It took Microsoft 98 attempts the first time! Then it took them an entire Millennium. Then 2000 attempts after that. And then after 12 more attempts, they’ve decided they need to change the keyboard… I’d say #14 ain’t too bad.
Curious if the brand new ones will last then. I’ve had a few friends say that the new ones break more easily than their old ones but that is also anecdotal.
In my experience, Dewalt has been the best in terms of balance between reliability, flexibility, and cost. Milwaukee is probably the most reliable but also the most limited. Ryobi are cheap junk. Makita tools I haven’t used but I’ve been told repeatedly that they used to be awesome but are now cheap junk.
All of these companies have at least a few items that are cheap junk (like most of the bluetooth speaker stuff…wtf?) but some are worse than others.
That is the thing I’m seeing the most this past year and it’s already starting up for this year - there seems to be little thoughtfulness being put into things online. It’s just a firehose of high-engagement, low-impact, low-thought chaff.
How could it be backdating current knowledge when those properties are literally in his paper where he posited the theory to begin with! You’re either being disingenuous or intentionally misleading. The reason he didn’t expect to find it in his lifetime was because the chances of observing the particle were infinitesimally small because of its short lifetime and the fact that it decays into other common bosons. It is not found in nature and can only be produced in a lab.
I really don’t know how much clearer you can be about their ability to predict what they were looking for other than repeating the quote and linking the paper:
Most properties of this particle are predicted by the theory
Are you saying CERN is lying on their Highs Boson page?
And you’re also wrong about the idea of “variants” that you’re claiming. The variants they’re referring to are the byproducts of the decay. Since the Higgs Boson decays into the same products as normal Z and W bosons and photons.
Every type of particle is characterized by a set of properties: mass, electrical charge, lifetime etc. For the Higgs boson, mass was the only unknown. For a known mass, all the other properties can be calculated from theory. Measuring them experimentally and comparing them with the result of these calculations allows scientists to verify that they have really found the Higgs boson.
You’re mischaracterizing what they’re saying and arguing that what they are saying, and what I’ve quoted directly from their website where it says that all the properties except the mass were known, is not true. You’re also confusing us having the capabilities, using technology available at the time, with the ideas underpinning how it would be observed and what would have been observed based on the theory associated with it. They knew what they were looking for but being able to observe a particle that decays immediately isn’t easy. Your chart and quote are talking about the variations of interactions with other bosons and photons. How am I supposed to take any of your replies seriously?
I’m not making unjustified claims. You keep moving the goalposts away from the initial statement and are now arguing probability instead of the actual argument. The fact is that it is impossible for us to be in a simulation where the creators can change conditions if they end any simulations where we’d notice them. It’s not improbable. It’s impossible. You can keep making more straw men all you want. It doesn’t change the initial argument.