NERD ALERT: Higgs-Boson Has Been Found?!???

Early last week, exciting news was released that scientists are both Fermilab and CERN were getting closer and closer to pinning down the location of the so-called "god particle," otherwise known as Higgs Boson. Then, this past Wednesday as America celebrate the 4th of July, nerds around the world had their own fireworks as they announced that Higgs Boson had indeed been found. With a 5 sigma signal, meaning that there is less than a one in a million chance that the findings are a fluke, scientists the world over could deem the particle found. Declared the "god particle" because of its relation to the "Big Bang," or the moment of the creation of our universe, this particle has been deemed crucial by physicists because they hope it can answer the previously unanswerable about the actual existence of dark matter, the possibility of additional dimensions or universes, and hopefully to finally confirm the unified field theory that finally brings beautiful symmetry between Einstein's theory of gravity and quantum physics involving subatomic particles. According to Peter Higgs, half of the namesake of the discovered particle:

"I had no expectation that I would still be alive when it happened," he said of the speed with which they found evidence.

"For physics, in one way, it is the end of an era in that it completes the Standard Model," he said of the basic theory physicists currently use to describe what they understand so far of a cosmos built from 12 fundamental particles and four forces.

Although this probably swept beneath the general public's rug of consciousness, it's kind of a big eff'n deal. It is WAY above my pay grade to truly describe what the Higgs Boson does (here is a good, and fairly simply explained, primer from the Atlantic) and why it is important, but here is the basic gist:

Scientists struggling to explain the theory have likened Higgs particles to a throng of paparazzi photographers; the greater the "celebrity" of a passing particle, the more the Higgs bosons get in its way and slow it down, imparting it mass; but a particle such as a photon of light is of no interest to the paparazzi and passes through easily - a photon has no mass.

So, essentially and more complexly, the exchanges between various fields and bosons, a general class of subatomic particle of which Higgs is a type, is called the Higgs mechanism, which is still not fully understood, and it is through these exchanges that particles gain mass (Thanks Atlantic Monthly!).


Phew. You still with me? Because at this point I'm just continuing to write to help myself fully understand. But that's all folks for now. Unless you want to really step up your nerd game and read the philosophic interpretation of our inability to readily grasp the workings of Higgs Boson. Because that's right here. You nerd...


UPDATE: In a closer reading of the material released, it is not entirely a settled matter that it is exactly the Higgs Boson that has been found (although many believe it is so). According to Reuters:

What scientists do not yet know from the latest findings is whether the particle they have discovered is the Higgs boson as exactly described by the Standard Model. It could be a variant of the Higgs idea or an entirely new subatomic particle that could force a rethink on the fundamental structure of matter.  

The last two possibilities are, in scientific terms, even more exciting. 

Sooo, definitely very exciting nonetheless. 


IMAGE: ibnlive.in.com

Kathleen Parker Wants to Go Toe to Toe on Bird(brained) Law

Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker (she's on the right) had a perfectly inane opinion piece about "The public trial of Justice Roberts." It argues that President Obama and the left are trying to inappropriately influence Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts through the media. SPOILER ALERT... Kathleen Parker is not a lawyer. Or familiar with the law. Or the separation of powers really. In her own words,

I leave this debate to others more worthy, but the idea that decisions must be popular and/or bipartisan is silly on its face. Just because something is popular doesn’t make it “right” or legally correct. And, difficult as this is to accept in our Twitter culture, Supreme Court justices needn’t be popular.

Let's unpack this a bit, shall we? She will leave this debate to others who have, at least, a fleeting familiarity with the law but then goes on to say the arguments of those she is attacking revolve around the decision on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) being popular/bipartisan. She's quite right that that would be "silly on its face." The only problem is that no one is arguing that. What the Jeffrey Rosen article that she links to and picks choice quotes from goes on to say is that:

But, by voting to strike down Obamacare, Roberts would also be abandoning the association of legal conservatism with restraint—and resurrecting the pre–New Deal era of economic judicial activism with a vengeance.

