New LHC Results: We Were Sure We Found the Higgs Boson, and Now We're Even Surer

They are wrong. 100% wrong. Why? Because there can be no god particle because there is no god.

Since the Higgs boson is almost completely confirmed as existing within 6 sigma of accuracy then we are about to rename the aether as the Higgs field. Imagine Aristotle's look when he finds out that he isn't finally getting the Nobel prize for Physics for his aether theory after waiting 2,400 years, some other guy named Peter Higgs is getting it.

Ron Bennett

1st comment.....soon to be deleted, let me explain Mr. Gizmowiz why "They are wrong. 100% wrong. Why? Because there can be no god particle because there is no god." makes no sense whatsoever.

The "god particle" has nothing to do with a god....it is simply a nickname created to express the fact that the higgs boson is the holy grail of currently theoretical particle physics. The "god particle" has about as much to do with god as hair mousse has to do with the animal moose.

And could you do us all a favor and do reasearch before saying things like that?

this is an incredible global achievement, including hundreds of US scientists, engineers and graduate students, showing, contrary to popular belief, science is alive and well in the US, although we should still be investing much more into future science and scientists, cheers

soo, tesla was right when he was talking about aether!!

@Gizmowiz Don't try to make jokes on here. Popsci comment boards are where humour comes to die.

can someone explain... if there is a Higgs field, does that invalidate the Michelson–Morley experiment? or am I talking apples and oranges here? thanks for your reply!

Considering neutrino faster than light, mmmmm, I think this is great, but I will hold my applause for awhile. But I do give it extreme positive vibes!

One step closer to confirming the higgs-boson particle, science is so cool. Just wish they would drop the god particle name as it was actually called the god-damned particle because it is so villianous and elusive.

The Higgs Field is NOT the luminiferous aether. The luminiferous aether is a theory of a medium for light propagation. The discovery of the Higgs Boson validates the theory for the Higgs Field. The Higgs Field is the medium that interacts with subatomic particles to give them mass.

seanusini who said anything about the luminiferous aether, the Higgs field is a misnomer. The higgs field should be called the , Bose Einstein Condensate, BEC field because all the gage bosons are in it, +/- w boson, z bosons, gluons bosons and maybe the yet to be discovered axion boson, some think the axion is what dark matter is made out of. So no it isn't the higgs field it is an aether the higgs boson is the achor particle in the higgs field, the aether got renamed the higgs field.

Ron Bennett

I've always been fascinated and admittedly perplexed by negative mass. the discovery of the Higgs Boson could () lead us to new theories regarding inverse gravitation. How? By examining the underlying field. We can do so by inferring the dynamic between the Higgs and the space seperating it from another Higgs vs. the space seperating it from a 'control' . I personally think the 'volume' of spacetime plays a key role in this dynamic.

A New type of Aether it surely is.

Einstein already proposed one shortly after presenting GR:

“Thus, once again ,,empty” space appears as endowed with physical properties, i.e., no longer as physically empty, as seemed to be the case according to Special Relativity. One can thus say that the ether is resurrected in the General theory of Relativity, though in a more sublimated form.”

A. Einstein, Grundgedanken und Methoden der Relativitatstheorie in ihrer Entwicklung dargestellt, (Morgan Manuscript) Einstein Archives 2070.

Rlb2, I didn't realize the Higgs Field or BEC field was considered an aether. Thanks for that info though. I only mentioned it wasn't the luminiferous aether, because rackersc asked if the Michelson-Morley experiment was now invalidated.

Chelle12 very well said, in fact Einstein was helping Satyendra Nath Bose publish his Bose Condensate theory in Germany, he translated it from English to German. In my view Bose's condensate theory which later came to be called the Bose Einstein Condensate, is the aether, but that is only with all the bosons in the condensate and how they act around other bosons and matter.

