The Higgs boson takes science center stage for 2012

From the American Association for the Advancement of Science  the winner and many worthy runners up in science for this year. No mention of Climate/AGW.

One possible way the Higgs boson might be prod...
One possible way the Higgs boson might be produced at the Large Hadron Collider. Similar images at: http://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/Conferences/2003/aspen-03_dam.ppt (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Science’s Breakthrough of the Year: Discovery of the Higgs boson

Long-sought particle completes physicists’ standard model of particle physics

The observation of an elusive sub-atomic particle, known as the Higgs boson, has been heralded by the journal Science as the most important scientific discovery of 2012. This particle, which was first hypothesized more than 40 years ago, holds the key to explaining how other elementary particles (those that aren’t made up of smaller particles), such as electrons and quarks, get their mass.

In addition to recognizing the detection of this particle as the 2012 Breakthrough of the Year, Science and its international nonprofit publisher, AAAS, have identified nine other groundbreaking scientific achievements from the past year and compiled them into a top 10 list that will appear in the 21 December issue.

Researchers unveiled evidence of the Higgs boson on 4 July, fitting into place the last missing piece of a puzzle that physicists call the standard model of particle physics. This theory explains how particles interact via electromagnetic forces, weak nuclear forces and strong nuclear forces in order to make up matter in the universe. However, until this year, researchers could not explain how the elementary particles involved got their mass.

“Simply assigning masses to the particles makes the theory go haywire mathematically,” explained Science news correspondent Adrian Cho, who wrote about the discovery for the journal’s Breakthrough of the Year feature. “So, mass must somehow emerge from interactions of the otherwise mass-less particles themselves. That’s where the Higgs comes in.”

As Cho explains, physicists assume that space is filled by a “Higgs field,” which is similar to an electric field. Particles interact with this Higgs field to obtain energy and—thanks to Einstein’s famous mass-energy equivalence—mass as well. “Just as an electric field consists of particles called photons, the Higgs field consists of Higgs bosons woven into the vacuum,” he explains. “Physicists have now blasted them out of the vacuum and into brief existence.”

But, a view to the Higgs boson did not come easy—or cheap. Thousands of researchers working with a 5.5-billion-dollar atom-smasher at a particle physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, called CERN, used two gargantuan particle detectors, known as ATLAS and CMS, to spot the long-sought boson.

It is unclear where this discovery will lead the field of particle physics in the future but its impact on the physics community this year has been undeniable, which is why Science calls the detection of the Higgs boson the 2012 Breakthrough of the Year. The special 21 December issue of the journal includes three articles written by researchers at CERN, which help to explain how this breakthrough was achieved.

Science’s list of nine other pioneering scientific achievements from 2012 follows.

The Denisovan Genome: A new technique that binds special molecules to single strands of DNA allowed researchers to sequence the complete Denisovan genome from just a fragment of bone from an ancient pinky finger. The genomic sequence has allowed researchers to compare Denisovans—archaic humans closely related to Neandertals—with modern humans. It also revealed that the finger bone belonged to a girl with brown eyes, brown hair and brown skin who died in Siberia between 74,000 and 82,000 years ago.

Making Eggs From Stem Cells: Japanese researchers showed that embryonic stem cells from mice could be coaxed into becoming viable egg cells. They clinched the case when the cells, fertilized by sperm in the laboratory, developed into live mouse pups born of surrogate mothers. The method requires female mice to host the developing eggs in their bodies for a time, so it falls short of scientists’ ultimate goal: deriving egg cells entirely in the laboratory. But, it provides a powerful tool for studying genes and other factors that influence fertility and egg cell development.

Curiosity’s Landing System: Though unable to test their rover’s entire landing system under Martian conditions, mission engineers at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, safely and precisely placed the Curiosity rover on the surface of Mars. The 3.3-ton rover entry vehicle was too massive for traditional landings, so the team took inspiration from cranes and helicopters to create a “sky crane” landing system that dangled Curiosity, wheels deployed, at the end of three cables. The flawless landing reassured planners that NASA could someday land a second mission near an earlier rover to pick up samples the rover collected and return them to Earth.

X-ray Laser Provides Protein Structure: Researchers used an X-ray laser, which shines a billion times brighter than traditional synchrotron sources, to determine the structure of an enzyme required by the Trypanosoma brucei parasite, the cause of African sleeping sickness. The advance demonstrated the potential of X-ray lasers to decipher proteins that conventional X-ray sources cannot.

