is the particle's spin: the standard model says it should have a value of zero; a more exotic boson would give a value of two. Oliver Buchmueller of CMS says the LHC should be able to determine the new boson's spin by the end of 2012.

We know that the standard model is not complete – it does not contain dark matter or gravity, for a start – so a non-standard model Higgs could be very exciting.

[Woozie]

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-...34446796_n.jpg

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-...96910254_n.jpg

[Kuya]

So after we know of the higg's properties, what practical application could be get from this? What i'm trying to find out, basically, if the higgs could ever be our element zero. Will it ever be practical to manipulate the higg's boson, and if we could, what exactly could we do?

[Mizango]

I remember that! I still associate the Mizango name with Higgs everytime I see CERN news!

HAHA, I almost went into particle physics a few years ago. It came down to Woozie and I having a pros and cons discussion about majoring Cosmology and PP. The Higgs had my balls aflame. Matter of fact, my old as hell Myspace page has a section devoted to the Higgs iirc lol.

I'd be amazed if he doesn't. I'd like to see the guy who wins against Peter Higgs.

Likewise. Id also hate to be the guy known as the guy that "won" it over big Pete.

[Mizango]

So after we know of the higg's properties, what practical application could be get from this? What i'm trying to find out, basically, if the higgs could ever be our element zero. Will it ever be practical to manipulate the higg's boson, and if we could, what exactly could we do?

Hypothetically speaking there are a few ways this could be "harnessed" (for lack of a better word) to our advantage. Thinking of the Moons tidal effects on Earth, you have the fundamental forces of gravity and inertia, both of which get their hypothetical mass from the Higgs Boson. In your scenario, if we could somehow control the mass, we could then in theory reduce inertia. To us that could be used, lets say to make a current 100 ton space shuttle, weigh 10 tons or the normal 2.2 million pounds of fuel that we use today to reach the necessary escape velocity to lift off and cut that down to lets say a mere 200,000 lbs of fuel. Now only would that save us IMMENSELY on fuel costs (with budget cuts that would be huge) but think of that would mean in terms or increased pay loads.

We could build and lift off something 5 times larger and far more grandiose than the JWST at a fraction of the cost. Thing further along the lines, this potential find is so huge that this would open up many many doors regarding Interstellar travel or gasp! possible time travel. Granted, this is purely hypothetical and possibly centuries and centuries down the road. The implications are that huge. He who controls mass, controls the stars!

[Mizango]

HYPROTHETICRAALLLL

[RitzCracker]

All I could think of when I read that was mass effect. Lol.

[Kryssan]

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-...34446796_n.jpg

Superconducting Supercollider, here's to you.... on that note, has anyone actually heard anything recent about the Webb? We still doing that, or did we drop it like Yucca?

Oh well, the news is good at least, if one cares not for national pride items.

[Mizango]

Still working on it As a matter of fact a few new pictures were posted a few days ago in the Science Journal. I know at one point we were facing budget cuts and being put on the back burner, but things are on the up and up in regards to the JWST

[Viena]

Is it wrong that we're using the same auditorium to watch some anime film tonight?