Higgs or Hawking, who is your money on?

[sabianq]

Apparently, Stephen Hawking and Peter Higgs seem to have a difference of opinion on what the basis of the universe is.

Stephen suggested that the Higgs particle does not exist by placing a 100 dollar bet on its non existence. the LHC should be able to confirm either Higgs or Hawking's speculation of the nature of matter and why (or why not) matter has mass.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/11/higgs_v_hawking_boffinry_deathmatch/

Personally, I am with Hawking on this one and I really hope they find more paired particles than just the Higgs particle as that would make the universe far more interesting.

[Jens]

Personally, I'm with Hawking as well. I hope they don't discover the Higgs boson, and have to look for new ideas. And I have a hunch that's going to happen, though I could well be wrong.

[sabianq]

well i believe that Stephen has really thought about this in a much deeper sense than Peter has. While Peter is a bit more of a math guy, Stephen seems to me that he has a truer understanding of the nature of things.

(a guy that is locked up inside of such a huge brain would seem to me to have more time contemplate)

At the same time, it seems to me that Peter can be downright condescending when it comes to what he thinks is right.

"I don’t think the way he does it is good enough," he snapped, quoted in today's Times.

“He puts together theories in particle physics with gravity ... in a way which no theoretical particle physicist would believe...

“From a particle physics, quantum theory point of view, you have to put a lot more than just gravity into the theory to have a consistent theory and I don’t think Stephen has done that. I am very doubtful about his calculations.”

[Ivan Viehoff]

As is often the case, I think they both made fair points, but I am disappointed at Higgs' lack of good humour. But I forgive it because in my observation, people of his age are frequently a bit cantankerous. I think he could have used the opportunity better than to slag off our most famous physicist. Even if what he said was correct, it wasn't the occasion to say it.

Hawking has made rather larger bets than $100 in the past, and wouldn't have to reach any distance at all into his pocket to pay up given his very remunerative publishing and media activity, so I think he is well prepared to lose this one. He has also been known to bet against his own prediction, so he'd win either way, as it were. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking#Losing_an_old_bet I don't think he is saying much more than it would be more fun for physics if Higgs didn't exist, give impetus for new lines of research, etc. He won't be surprised if he is wrong.

Higgs was really saying that Hawking's opinion on this isn't worth much, because he has no deep competence in this arena. He pointed out that some of Hawking's papers in this area seemed outside his realm of competence (a cosmologist writing on particle physics) and were unconvincing. That doesn't surprise me at all. Unlike Patrick Moore (a British celebrity astronomy writer/presenter who actually has no academic credentials at all), Hawking is an eminent practising academic physicist. But ultimately he is famous (at least in Britain) for the same reason as Moore, ie, being a media celebrity and a populariser. The popular press call Hawking Britain's/the world's leading physicist, much as they think Moore is a real astronomer. But in the grand scheme of things Hawking's contribution to physics is in a narrow area and of rather less consequence than many others alive today. Indeed if Higgs is right, history will grant him a higher place in the pantheon than Hawking. And even in cosmology, I'd have greater confidence in the opinion of Martin Rees than Hawking.

[Matherly]

Personally, I think $100 is far less... colorful... than some of his previous wagers. Is the good professor mellowing in his old age? ;)

[Argos]

Higgs was really saying that Hawking's opinion on this isn't worth much, because he has no deep competence in this arena.

It´s like saying that Winton Marsalis don´t understand music because he doesn´t do rap.

He pointed out that some of Hawking's papers in this area seemed outside his realm of competence (a cosmologist writing on particle physics) and were unconvincing. That doesn't surprise me at all. Unlike Patrick Moore (a British celebrity astronomy writer/presenter who actually has no academic credentials at all), Hawking is an eminent practising academic physicist. But ultimately he is famous (at least in Britain) for the same reason as Moore, ie, being a media celebrity and a populariser. The popular press call Hawking Britain's/the world's leading physicist, much as they think Moore is a real astronomer. But in the grand scheme of things Hawking's contribution to physics is in a narrow area and of rather less consequence than many others alive today. Indeed if Higgs is right, history will grant him a higher place in the pantheon than Hawking. And even in cosmology, I'd have greater confidence in the opinion of Martin Rees than Hawking.