Precision Engineering of Genomes: The revision and deletion of DNA in higher organisms has generally been a hit-or-miss proposition. But, in 2012, a tool known as TALENs, which stands for “transcription activator-like effector nucleases,” gave researchers the ability to alter or inactivate specific genes in zebrafish, toads, livestock and other animals—even cells from patients with disease. This technology, along with others that are emerging, is proving to be just as effective as (and cheaper than) established gene-targeting techniques, and it may allow researchers to determine specific roles for genes and mutations in both healthy and diseased individuals.

Majorana Fermions: The existence of Majorana fermions, particles that (among other properties) act as their own antimatter and annihilate themselves, has been debated for more than seven decades. This year, a team of physicists and chemists in The Netherlands provided the first solid evidence that such exotic matter exists, in the form of quasi-particles: groups of interacting electrons that behave like single particles. The discovery has already prompted efforts to incorporate Majorana fermions into quantum computing, as scientists think “qubits” made of these mysterious particles could be more efficient at storing and processing data than the bits currently used in digital computers.

The ENCODE Project: A decade-long study that was reported this year in more than 30 papers revealed that the human genome is more “functional” than researchers had believed. Although only two percent of the genome codes for actual proteins, the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements, or ENCODE, project indicated that about 80 percent of the genome is active, helping to turn genes on or off, for example. These new details should help researchers to understand the ways in which genes are controlled and to clarify some genetic risk factors for diseases.

Brain-Machine Interfaces: The same team that had previously demonstrated how neural recordings from the brain could be used to move a cursor on a computer screen showed in 2012 that paralyzed human patients could move a mechanical arm with their minds and perform complex movements in three dimensions. The technology is still experimental—and extraordinarily expensive—but scientists are hopeful that more advanced algorithms could improve these neural prosthetics to help patients paralyzed by strokes, spinal injuries and other conditions.

Neutrino Mixing Angle: Hundreds of researchers working on the Daya Bay Reactor Neutrino Experiment in China reported the last unknown parameter of a model that describes how elusive particles, known as neutrinos, morph from one type or “flavor” to another as they travel at near-light speed. The results show that neutrinos and anti-neutrinos could possibly change flavors differently and suggest that neutrino physics may someday help researchers to explain why the universe contains so much matter and so little antimatter. If physicists cannot identify new particles beyond the Higgs boson, neutrino physics could represent the future of particle physics.

###

Science‘s 2012 Breakthrough of the Year feature, along with a related editorial by Bruce Alberts, Science‘s Editor-in-Chief, and three related articles about the Higgs boson, a podcast interview and other multimedia, will be available for free after the embargo lifts with registration at www.sciencemag.org/special/btoy2012.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is the world’s largest general scientific society, and publisher of the journal, Science as well as Science Translational Medicine and Science Signaling. AAAS was founded in 1848, and includes some 261 affiliated societies and academies of science, serving 10 million individuals. Science has the largest paid circulation of any peer-reviewed general science journal in the world, with an estimated total readership of 1 million. The non-profit AAAS is open to all and fulfills its mission to “advance science and serve society” through initiatives in science policy; international programs; science education; and more. For the latest research news, log onto EurekAlert!, the premier science-news Web site, a service of AAAS.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
63 Comments
RACookPE1978
Editor
December 23, 2012 12:54 pm

Mooloo says:
December 23, 2012 at 12:14 pm
You can’t show my my biological great-great-great-great grandparents, but I’m willing to believe that I had 64 of them based entirely on theory. My existence is pretty much proof, in itself, that I had great-great-great-great grandparents, even without observing them directly.


Ah – BUT you have to complete that analogy accurately! And, as you track the analogy more and more accurately, you should be able to see both the power (of the analogy) and the holes in the theory that “prove” the Higgs Bosun “must have been” discovered.
Assume you have established the number of generations accurately.
And further suppose that we have established you (as an individual) exist at this time.
Reality confirms that you could not conceive yourself.
Nor is there any way you (physically) have conceived (nor given birth to) any of your ancestors.
That establishes ONLY that successive mothers have given birth independently to create the number of generations assumed.
You have concluded 32 conceptions occurred in that generation between 64 different people.

But,
One male could have produced 32 children by 32 different mothers.
Two males could have produced 16 children each by 2 different mothers.
16 males could have produced 32 children from 16 different mothers.
Or ANY other combination in ANY other variations.