A Bose–Einstein condensate (BEC) is a state of matter of a dilute gas of weakly interacting bosons confined in an external potential and cooled to temperatures very near absolute zero (0 K or −273.15 °C[1]). Under such conditions, a large fraction of the bosons occupy the lowest quantum state of the external potential, at which point quantum effects become apparent on a macroscopic, from a distance, scale. These effects are called macroscopic quantum phenomena.

I don't know if they realized what they found because that was just a theory then, it was however an idea in Einstein's head that some unknown theoretical particles may causing the aether. it was only later on that particle physicist found the Bosons, named after Bose which also includes the photon and the Higgs boson.

It was important to note that Einstein later abandoned the aether idea. That may end up being his second biggest blunder...

Ron Bennett

seansusini, No problem I can see where you got the mix up, after classics physics time they abandoned the aether f favor o the luminiferous aether.

Ron Bennett

Ron,

That's not correct, BEC is not the same as an Aether. BEC is a state of 'normal' matter, and a Higgs-boson is not the same as the 'stuff' that makes up the Higgs-field, it is also made from colliding 'visible' matter. e.g. the Higgs-field is NOT made of Higgs-Bosons.

btw Einstein didn't 'abandon' the Aether idea, that's the point of the quote I posted, it says:

"the ether is resurrected in the General theory of Relativity"

Maybe I am mistaken, but I always thought the Higgs Boson got the God particle name because it was the particle that would prove that matter can be created from supposedly nothing, thus providing evidence that a God could exist who could create things from nothing.

Chelle12 - What you just said is said is wrong, if it just something that you believe in that's fine but according to the current understanding of the Higgs field and BEC...

All quantum fields have a fundamental particle associated with them. The particle associated with the Higgs field is the Higgs boson.

"The Higgs mechanism is a process by which vector bosons can get rest mass without explicitly breaking gauge invariance. The proposal for such a spontaneous symmetry breaking mechanism originally was suggested in 1962 by Philip Warren Anderson"

"A Bose–Einstein condensate (BEC) is a state of matter of a dilute gas of weakly interacting bosons"

Now what I said about the BEC being an aether, is my interpretation of what a BEC is since the BEC and Higgs field both have interacting bosons in them, the BEC just adds matter because it is a good way to study bosonic interaction where the Higgs field is made out of just bosons, up until now the only way to study a Higgs field is through theoretical field physics but the Higgs field is said to be responsible for matter existence.

Ron Bennett

Ron,

"The Higgs boson itself is a vibration in the Higgs field, which can be created if enough energy is put into the field, like dropping a pebble into a pond. The LHC is the world's highest energy particle collider, and the collisions it makes create enough disturbance in the Higgs field to observe the Higgs boson."

You see the Higgs Field is not made out of these Higgs Bosons, just like a ripple in water isn't the same thing as the water molecules that make up the water.

With this I'm not saying that the Higgs Field (Aether) isn't made of particles, I'm just saying that it isn't a volume full of Higgs Bosons.

And in regards to BEC, you can also interpret this as different 'ripples of energy' that can be superimposed, thanks to some efficient cooling, so they can all occupy the same place, so here it's also clear that it cannot represent the stuff that makes up the Higgs Aether (fluid).

I hope this helps,

best,

chelle

@armymustang_67; The whole God thing should just plain disappear, because it's extremely misleading, as in your case. The Higgs was never believed to just spontaneously create matter from nothing. The actual (we think) Higgs is a base particle with some unique function by which a chain of bosuns of the needed types all align in some process by which energy can be transformed into mass with no matter having been present. Very different that some god particle generating matter from nothing.

Looking at the ideas about these things mechanically, I see them (these primary bosuns) as something of a different type than The Higgs for some reason. Like every once in a while-in their time frame-a grouping of these suckers is right; and something then appears at that locale, but it's not like the other bosuns at all. It's their induction--if it's chain of events becomes an energy-mass causality.

So then what if the Higgs isn't really the Higgs bosun at all, but some unlooked at trait of our universe at that instant of birth not present in their tube? Zero point, for all I know. I mean, "Zero Point" of course, where it's a matter gradient for our galaxy position. Whatever the true Zero Point needed for induction is, that may be our problem.