A bit different there, eh? The real issue is not that a decision to strike down the ACA would be unpopular/bipartisan, because she correctly points out that the role of the Supreme Court is decidely not to be popular or bipartisan, it is that such a decision would be legally wrong and against the proper role of the Supreme Court. A properly conservative, rather than an activist, Supreme Court would respect judicial precedents laid down and act under the presumption that a statute passed by Congress is Constitutional. The  latter point is what POTUS was speaking to in the Rose Garden quote Parker uses. The strong majority isn't supposed to be boosting the law popularity street cred, it is re-enforcing the fact that the law thus should be presumed Constitutional by the judges. Further, as put by Jonathan Cohn and Jack Balkin, the Court should not limit itself to the arguments presented but should, and must, according to their mandate (pun intended) look at all possible ways to deem the law constitutional. Much like our criminal law system, Federal statutes are constitutional until proven not. As put by Mr. Cohn in arguing that even if the Court wasn't convinced that the mandate was constitutional as argued it could EASILY be found a constitutional tax:

Nor does it matter that Congress did not specifically invoke the tax power in its findings of fact. As the Supreme Court explained in Woods v. Cloyd W. Miller Co. in 1948, “[t]he question of the constitutionality of action taken by Congress does not depend on recitals of the power which it undertakes to exercise.” Federal statutes are presumed to be constitutional, and the courts are required to consider if they fall within any of Congress's powers even if the statute doesn't explain its constitutional basis. (Most statutes don't.) One might object that a special rule should apply for taxes. If the government is going to change the tax laws, it must state this clearly so that the people can express their displeasure by voting their representatives out of office. But this has never been the law. Moreover, the existence of the mandate has not snuck up on the public unawares, and anybody who has not been paying attention by now will figure out it out soon enough when they file their form 1040.

It has long been obvious that Parker is a shill for the GOP, but articles like this just make it that much more obvious. What support of this article by people such as Randy Barnett at Volokh Conspiracy, a sharp legal mind and vociferous opponent of the ACA, shows is that they are equally (new word alert,) "shilly". Which is truly sad.

All of this sound and fury could have been easily avoided by the Obama administration and the Solicitor General if this was tackled in a proper way, without a mind to politics, but that is a rant for another day. For now all I'll say is, Ms. Parker please please PLEASE "leave this debate to others more worthy" next time.

UPDATE: Jeffrey Rosen very reasonably defends himself against Kathleen Parker in a recent The New Republic article. The very reasonable gist of the response is:

The idea that I was trying to “intimidate” or “bend” the Chief Justice came as a surprise to me. The justices have already voted in the health care case and are hardly influenced, in any event, by legal punditry. On the contrary, I suggested that this is a moment of truth for Chief Justice Roberts because I’ve been a staunch supporter of the vision of bipartisanship that he articulated when he became Chief Justice, and have continued to defend him during the past six years when others have denounced him for failing to live up to the standards he set for himself.

IN 2006, AT THE END of his first term as Chief, Roberts told me in an interview that he thought it was bad for the Court and the country when the justices handed down decisions by ideologically polarized, 5-4 votes. Roberts said he would make it his mission, as Chief Justice, to persuade his colleagues to avoid 5-4 rulings on constitutional grounds and instead to converge around narrow, unanimous opinions that both liberals and conservatives could embrace. “I do think the rule of law is threatened by a steady term after term after term focus on 5-4 decisions,” Roberts told me. “I think the Court is ripe for a similar refocus on functioning as an institution, because if it doesn’t, it’s going to lose its credibility and legitimacy as an institution. And to the extent that my colleagues share that concern, we should be able to make some progress.”

Ouch, actually quoting the Chief Justice himself instead of making reflexive partisan reactions about his inability to withstand pressure from big liberal bullies. That's got to be embarrassing for those of the Parker/Barnett ilk. Especially since Barnett should know better. So really Ms. Parker, leave it to those, well nevermind more worthy, how about those more qualified. Except Randy Barnett.

Image: Mediabistro.com via Google Images

Dimon's in the Rough

See what I did there in the title? With the mixed metaphors and play on words and such? SO clever. Anywwaaayyy, JP Morgan Chase, the formerly venerable white shoe investment banking institution, reported a $2 billion trading loss yesterday afternoon. Not so surprisingly, Jamie Dimon managed to continue to sound like a giant doucher while attempting to show some sort of facsimile of contrition. While admitting to immense risk management failures, he managed to contend that oversight of the banking industry was still a ridiculous idea. Here are two actual quotes (well a quote and a paraphrase) from the same call to analysts:

"There were many errors, sloppiness and bad judgment," Dimon said. "These were grievous mistakes, they were self-inflicted."

 followed by...