Further … To stay inside the realm of the analogy –
If conception occurs every 12 years and one year is allowed between generations for – just barely possible in reality – though not legal nor moral in any universe …. there may be only 65 years in total, and thus only two males and 6 females could produce every generation.
To prove the Higgs Bosun by looking at its offspring, you have to prove nothing else could have created those offspring particles at that position at that time with that energy. Not impossible, but not easy either.

Brian H
December 23, 2012 1:03 pm

After listening to the Particle Physics song above, I couldn’t resist finding a performance of the original:

geran
December 23, 2012 1:28 pm

Ah, the old anode/cathode, electrons entering/electrons leaving debate!
Consider a car battery. The anode (positive terminal) supplies electrons (out of the battery) to the load when the battery is discharging. But, when recharging, the same terminal (anode) accepts electrons (into the battery) from the charger.
So, everyone is right!
(Except the CAGW-ers!)

Karl
December 23, 2012 1:29 pm

Some folks seem to think that these particles actually exists as physical objects, according to their savannah model of the world. Particles this size are nothing like real objects, more like theorethical creations needed to mathematically model that part of the world, trying to understand observations through math. HB is probably one of the least existing objects ever constructed. And the bottom line is that everything is information, processed by the gargantuan universe processor.

geran
December 23, 2012 1:31 pm

And, if that is not confusing enough, the anode is the “negative” terminal to automotive mechanics!

December 23, 2012 1:34 pm

A real pleasure to read on the pages about real scientific endeavours instead of the usual fictional CAGW propaganda episodes. Bring on more real science.

December 23, 2012 1:59 pm

This stuff is on the fringe of my formal education but like most of you I am fassinated by it. Dr. Sean Carroll’s book “The Particle at the End of the Universe” sounds (radio program sound) interesting and Dr. Carroll even made sense. It may be worth your time to look into it. I will as soon as my white bread and I get finished with being Santa. I know dangerous for us skeptical elfs. Read a bit here http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/episode/2012/12/22/december-22-2012/#1 and listen to his interview here http://www.cbc.ca/quirks

December 23, 2012 2:10 pm

It NEVER occurs to these dweebs that their ENERGY in itself may create things.
That their existence in the NATURAL Universe might be NIL.
As Ahhhnold says, “BIG MISTAKE!”

Ben D.
December 23, 2012 3:22 pm

“…holds the key to explaining how other elementary particles (those that aren’t made up of smaller particles),such as electrons and quarks….”
My intuition tells me that all so called particles are not particles at all, but rather spherical standing waves of energy, such standing waves being formed from the harmonic relationship of the higher energy frequencies of the quantum vacuum (or if you prefer,ZPE., etc.,), whose smaller wavelengths go down to Planck length (and perhaps beyond).
I also find it interesting that the Higgs Field is seen as being omnipresent, which is the same attribute given to Dark Energy, ZPE, and CMBR., And let’s not forget the Metaphysician’s Aether and Theologians Spirit, Methinks this is a case of the Blind Men and the Elephant…http://www.awaresilence.com/Inspirational_Stories/Blind_Men_and_an_Elephant.html

Mike M
December 23, 2012 4:11 pm

geran says: And, if that is not confusing enough, the anode is the “negative” terminal to automotive mechanics!

And for electrochemists as well, what goes on on inside is what counts. The electrons flow from the cathode to the anode just like in a vacuum tube but, as opposed to a vacuum tube which is driven from the outside world, the internally driven flow inside a cell makes the anode negatively charged WRT the cathode and therefore labeled (-).

TRM
December 23, 2012 4:17 pm

” David Spurgeon says: December 23, 2012 at 10:46 am
Mr. Higgs went to a Catholic church and was refused entrance! So Mr. Higgs said:
Fair enough, but without me …….. you cannot have…mass! boom boom!! ”
GRRROOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
Made me grin but not laugh.

Doug Huffman
December 23, 2012 4:30 pm

About verificationism and the Higgs boson;
“Observation of a New Particle in the Search for the Standard Model Higgs Boson with the ATLAS Detector at the LHC”. (Physics Letters B 716(1): 1-29. arXiv:1207.7214)
reports less than 1 in 588 million (5.9 Σ) chance of random production in the known production channels. At that time the CMS detector at LHC was independently reporting 5 Σ.
3×10^14 filtered ~8 TeV collisions provided the data. LHC is being upgraded towards its objective 14 TeV collision energy.