The idea that we are just going to arbitrarily pick some numbers for a 'high power' system may still be the problem. Need more gravity still.

I mean seriously, folks. I think it may be that we just can't get there yet with this machine, massive though it is. We are talking force at magnitudes so far beyond us that we may never be able to generate one because we may be too decayed as matter to generate one, even with the sum of all matter and all energy at our disposal.

Could be that there are force fluxes across extremes that we can't yet touch with our best materials. Or maybe more likely, can never ever, ever, ever generate a power delivery system with any material that we will ever be able to work, or even conceive of, like neutronium. Maybe this is all they ever find there, which would suck. It would be nice if they could make a spoon so we could tell whatshisname 'Look! There's the damn spoon!'

It is good ideas discussed here

The Goddamn Particle

How many of us are aware of the fact that the Idiot box (Television box) is some miniature form of the Large Hadron Collider at CERN? How many of us are even aware of that invisible particle called electron, without which the world would have moved at a snail’s pace? There may be quite a number of reactions to these questions. Some may really ponder on it, while some others may simply counter-ask, do we need to bother? Or, why should we care? There is no easy an answer to the latter’s questions. But, we will try to answer throughout this article.
Universe is one mysterious place. There is no rationale for the existence of biological life amidst continuous chemical and physical actions and reactions. We do not mix well. We get succumbed to and weakened by radiations (for example, microwave radiation, nuclear radiation etc.), which is everywhere. However, we do have life-cycle as do the stars and the elements. We are also made up of the same ingredients that have made the universe—atoms. The water we see in our natural mode of seeing things—that is, through our naked eyes—appears to be only either clean or dirty. We cannot see beyond that without the special instruments that enhance our seeability. For instance, through microscope (a special instrument) we can see microorganisms even in seemingly clean water! Granted that we have enhanced our seeability to the extent of seeing the molecular—molecules are objects far smaller than the microorganisms; and they are a group of atom (a even smaller object)—make-up of the water, we see the infinite population of hydrogen-oxygen-hydrogen group, codified as H2O (a molecule). We see H2O moving, H2O falling. In fact, this H2O is nothing but the two atoms of hydrogen married to an atom of oxygen. Similarly, we can find many such groups, wherever we can see—for example, carbon dioxide, which is a marriage of two atoms of oxygen to one atom of carbon. We can plainly understand the atom as a member of a population defined by certain characteristic trait. Why should the Nature approve of such inter-caste or inter-religious or inter-racial marriages to take place? The interest in atoms is not alien to India. Nyaya Vaisesikas, Mimamsists, Jainas and Hinayana Buddhists in ancient India have shown particular interest in it. They have dwelt in from answering the existence of atoms to justifying the appearance of atoms—Indian philosophy of science. They have believed that atoms appear in group by joining together! Not only these Indian philosophers but also philosophers elsewhere in the ancient period have had showed similar interest in atoms. Mention may be made of Parmenides, Leucippus, Democritus, Anaxagoras, Empedocles, Aristotle and other Greek philosophers. The issues raised by these ancient philosophers are being given empirical proofs by the scientists of the Modern age. For instance, Jainas and Democritus has had raised the issue of atom divisibility—that is, atom cannot be divided further. Today, scientists have divided the atom and have shown that it consists of proton, neutron and electron. There is in fact a special branch of science called Particle Physics, the main objective of which is to study the fundamental structure of atom beyond proton, neutron and electron—its focus is on elementary particles, that is, the particles that cannot be divided further. It has found about 60 elementary particles within an atom! In other words, it studies the evolution of atom, the basic ingredient of everything we see and sense around. The CERN experiment that we sometimes hear in the news is related to this.
