Putting money on it: Hawking (shown here in younger days) believes that the most interesting scientific outcome will be if the Higgs boson is not discovered.
Credit: NASA
LONDON: British astrophysicist Stephen Hawking has bet US$100 that the Large Hadron Collider, will not find an elusive particle seen as a holy grail of cosmic science.
In the most complex scientific experiment ever undertaken, the LHC will accelerate sub-atomic particles to nearly the speed of light before smashing them together.
More exciting outcome
Later today the first protons will be injected into a 27-kilometre ring-shaped tunnel, straddling the Swiss-French border at the headquarters of the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN).
"The LHC will increase the energy at which we can study particle interactions by a factor of four. According to present thinking, this should be enough to discover the Higgs particle," Hawking told BBC radio on Tuesday.
"I think it will be much more exciting if we don't find the Higgs. That will show something is wrong, and we need to think again. I have a bet of $100 that we won't find the Higgs," added Hawking, who has authored books include A Brief History of Time.
Background treacle
Some scientists were more optimistic, however.
Hubert Reeves, a French astrophysicist, told the Swiss daily Le Matin that the invention could bring "unexpected results" that would change the world of particle physics forever. "This machine will probably bring unexpected results that could turn particle physics on its head," he said.
Physicists have long puzzled over how particles acquire mass. In 1964, a British physicist, Peter Higgs, came up with the idea that there must exist a background field that would act rather like treacle. Particles passing through it would acquire mass by being dragged through a mediator, which theoreticians dubbed the Higgs boson.
The standard quip about the Higgs boson is that it is the "God Particle" in that it is everywhere, but remains frustratingly elusive.
Supersymmetric partners
In terms of what other discoveries might come out of the experiments, Hawking said that the experiment could discover 'superpartners', particles that would be "supersymmetric partners" to particles already known about.
"Their existence would be a key confirmation of string theory, and they could make up the mysterious dark matter that holds galaxies together," he told the BBC. "Whatever the LHC finds, or fails to find, the results will tell us a lot about the structure of the universe."
Hawking, the 66-year-old Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge, was diagnosed with the muscle-wasting motor neuron disease at the age of 22. He is in a wheelchair and speaks with the aid of a computer and voice synthesiser.
Hawking bet a good one.
The Standard Model is likely far too simple. And the best bet would be that that will be made all too apparent rather quickly once the first few tests are conducted. This is the history of scientific discovery in microcosm.
Observational scientists generally feel no restraint regardless the theories.
Don Robertson, Limestone, Maine
Hawking
there goes your $100
there goes you $100
Gotta say that the jury is still out on this one.
Although the L.H.C. has proven to be operational, it still has to do some serious science.
For what it's worth, I myself have no "faith" in the "God particle" as I doubt the existence of matter (but that's another blurb).
You doubt the existence of
You doubt the existence of matter?
Okay, you won't mind, then, if I clobber you over the head with a cricket bat!
regards,
BillyJoe (D
Nemo
If he is only betting $100, he cant be that sure
If you think about it, it
If you think about it, it will never not be found. It will either be found or not found yet. So he will never be paid anyway. Hawking has had these sort of bets before. Sort of a private joke he shares with the public, if you don't get what I mean.
BillyJoe
Re Hawking's bet and the god particle
Hawkings is on a safe bet - guarantee it! The reason is because the 'god particle' would ultimately be itself dependent on a real transcendent God, who, of necessity, is not a part of anything in the universe. Because the universe and everything in it is dying, running down towards maximum entropy and heat death. And this would include any 'god particle' that is part of the dying universe. Such a "dependent" dying 'god' or 'god particle' would have neither the capacity to bring itself into existence, nor ultimately any usable energy left to do anything, let alone wind itself up again to a minimum entropy state. All of which calls for a non-dependent self-existing first cause outside and beyond the universe - namely the real God. The only logical philosophical and scientific alternative is an infinite regress of "dependent causes" or dependent 'particle gods', none of which ever has the capability to bring itself into existence. In which case nothing would exist, and we wouldn't be having this conversation - end of story!
Higg's Boson (the dog particle)
Oh grow up!
will the LHC find the Boson particle?
I'm prepared to bet 100 Hawkings that it won't be found for any of the following possible reasons:
1.The name is a misundertanding, it's really the Bos'n, Captain Higgs' Bos'n, to be exact who was far from being particular about anything and never visited Switzerland so the LHC won't be able to find him there.
2. If they think it's like treacle, maybe it is treacle, but the physicists are too silly to try the simple experiment of filling the LHD with treacle and seeing if all the particles in Creation try to pass through it.
3.The HB isn't in our universe - it's in sub dimension 42 of Q dimension 7 a diversion that was created in case our universe ran out of treacle and which is made of a substance called Whatsamatter? Until that question can be answered, we'll never ever know.
Elmohu
Brisbane
Higg's Boson
Hawking's bet of 100 dollars doesn't indicate a high level of confidence the LHC will fail. Seems this way all he has to lose is a tiny amount of money (for him) and some face, hardly things he needs to worry about. If he seriously believes this, why not bet 100 thousand?
As for whether he is right or not (and he's only betting it won't be found, not that it doesn't exist!) - I'm no scientist, but plenty who are believe in the science of the LHC.
Personally I prefer elmohu's explanation.
Jim