DesertYote
December 23, 2012 4:31 pm

J. Murphy
December 23, 2012 at 10:56 am
####
“The Denisovan Genome:”
Maybe after you learn to read, you might learn to think. Like most trolls, your prattlings are completely irrelevant. You are incapable of understanding what is written, so you map it into your distorted world view, misconstruing what it means, then comment on your hallucinatory imaginings.

December 23, 2012 4:42 pm

My understanding of the experiment is that the “Boson evidence” as it was explained in a summary, is “supportive” and “not contradictory” of the existence of the boson. The statistics were right around the background noise of the experiment. I am not a theoretical physicist, but an organic chemist, so my understanding of the statistical data is rudimentary, and I do not have access to the original paper.
Anyone who has digested the original paper and can understand the experimental data, please help my superficial understanding of this specialized field, and explain why the results that were heralded are bona fide. As a sceptic, I am remembering the Martian bacteria fossil fiasco, where even Clinton jumped on the press release. “Life found on Mars”, the papers shouted.
As the late Gilda Radner would have replied, as it was found out that the structures were from an inorganic anomaly— “Never mind”.
I was also at the original paper presented at Stevens Institute of Technology, where “structured water” was claimed by Russian scientists. Speculation followed that if the “structured water” were turned loose, the the oceans would turn solid. Sounds like the black hole that some feared the CERN collider would form and suck us all up, Does it not?
I also read the paper that debunked the structured water claim.
So is it OK for me to wait until the Higgs paper is scrutinized a bit by scientists working in the field? I hope they don’t all behave like climatologists, who are just trying to make a living off grants.

December 23, 2012 4:59 pm

Nothing has been reported about Higgs discovery, if it shines any light, or gets us closer to the Theory of Everything (TOE).

george e. smith
December 23, 2012 5:13 pm

“””””…..GeoLurking says:
December 23, 2012 at 12:19 pm
george e. smith says:
“… the positive direction of current is the direction in which there is a net flow of positive charge. Some military (maybe Navy) electronics schools even teach (or taught) “electron current” back in the vaccuum tube days. So in their view, current travels from anode to cathode, while electrons boil off the filament, or cathode, and travel to the anode.”
Not sure where you are getting this. The only time I ran across the concept of “hole flow” or voltage flow was in the Mk-36 DLS course. A totally foreign way of thinking in my book, but workable if you work at it……”
Well that makes two of us; who “don’t know where you are getting this”
Nowhere did I mention “holes” or “hole flow” nor did I mention “Voltage” or “Voltage flow”, so yes, I don’t know where you got that..
I simply said that the direction of electric current flow IS DEFINED as being the direction of net flow of (positive) electric charge. It is so, regardless; or irregardless as the case may be, of the nature of the charge carrying entities.
So I don’t dispute your assertion that “””””…..The only time I ran across the concept of “hole flow” or voltage flow was in the Mk-36 DLS course. A totally foreign way of thinking in my book, but workable if you work at it……”…..””””” I’ll take your word for that’s where you got it, since I personally have no knowledge of the Mk-36 DLS course; or even what it is.
And since electrons have a negative charge by convention, the mass of the electron travels in the opposite direction to electric charge.
Hole flow is of course SOP in solid state Physics, like musical chairs; if an electron gets up and ducks over to an empty hole, thereby filling that hole, it leaves a hole behind where it vacated. So arguably one can say the hole got up and moved, since it clearly is now in a different place. A difference is, that the electron carries a charge, so evidently a current flows when the electron moves. But can one claim that a positive charge moved with the hole ? All the positive charges are locked up in the nuclei of the atoms, and aren’t about to go wandering around anywhere.
And just how does the hole end up with a different mobility from the electron; when they evidently must both move at the same time !
So far as I know, Voltage never flows anywhere.
Maybe RBatDuke will let us know what he teaches to today’s undergraduates.
When I visited my alma mater, back in March, one of the Physics Professors told me that they still teach that Ohm’s law says I = E/R. I’ve never hired anyone who gave me that as an answer; it is certainly not what George Simon Ohm discovered. The law he discovered; without all the legal boilerplate simply was R = constant. R = E/I is simply the definition of R.
Obedience to Ohm’s law is the rare special case; most conductive materials don’t obey it.