Why the CERN experiment? As we said earlier, we need special instruments to see beyond what is possible by our natural mode—the naked eye. Science is based on experiments—the special way of seeing things. To tell that the water is H2O, scientists need to experiment with water as many times as required. The first such recorded work has been done by the eighteenth century French chemist, Antoine Lavoisier, who is regarded as the father of modern chemistry, in his famous book, Elements of Chemistry. Today, due to his work, we have names for the elements such as oxygen, hydrogen etc. Experimentation is not new to us. Everyone does it in our daily lives. But it is limited to the naked eyes. For instance, when we boil the milk we do not see the molecules of the milk hitting each other. We do not even see the “electrons” communicating to each other. But, we do see that the milk is boiling. Or, when we rub our hands during cold weather we do not see that we are instigating the “electrons” on the surface of the hands to produce heat. As we have said earlier, the experiment at CERN—earlier known as Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire is today’s European Organization for Nuclear Research—is related to Particle Physics. Why? Particle Physics is strongly based on experiments otherwise it would be no different from the ancient philosophy of science, atomism. Based on a series of experiments—Chadwick (neutron), Pauli (neutrino), Anderson (positron), Thomson (electron), Powell (pion), Bose & Einstein (boson) etc— it has now a well-developed model of explanation of the universe known as the Standard Model. It studies the “elementary particles of atom and the forces that act between them”. To give one instance of the usefulness of this model, let us take the case of water. Why do we see water, with or without special instruments? Simply because it exists? There has to be a reason beyond doubt. The model uses “quark-talk” to answer it. Quarks are the matter that makes up proton and neutron as the orange pulp, seeds and skin make up the orange. Proton and neutron constitute the nucleus of an atom as the egg yolk constitutes the nucleus of an egg. Though the proton and neutron are made up of quarks, the way they are made is different. It is found that proton is made up of two “up” quarks and one “down” quark, whereas neutron is made up of one “up” quark and two “down” quarks. The difference is that down quark has more mass than that of up quark. Therefore, the model predicts that one can get proton out of neutron and not the other way round. The way that proton is obtained from neutron is by neutron decay—understand decay as dying of a particle. Yes! Neutron decays. Have not we heard of nuclear radiation fears in various events such as the recent Japanese tsunami or earlier Chernobyl crisis? What is the point? The point is that neutron decay is possible and not the proton decay! This is important since one of the important elements of water is Hydrogen, the nucleus of which is made of proton only. If there is proton decay, then Hydrogen has to decay leading to non-existence of water forever! Water would not have been present anywhere in the universe. Thus, the Standard Model explains this and many other phenomena of the Nature. Is not it a progress in our knowledge of Nature?
Let us come back to our question on CERN experiment. In the Standard model, there is a concept called “spin”—the internal rotation of the particle, which is the particle’s fundamental property. Even the Earth spins! The identification of its spin is done by the angular rotation. For instance, earth spins at the tilted angle of 23.5 degree. However, the identification of the spin of the elementary particles has more to do with the amount of spin. It has been quantized, thereby it is a quantum number—the Model deals with lot of quantum numbers at the elementary particle level. Its initial use was to explain something known as “Zeeman effect”. Let us not get into it. Based on the concept of spin, elementary particles have been differentiated as we differentiate ourselves in terms of caste, religion, language etc. The spin value is always a multiple of ½; and all those elementary particles having integer spin values (that is, 0,1,2,3…) are called Bosons, and all those elementary particles which take the spin values that are ½ multiples of odd numbers (that is, ½, 3/2, 5/2, 7/2…) are called fermions—it is a discovery. For instance, electrons (those particles within the atom that orbit around the nucleus of the atom just as planets orbit around the sun) and quarks have a spin value of ½, whereas “graviton” (the elementary particle that interacts with the gravitational force) has the spin value of 2. There is also