Hawking is a theoretical physicist and a superb mathematician. If he says 'jump', I´ll jump.

[Pippin]

From my own post in another thread before reading this:
"I'm not sure what would be considered "mainstream" theory, obviously if Stephen Hawking is in the room everyone would point to him ask his opinion on it."
My money is on Hawking. I'm not religious so it doesn't bother me what they call it, but I think Higgs is secretly thrilled about the nickname "god" particle.
He's too uppity for my taste, I'm going to have a good giggle when it's renamed "Wrong" particle. hehe

[Cougar]

I'm not sure how many bets Stephen has lost in the past, but I'm sure he's lost at least one to Kip Thorne....

[mike alexander]

I have no way to judge.

I'm HOPING that something totally unexpected turns up, along the lines of the Universe being made of quantum nougat foam.

[clop]

I think he has a gambling problem.

[ravens_cry]

I have no way to judge.

I'm HOPING that something totally unexpected turns up, along the lines of the Universe being made of quantum nougat foam.
That is my position as well, except the nougat foam part. I want it to be along the lines of a giant Aero bar, only bubblier.

[Ronald Brak]

Has Higgs really been curmudgeonly or is it just a beat up? Or rather, has he been more curmudgeonly than usual?

[HenrikOlsen]

It´s like saying that Winton Marsalis don´t understand music because he doesn´t do rap.
It's rather like saying Eminem doesn't have a deep understanding about poetry because he only does rap.

[Ivan Viehoff]

It´s like saying that Winton Marsalis don´t understand music because he doesn´t do rap.
... or rock or opera or folk or acid house or techno or mediaeval or Balinese gamelan....

In fact Marsalis does also perform classical music, but in the capacity as a trumpeter, not a conductor. Should Marsalis he be so foolish as to say present some comment on how to conduct Mahler, and Simon Rattle (the conductor of the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra and eminent Mahler specialist) said that was rubbish, I know who I would trust.

[Paracelsus]

Apparently, Stephen Hawking and Peter Higgs seem to have a difference of opinion on what the basis of the universe is.

Stephen suggested that the Higgs particle does not exist by placing a 100 dollar bet on its non existence. the LHC should be able to confirm either Higgs or Hawking's speculation of the nature of matter and why (or why not) matter has mass.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/11/higgs_v_hawking_boffinry_deathmatch/

Personally, I am with Hawking on this one and I really hope they find more paired particles than just the Higgs particle as that would make the universe far more interesting.

I agree. I don't think they'll find the Higgs exactly as predicted by the Standard Model. They may find multiple Higgs particles, as has been postulated by some, or the Higgs mechanism may turn out to be completely wrong altogether.

I think everybody at LHC will be happy as long as something exciting turns up.

[sabianq]

HA! I really cant wait to see the data!
we sure do live in amazing times.

[jfribrg]

He won't be surprised if he is wrong.

Let's hope he isn't wrong about Hawking radiation too.

[Extravoice]

This thread could use a "Poll" to go along with it.

Based on absolutely no information, I 'd go with their not finding a Higgs Boson.

[Grey]

I have the feeling that the Register (unsurprisingly given its tone) is simply taking what is really more of a friendly wager, and talking about it as though it were some intense dislike between rival gunslingers. That's the funny part. Hence the final line, "It would seem that the duelling boffinry heavyweights will have to settle the matter in the only honourable way open to men of their sort: with enormous hyper-powered magnetic proton cannons at fifty paces*."

[alexvorn2]

who know, one of them will lose 100 $ lol

[jfribrg]

Based on absolutely no information, I 'd go with their not finding a Higgs Boson.

I wonder if this turns out to be like the Michaelson-Morley experiment. In that case, the outcome contradicted what everyone "knew" at the time. Whatever the outcome, it will be interesting. I'm still not convinced it is worth the money. I'll wait until we see the results before deciding whether other scientific pursuits could have put the money to better use.