polistra
December 23, 2012 5:23 pm

On electron flow, there’s a real difference between techs and engineers. I used to teach at DeVry, on the tech side, but had to deal with a lot of engineers then and later. Techs draw the current arrows along with the electrons, while engineers draw the arrows the other way to make their math more consistent. It’s just like the meteorologist/climatologist difference, or nurse/doctor. Those who deal directly with the world like to diagram the world realistically, while those who deal mainly with math have other concerns.
This division goes back a long ways. I ran into this nice passage in a 1904 article by W.N.Shaw, in which he was proposing a new way of interpreting barometers dynamically to match human perceptions:
Between professors and students of the mathematical and physical schools of our universities there is a ‘freemasonry’, of which the use of metric units is a sign and from which the students of meteorology are apt to find themselves excluded. If in a [scientific meeting] an unknown stranger would get up and speak in metric units, the initiated physicist would at once say “He must be one of US”, and the uninitiated meteorologist would say “He is one of THEM”. But if he should begin his discourse by speaking in inches and pounds, the physicists would at once say “We need not listen; there can be no dynamics or physics in this.”

george e. smith
December 23, 2012 5:36 pm

“””””…..GeoLurking says:
December 23, 2012 at 12:19 pm
george e. smith says:
…………………………………
Electron flow is Cathode to Anode. That’s also the way it is taught. I taught it that way. (Eight years of instructor duty, four specifically in Electronics technology… the basics)…….”””””
Actually, my very first textbook on electronics, was a Navy text book; all about Spark Transmitters, and Coherers, and such. It was two volumes full of interesting learning. In one of the first chapters, it had a picture of a “copper atom” with a nucleus that contained 63 protons, inside a plum pudding that had 34 electrons embedded in the pudding with just 29 extra electrons whirling around like planets. Published in 1938, it was the celebrated Admiralty Handbook of Wireless Telegraphy.
I think it was around 1938, that Chadwick discovered the neutron, and copper lost its 34 plum pudding electrons.

December 23, 2012 5:57 pm

There are potentially two which some models of the Higg’s predict. Though an error bug in the equipment Oddly; this second one decays into photons. ANd where do the laws of nature come from? THey also plan to dissappear mass in a collision. And it’s theorized to dissappear into other dimensions which remain curled up. In theory. There was that crazy nobel winning physicist who tried to pressure the UN into stopping the LHC due to the possibility of creating a black hole. As if the universe is littered with them. What was he thinking? I’m sure it’s safe though. We have a really good handle on 5% of the universe.

December 23, 2012 6:10 pm

Richard Keen says December 23, 2012 at 10:36 am:
“What – 16 years of no warming inspiring Santer’s peer-reviewed paper that
we need 17 years to make it so isn’t on the list?”
This 16 year figure is looking like it’s getting parroted a fair amount lately.
But, smoothed HadCRUT3, RSS or UAH looks like 11-12 years without
warming, not 16. For example:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/

Kev-in-Uk
December 23, 2012 6:18 pm

geran says:
December 23, 2012 at 1:28 pm
ah well – to be fair, I don’t know the current teaching method! but I was originally taught that electricity flowed positive to negative – then that electrons (- charged particles flowed towards +ve) and then – in the late 70’s, that it was actually the movement of ‘holes’ or rather the spaces left by electrons in an atom that had ‘left’……….all rather confusing, especially when you add on the uncertainty value of an electron (or its ‘hole’/vacant space) actually being there in the first place…….so, the probability of an electron being somwhere is not known – but from where it might have been at any gven point in time it might move somewhere. Yeah, right! QED (that’s meant to be funny, for those that can see the dichotomy)

garymount
December 23, 2012 6:34 pm

When electricity “flows”, there are two types, alternating and direct. With A.C. The electrons flow one direction, then flow back in the opposite direction. D.C. Is all one way. Direction of current depends on what is being considered as to be moving. An electron leaves its orbit and a “hole” is left in its place, which is subsequently occupied by another electron, which also leaves a “hole” behind. So electrons flow in one direction and holes in the opposite direction.
The confusion with positive isn’t about mass but about potential energy differences called voltage which can be likened to pressure differences, as in a water hose.
With regards to R, it is indeed a constant, but only for a specific material, it will be different for each substance, and temperature.
I spent 10 solid years working full time drawing circuit diagrams, and have studied a lot of electronics, but I am rusty in the subject now as I have switched to computing science for the last 2 decades.

Werner Brozek
December 23, 2012 7:21 pm

Donald L. Klipstein says:
December 23, 2012 at 6:10 pm
But, smoothed HadCRUT3, RSS or UAH looks like 11-12 years without
warming, not 16.