a postulated and unobserved elementary particle whose spin value is 0. It is called Higgs particle. It is hypothesized as the particle that is responsible for the masses of all the other elementary particles and of all the matter in the universe. Mass is defined as “the resistance of an object to a change in its motion”. In other words, it is an amount of matter in an object. For instance, a basket having five tomatoes has more mass than the basket having three tomatoes. Similarly, we can also speak of matter in the elementary particles. Such matter is believed to have come from Higgs particle—this is the reason why some termed it as God particle and to offset its hype some others termed it as Goddamn particle. Also, Higgs particle is hypothesized to be related to something known as “Cabibo angle”, which has a constant value of 12.5 degree, a mystery. As well, this particle is important for keeping the theory as manageable (or renormalizable) by shedding light on the nature of weak interactions, a mystery—though other such particles required for renormalizability have been found, Higgs particle is the only remaining particle to be found. That is why Higgs particle has assumed important place in Particle physics. How can it be found? Through special instruments called “accelerators”. Some elementary particles disappear as soon as they appear—a case of Higgs particle. To recreate such unstable particles “accelerators” are used. CERN experiment involves the biggest accelerator-collider so far constructed. It is called “Large hadron Collider”. Then, how is boson related to Higgs particle? Boson is an elementary particle that obeys something called Bose-Einstein statistics. These, as already mentioned, can take only integer spin values of 0,1,2,3 and so on. Because Higgs particle has spin value of 0, it is also called as Higgs boson. Some bosons called vector bosons, like Higgs particle, disappear too soon. However, they are heavier. There is more to it—a theoretical requirement to solve the “problem of infinities” in Quantum Field theory. Particle physicists have their own theoretical devices to solve the problems they face in comprehending the mechanics of the Nature. They have devised something known as “virtual particle”—that particle that is not found in the real world. For instance, one’s mirror image is virtual. They need this to understand the “weak interactions” of the elementary particles. Elementary particles do interact with each other. There is weak interaction—involving “vector bosons” (a special kind of boson) or Higgs particle—as well as strong interaction—involving quarks and “gluons” (a particle that binds quarks just like a glue). Gravitational interaction is extremely weak with respect to the elementary particles. We can understand these interactions by the way we usually understand the term interaction. For instance, when two persons pass by each other without talking to each other or without making any significant gesture that would affect each other’s behavior towards each other significantly then such interaction is weak. On the contrary, we would find strong interaction. One such virtual particle is Higgs boson, which is quite distinct from vector bosons—there are only three vector bosons. It is introduced to remove the “bad behavior” of the vector bosons that occurs at “high energy” weak interactions. In other words, it gives clarity in understanding weak interactions involving particles that are heavy—there is a direct relation between mass and energy (Einstein’s famous equation E=mc2): higher the mass, higher is the energy and viceversa. Since, weak interactions involve mainly vector bosons one has to face high energy issue—the issue of the predictive power of the Standard model. Prediction is based on the concept of probability—a probability is a numerical assessment of the likelihood of an event on a scale of 0 (impossibility) to 1 (certainty). For instance, one may predict that there will be rain this year if one finds the probability of occurrence of rain event this year close to 1. But, the value of probability cannot be greater than 1. If it exceeds 1 then it is nothing but nonsense. This is the issue with high energy weak interactions. Since the value of the probability is based on the energy level, there is a danger of the value exceeding 1, thereby rendering the Model useless. To resolve this problem, Higgs boson is considered to be important. Also, it is believed that the identification of the Higgs particles require the vector bosons than the quarks used in LHC. It is in these two senses that the term boson is associated with the Higgs particle.