Dimon said yesterday that the timing of the trading blunders "plays right into the hands of a bunch of pundits out there" who want a strict proprietary trading ban, the Volker Rule, named for former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker.

I mean... wow. Only a wanna-be pugnacious solipsist like Jamie Dimon could somehow claim that his firm's catastrophic failure in self-oversight somehow indicates that the Volcker Rule is a bad idea. Listen, I'm no class warrior. While sympathetic to a couple of Occupy Wall Streets complaints (when they enumerated them), I'm not marching for the 99%. But people like Dimon and some of his cohorts need to get their shit together and realize that while such rules will definitely be bad for their bottom line, it'll probably be good for the health of the world economy as a whole. While this is really for another, longer, post I've been thinking about for awhile... many commentators seem reluctant to assert is that the Volcker Rule, formerly known as the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, worked pretty well for 6 decades. Enacted in the turmoil of the Great Depression, Glass-Steagall, among other things, separate commercial banking from investment banking. Lo and behold, there were no serious shocks to the banking system anywhere approaching the same scale of the Great Depression. Our current Great Recession then occurs after it was essentially repealed in 1999 (Good call Billy) and the Volcker Rule hopes to re-institute a weaker version. Now, clearly one cannot directly correlate the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the Great Recession, but why not bring back a rule that worked so well for over half a century? I've not really heard any compelling reasons, that hold any water, from folks like JD... who's firm bears little resemblance to the old JP Morgan & Co. that once ruled Wall Street (read this fantastic book for more. Seriously, Ron Chernow is the MAN).

To make a long story not any longer than the above, I hope Jamie stops spewing BS until the time he can put forth a reasonable argument for why the provisions of the Dodd Frank Act, including the Volcker Rule, would be bad for anyone aside from him, his cohorts, and their respective bottom lines.

NERD ALERT- Like a Rolling CERN

I'm taking artistic license on the title, so back up off me. CERN, a.k.a. the European Center for Nuclear Research, had its big reveal today on whether the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) had determined the existence, or non-existence, of the Higgs boson. And they revealed (drum roll please)... (dramatic pause to enhance excitement)... (pause/drumroll has gone on too long and now people are annoyed)... that they'd only found hints of the particle and would need another year of data to make any real determination! WOOO! The Higgs boson particle, and thus the excitement about it, is a little bit hard to explain, which is attempted with more success here, but it is essentially the smallest building block of the Higgs field which, according to the Standard Model, gives particles mass. This is disappointing for those hoping to know, either way, but there is, seemingly, a silver lining:

"Given the outstanding performance of the L.H.C. this year, we will not need to wait long for enough data and can look forward to resolving this puzzle in 2012.”

Over the last 20 years, suspicious bumps that might have been the Higgs have come and gone, and scientists cautioned that the same thing could happen again, but the fact that two rival teams using two different mammoth particle detectors had recorded similar results was considered to be good news. Physicists expect to have enough data to make the final call by the summer.

For those, like me, who geek out over this stuff, it only means that we've been thrown a cliff hanger that will bring us back in this summer. Kind of like the "Game of Thrones." That's good enough for me (at least CERN didn't pull a "The Killing"... people will probably be interested enough to come back for Higgs boson in the summer). 

NBA Players- Before They Speak, Their Suit Bespoke

Grantland has an interesting article from Wesley Morris on the "rise of the NBA nerd." In his estimation, there has been a shift in black culture that has opened up possibilities for personalities such as Kevin Durant, Amare Stoudemire and LeBron James, not to mention Kanye West or Lil Wayne, throw on clothes that would get them beat up a decade ago. I think Mr. Morris tries to get too deep with it, however. It seems to me that, more so than a broad cultural shift illustrated by Jay-Z rapping "Y'all niggas acting way too tough / Throw a suit and get it tapered up" in Changes Clothes or, as above, Kanye rapping "Before he speak, his suit bespoke," in Estelle's American Boy, this represents a smaller shift amongst young and prominent black men. The lyrics themselves reveal this; there are not broad swaths representing young black culture grabbing bespoke suits after all. More representative would be "I'm not a businessman, I'm a BUSINESS, mannn." LeBron wants to be the first billionaire athlete and he has almost as many side business interests as he has endorsement deals (he's boys with Warren Buffett for the love of god). Amare seems to be actively attempting to become an NBA fashion icon (and not in the tragic D Rodman way). K Diddy is following in LeBron's footsteps. And all these guys are just going down the trail blazed by Kanye and, first and foremost, Jay-Z (aka, "the black Warren Buffett"). All of these gentlemen are still heavily invested in their image, it's just a different image that they are trying to cultivate. Street cred has ceded way to boardroom cred. To the young, black, talented and wealthy, drug dealing and getting shot at is no longer as cool as the Wizard of Omaha... who woulda thunk it?