To the nearest year, there has been no warming at all for 16 years, statistical or otherwise, on several data sets.
Data sets with a o slope for at least 15 years:
1. HadCrut3: since May 1997 or 15 years, 7 months (goes to November)
2. Sea surface temperatures: since March 1997 or 15 years, 8 months (goes to October)
3. RSS: since January 1997 or 15 years, 11 months (goes to November)
See the graph below to show it all.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.0/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.25/plot/rss/from:1997.0/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1
However in view of the significance of the 16 years lately, I would like to elaborate on RSS. The slope for 15 years and 11 months from January 1997 on RSS is -4.1 x 10^-4. But the slope for 16 years and 0 months from December 1996 is +1.3 x 10^-4. So since the magnitude of the negative slope since January 1997 is 3 times than the magnitude of the positive slope since December 1996, I believe I can say that since a quarter of the way through December 1996, in other words from December 8, 1996 to December 7, 2012, the slope is 0. This is 16 years. Therefore RSS is 192/204 or 94% of the way to Santer’s 17 years.

December 23, 2012 7:40 pm

At Fermilab (Batavia, Illinois) two competing experimental groups (each several hundred physicists) also saw hints (3.5 sigma) consistent with ~125 GeV/c Higgs. At CERN at least two rival experimental groups independently collected the evidence for a Higgs. Remember, real experimentalists want to exclude theoretical predictions and prove the theorist wrong. Even better is to find something no theorist predicted. If experimentalists find evidence supporting a theoretical prediction, the theorist might get the Nobel prize, but the experimentalists won’t. Only when you find something unexpected (J/psi 3.2 GeV/c from 38 years ago) do the experimentalists get the Nobel. That is how real science works. To really understand climate, one would need to understand plasma physics and thus be able to harness fusion, which we are no where near doing. Climate speculators make so many assumptions they appear foolish.

george e smith
December 23, 2012 10:02 pm

“””””…..garymount says:
December 23, 2012 at 6:34 pm
When electricity “flows”, there are two types, alternating and direct. With A.C. The electrons flow one direction, then flow back in the opposite direction. D.C. Is all one way. Direction of current depends on what is being considered as to be moving. An electron leaves its orbit and a “hole” is left in its place, which is subsequently occupied by another electron, which also leaves a “hole” behind. So electrons flow in one direction and holes in the opposite direction.
The confusion with positive isn’t about mass but about potential energy differences called voltage which can be likened to pressure differences, as in a water hose.
With regards to R, it is indeed a constant, but only for a specific material, it will be different for each substance, and temperature……”””””
Why complicate a trivially simple issue. It doesn’t matter whether it is ac, dc pulsed, whatever, the mass of electrons flows in the opposite direction to the current, for the trivially simple reason that some idiot decided to call the charge on an electron negative, instead of positive. Doesn’t really matter which, but if they were going to do that, they should also have defined the direction of current flow as being the direction of travel of negative charge.
And I beg to differ; for most electrically conductive materials R is not a constant. That behavior, observed by Ohm was limited to ONLY metallic conductors, and ONLY under the condition that ALL OTHER physical parameters remain unchanged. It is very difficult to experimentally observe Om’s law in action, because the flow of a current in an Ohmic conductor results in a Temperature change which violates the necessary conditions of , no other physical parameter changes.
There are more electrical circuits on my laptop computer than probably the whole US power grid, and very few of my computer circuits even come close to obeying Ohm’s law.
For starters, the current drawn by the microprocessor chip, and all the memory chips as well; well all of the chips, varies about with the square of the clock frequency. Anything that varies with frequency isn’t even a resistance, so it doesn’t even have a fixed relationship between current and Voltage. LEDs don’t obey Ohms law; their current varies about exponentially with Voltage; current doubles for about every 26 mV increase in Voltage; does for silicon diodes as well, which comes out to 60 mV per decade of current increase. Alternatively you can say the Voltage varies with the log of the current; not even close to linear.; and that relation may hold good over six orders of magnitude of current, for some good diodes.
Well, I could be wrong of course; but then I’ve only been working on LEDs since 1966, and with silicon and germanium diodes and transistors, since 1957, so I might have it a bit scrambled. I’ll googgle wikipedia and read what the real experts say.
But there isn’t any confusion about positive and mass, the electron and its mass travel in the opposite direction to the electric current flow.