Higgs boson in the Mass media
There is no doubt that the Higgs boson is not the final step in the field of Particle Physics. Although, it is considered as the “crucial” missing link in the Standard Model, Martinus J.G.Veltman, an eminent particle physicist, expresses considerable doubt regarding its existence in his article, Higgs Boson, published in the Scientific American as early as 1986. Only under certain situations the particle finds its usefulness—for instance, when one is dealing with electroweak theory’s prediction on the scattering of one vector boson against another. Otherwise, its relevance is in enabling mathematical consistency of the Standard Model. However, Higgs boson is not necessarily needed and neither its existence that easy to justify. But, the CERN people have something to hope for amidst the “painstaking” task of identifying the Higgs particle through a very large data of two-photon events. That is, a Higgs particle decays into two photons. Such single decay is called as an event. So, an event that produces two photons suggests the existence of Higgs particle. It only suggests as there are other particles that also gives out two photons. That is why the task of finding the Higgs particle is a painstaking one since they have to study various properties of the events. This is what emerges in their press release of July 17, 2012 titled Higgs Boson: Evolution or Revolution: “And finally, if a Standard Model Higgs were definitively ruled out at the LHC’s current operating energy, that would point either to a non-standard Higgs particle that could be discovered with greater luminosity or to the existence of new physics at the LHC’s full design energy where the Standard Model without the Higgs particle starts to break down.” We need to also know simultaneously that this is not the first time such doubts are being expressed. Way back in the 1963, particle physicists at CERN conducted a neutrino experiment to find the existence of the elusive vector bosons. But, they could not; and the entire interest in the experiment got lost for various reasons. Let us hope that this time, at least the interest sustains.
When there are so much of theoretical confusions in the particle physicists’ minds regarding the Higgs particle, there lies greater responsibility of science reporters in communicating the problems related to the particle to the general public. The responsibility is problematized precisely for the following reasons. Firstly, the outputs of Science are relevant for the entire mankind. It cannot be segregated and concentrated in the hands of few. Although some countries invest heavily as in the case of the current CERN experiment, the fact cannot be ignored that the matter of concern is the Nature. For the very same reason, why cannot it be a multi-lateral initiative as is the case of the World Trading System-free-of-biases? The science reporter must keep this in mind while reporting the science events. Secondly, a layman’s understanding of the concepts in Science is far from reality. Not everyone would find incentives to know these concepts. This would make the task of a Science reporter that much difficult in addition to reporting as it is. The task is as “painstaking” as that in finding the Higgs particle from the vast data. In other words, he/she must be an ‘intermediating scientist’—whose main task is to relate the concepts of science to an ‘average’ layman’s experiences without destroying the original meaning of those concepts. For instance, when a reporter describes the Higgs boson as boson for it has the spin value of zero there arise incompleteness in transmitting the meaning of boson to the lay readers. The reader may presume that the boson takes only the spin value of zero, when in fact it takes the integer values of 0,1,2,3 and so on. Let alone the meaning of spin. Such elements in reporting would naturally take away the incentives from the layman to read what is being reported. Most of the science reporting in India suffers from this grave problem. The reporter has the minimum attributes (layman’s experience and desire to report science events) to be an intermediating scientist.
Science reporting must complement ‘Science popularizing’. Not as a ‘ritualistic’ knowledge but as knowledge itself. In this sense, the group of reporters who are critics of science as well as the group of reporters who are non-critics of science are important. But, the former group is more important. Within this group only ‘constructive’ critics are important. There is no point in simply bashing the efforts of scientists. If bashing is needed then one has to show them on how to improvise on their current efforts. For instance, when one bashes the Standard Model of Particle Physics as not accounting for the effects of gravitation force or not accounting for the String theory there has to be demonstrable reasons to show how these are linked to the Model, at least, given that the scientists themselves are unaware of. However, scientists are aware of the weaknesses of their models and they themselves report it in the media! For instance, they acknowledge the fact that they are not able to account for the gravitation force in the Model; and they clarify the fact that the String theory is baseless. It is the line that distinguishes fundamentalism from pragmatism. It is only when this is not happening then one may expect some sort of conspiracy to exist and the bashing to have served its purpose of being eye-opener.
Krishnamurthy Sitaram and Bharath Raj Urs