(IMAGES: Too many to separate, but from Google Images [natch])

David Stern Decides to Lock Up his Legacy

There is a lot of talk today, after this past weekend's deal ending the NBA lockout, about the motivations of both the players and the owners in hashing the deal out now. Charles Pierce over at Grantland has a piece today that mirrors many of my thoughts. I absolutely agree with him that the lockout was never just about, or even primarily about, splitting up basketball related income. In the same vein, I don't think that this weekend's deal getting done was primarily about either the players or the owners. It was about that smug bastard above. As I told my buddy upon hearing the news, I'd bet dollar to donuts that Stern read/saw all of the negative coverage, heard about how big of a threat this was to his legacy, especially after the Seattle fiasco, and, after some contemplation in his office that has many leather-bound books and smells of rich mahogany, decided that the lockout needed to end now. He's the only one who could corral both sides and convince them that this was the best for everyone involved. He could tell the players the owners were robber baron dbags and the owners how much they actually won in the deal and how much they stood to lose by losing a season. And then he could convince the owners to do what they should've done in the first place anyway... make some minor concessions so the players could save face and wrap this deal up. The worst part, for me anyway, is that people will probably forget, again, that he is the Darth Vader to the owner's collective Palpatine. People think that he's power but he's, basically, a tool the owners use to get what they want. I love the NBA and I'm psyched that its back, but it makes me a little sick that Stern will get to continue on with his whole shtick without a moments pause. Ugh. Well I won't forget... eff you Stern.

(Image: one of the more condescending Stern images I came across. Though it would probably be easy enough to start a Stern condescending glare gallery.)

Dope v. Hope

First off, apologies to my six or so faithful readers for my absence. Last week was a busy one and the blogging dropped off. I was appropriately shamed, however, so I hope to make up for it in the coming week(s).

60 Minutes ran two segments highlighting two individuals, Grover Norquist and Christine Lagarde, that could not be more different in my mind. They both are clearly very intelligent people but people who utilize their intelligence in very different manners. Grover Norquist, of Harvard and HBS, has formed a a libertarian advocacy group, Americans for Tax Reform, whose "Taxpayer Protection Pledge" has held Republican congressman hostage for decades. Even in his short 60 Minutes segment, Norquist comes across as the dorky kid in high school that got a taste of a bit of power and now clearly revels in the fact that he has the rich, popular kids come to kiss his ring. He wisely deflects questions about being a tool for corporate interests and not divulging his supporters by stating that he is looking out for the American voter, despite the majority of Americans supporting tax increases. Long story short, I think he's a scourge on the American electorate and he gives me the willies. Christine Lagarde, on the complete opposite hand, is my homegirl. She was the first female chairman of Baker & McKenzie, a massive international law firm, then became the first female minister in charge of economic affairs in France, and just recently became the managing director of the IMF. Clearly she's one bad ass mofo (fafo?). Unlike Norquist, she comes across as a humble, hard working pragmatists that was too proud to join an elite French law firm because they stated she would never make partner as a woman (she just walked out of the interview... bad. ass.). She called out the French worker for being too lazy, Wall Street for ignoring the coming financial crisis in 2008 and now calling out the entire global financial industry for not accepting regulations quickly enough.

I'd recommend watching both segments and making your own decisions but I think many of the problems in the US exist because people like Norquist have too much power and  not enough people like Lagarde do.

Getcha Nerd on with PBS' New Nova Series

I caught pieces of a new series on PBS called the "Fabric of the Cosmos" last night and found it incredibly interesting. Though I am in no way literate in physics or math, I find it all very interesting and will wrap my head around the little that I can when it comes to string theory, quantum mechanics, quarks, higgs-boson, black holes and anti-matter. Dr. Greene is very engaging and the material is presented in a (somewhat) accessible light. I would recommend the series, which stretches over 4 weeks starting yesterday, for anyone interested in this material.

Oh, no one else? It's just me? Ok, groovy... I'm just going to sit in this corner with my Greene and Kaku books now. Thanks.