What a Bloody idiot up at the top the god particle is a nickname you fool.

God Particle? True the nickname might need changing but also the theories in which these expensive and elaborate tests are concluded might have to be rethought. Quantum physics states that the observer and the observed are entangled in a shared reality and have mutual effects upon each other. This explains the Never-ending quest in science to achieve immutable reality, because scientific discovery must be based upon observation and the observer actually has an effect on the outcome of the experiment simply by observing. These breakthroughs explain that the "standard model" will always be incomplete and always to a degree non reflective of actual reality. Particle physics should die in the modern age, because it is pointless to assume that all energy and matter contain at any point solid indivisible particles, this theory was proven definitely wrong by quantum physics which states that photons both occupy a wave form and a particle form, but only assume particle form when being observed. This has been used to calculate many unexplainable circumstances of radiation and the interaction of radiation within closed spaces. This also explains that if a group or body of thought hold a belief to be true, and then go about trying to find indirect ways of observing this belief they will most certainly achieve the observation of this belief. Maybe even creating it with their own theories, years of research (which further strengthens their belief), and experimentation. Tests have been done also with atomic random number generators. Machines which observe the swaying of atoms and randomly generate a number 1 or number 2. In these tests over very large repetitions of random sequences (100,000 randoms to 10 million randoms) it was shown conclusively that a observer who concentrated and predicted more of either a one or two number to appear, had exactly those results, more of the numbers by far appeared when an observer focused on the possibility. In many particle experiments across the world smaller than light particles were not able to be "observed" by other scientists even with exactly similar experiments until enough time and mathematical papers had passed to create the shared belief that these particles do exist. Then suddenly the experiments were able to be replicated world wide. The truth is, Quantum physics suggests that consciousness actually plays a crucial role in Reality itself and is not simply a by product of chemical reaction and circumstance. Also Every mathematical theory in the world cannot be exactly true to reality, this is another flaw of modern science or rather the tools in which we use to construct our science or belief system (knowledge body). The numbers 0 through 9 are actually representative of our solar system which has 9 planets. There are at the base only 10 variations but they can create almost unlimited possibilities through repetition. Lets take an ancient history lesson in Platonic Solids. Shall we? If you look at our Universe or solar system as a 2d circle, the only way to divide it for our understanding is with a Cross, half then in half again. However this cross is only an approximation of the "half way point" of a circle, the dividing point, for a circle has unlimited points there can be no actual "exact" half way point. To get a true Half way point for dissection you need a square, which also has 360 degrees the same as a circle. If you take a square and cross it from corner to corner you have a box with an X in it. From this box all of the numbers 1 through 9 can be obtained. Zero meaning Undivided. The point of the current and past number system is to divide reality into equal parts for dissection and prediction of future events. (because a circle always repeats like the universe revolves) But what you actually get in this dissection is an approximation of reality. You must first take the Circular universe ( the reality that IS and is constantly changing ) and make it a square or polygon thinking only in terms of straight lines ( What can be observed and exactly measured and repeated) then it becomes divisible and applicable to real world approximation and prediction, however thinking in terms of straight lines you can never be completely accurate to the real reality we experience as it is always changing like the nature of a circle, no matter how small you make your straight lines to touch the Infinite points of a circle you cannot possible touch all points using straight lines you are bound to endlessly approximate and reform theories for eternity. The only way around this is to rethink the basic tools used for science and this is no simple task by far. This would require a greater understanding of reality and the nature of the universe than we have today but would ultimately save a lot of "swinging in the Dark" trying to approximate something we can not entirely approximate. String theory is much closer to combining the forces then particle physics is most definitely. As particle physics cannot explain what happens at the quantum level, the unobservable scale. It does however have close approximations for events that happen in "larger" observable levels of reality, tackling a project this large; as in solving the nature of reality would necessarily take many thousands or millions of years to develop a complex approximation that fits reality enough for our observation to not notice the difference. But again all knowledge no matter how close of an approximation for reality it may come, is still only an approximation. A "belief" if you will a thought held by the observer which is only one half of the equation on what "IS". No belief is perfect or without flaw, this is the nature of an ever changing universe that is just as much subjective as it is objective and is being changed minutely by Observer and observed. To conclude I will state again that I think experiments like this are a giant waste of money and effort of thinkers who could be solving other greater flaws and problems with out current scientific systems. This would lead to much further advances to our understanding and approximations of reality and undoubtedly shed light onto many more things unexplained by current models.