Talk:Higgs boson/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

[Citations Needed] Everywhere

This completely ruins the article. If you wanted to be pedantic, you could add hundreds more required citations and frankly, it's getting on my nerves seeing [citation needed] every damn line. It is quite clear by the majority of Wiki articles that this site is never going to attain the standards it aspires to.109.150.201.210 (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

They are not everywhere, they are confined almost entirely to one section. The entire first part of the "Theoretical properties" section contains but a single citation for a relatively minor point. This section should be the meat of this important article but is currently atrociously referenced. It clearly requires editors to provide citations to claims. Another way to do this would be to put a section clean-up tag here but at least citation needed tags are more specific in that they show the statements that need to be substantiated. ChiZeroOne (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

They do serve to ruin that section. The point made in the previous paragraph lacks an understanding of what is being stated. Every sentence should not have a citation; indeed, most sections would be over-served with one. Obviously you feel the need to complain but do it without the graffiti next time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.87.160.3 (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

At some point in the future I will find time to look for proper citations for those statements.TR 01:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The mass is the electric dipole moment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.129.140.153 (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Bosons are not all elementary

Replaced ‘class of elementary particles called bosons’ with ‘class of subatomic particles known as bosons’ . Of course, the Higgs IS an elementary boson, but in general bosons are not all elementary -- mesons are composite bosons. The idea of clarifying the boson part of the name in the lead appears helpful. I included a link to subatomic particle, which may be a more generally accessible article. Puzl bustr (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

That has the same problem since not all bosons are subatomic either. (Helium atoms for example are also bosons).TR 10:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Higgs symbol: h or H⁰ ?

In the Quantum Diaries blog post H⁰ is referred to a Goldstone boson that is bound into Z boson at low energies. The Higgs boson to be discovered is referred to as h lowercase. Aekton (talk) 06:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Usage

If they find this boson, how can we use it then? will it simplify our lives somehow? Aaker (talk) 10:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there will be any practical technological use. (Just like most other unstable fundamental praticles.) Nonetheless, being able to create and detect these particles will allow us to establish their properties more precisely, which in turn is very important for understanding physics beyond the standard model. (And there is no telling, how understanding that may turn out to be technologically useful.)TR 10:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. It will be interesting to see if our invested tax money ever pays off. Aaker (talk) 18:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

As soon as we know whether the Higgs exists or not, it will have already been paid off. Money is not the only purpose of investing money in something. Knowledge is invaluable. Also, you would best rememeber that new scientific discoveries are very, very rarely immediately put into practical use. It could take anywhere from 30 to 100 years before we have the technology to not only study elementary particles, but to actually use them for something that could be profitable. Even if we never discover something, it has not been a waste. 14.53.183.65 (talk) 03:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Little Higgs

Is it possible to integrate mention of the Little Higgs models into this article? Not an expert, but it sounds relevant. 70.247.165.249 (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed the "Common misconception" section (It is often believed that the Higgs boson's existence would explain the origin of mass.)

[This edit]:

"It is often believed that the Higgs boson's existence would explain the origin of mass. Strictly speaking, this statement is not correct: while this particle might be a good explanation of the origin of mass of the weak bosons, the origin of mass of the Higgs boson itself is not explained by theory. Instead, this mass was introduced "by hand" - as a free parameter inside the Higgs potential which makes it yet another free parameter of the Standard Model. Within a framework of the Standard Model (or its extensions) the theoretical estimates of this parameter's value are possible only indirectly and results differ from each other significantly. Thus, the usage of the Higgs boson (or any other elementary particle with predefined mass) alone is not the most fundamental solution of the mass generation problem but only its reformulation ad infinitum."

It was removed by editor [Ptrslv72] on grounds "what appears to be an editor's personal speculation. Please provide reliable source in talk page". I object: the references given prove that Higgs boson's mass is not explained by electroweak theory but postulated ab initio. Thus, one mass is de facto explained by introducing another mass. What's wrong with these references and derived conclusion? --Rongended (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rongended, several things were "wrong" in the paragraph you added, and I'm glad that we can discuss them here:

First of all, as you've just written yourself, you "derived (your own) conclusion" from two academic sources, and put it in the Wikipedia article. This violates Wikipedia's policy on original research, especially the part on synthesis of published material that advances a position. Please have a look at the links to understand how it works. What you should have done is to quote a reliable secondary source that makes your claim, if you can find any.

As to the physical content of your statement, it does not seem correct either. The mass of the Higgs boson is proportional to the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field, just as the gauge boson masses are. It is true that the Standard Model does not predict the value of the quartic Higgs coupling (and hence the Higgs mass), but, if you think about it, the SM does not predict the value of the electroweak gauge couplings (and hence the gauge boson masses) either, nor does it predict the value of the Yukawa couplings (and hence the fermion masses). It just so happens that we have already measured the gauge-boson and fermion masses but not the Higgs mass (at least until the summer conferences ;-) In summary, the Higgs mechanism requires the addition of one more free parameter to the SM, but it does indeed explain how the gauge bosons, the fermions and the Higgs acquire their mass without destroying the principle of gauge symmetry on which the model is built.

As a final comment, I would say that there is a "common misconception" in the statement that the Higgs mechanism (not "the Higgs boson existence") explains the origin of mass. Indeed, the mechanism generates the masses of elementary particles, but the masses of protons and neutrons, which after all make up most of the mass of the matter around us, are in fact almost entirely due to the strong interaction. This is however already mentioned in the article (see footnote 1 in the second paragraph of the lead).

I hope it helps. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Nope, it does not. Hello.

Ok, I see that first we need to clarify physics here before falling into juggling with Wikipedia rules and cavilling at every word. None of your arguments is contradicting to the contribution you've had deleted. Your appeal to experiments is irrelevant here too since we are talking about pure theory (which is required by semantic meaning of the word "explanation"). Otherwise, one ends up explaining future experiments by past experiments and the whole meaning of a theory deteriorates. Let me elaborate more on it.

For instance, your statement "the mass of the Higgs boson is proportional to the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field, just as the gauge boson masses are." is a tautology. From the viewpoint of a theory, the VEV is a secondary (derived) noton. The primary notion of the electroweak theory (or any other QFT) is the Lagrangian and not VEV nor scattering amplitudes, as one can read from any standard textbook on QFT. Therefore, the correct satement is that it is the VEV which is proportional on the mass parameter of the Higgs potential whereas the latter is the part of the Lagrangian (see below).

Thus, one must always start with the Lagrangian of the Electroweak interaction theory (EWT). The Higgs-boson sector of the EWT Lagrangian is postulated (by hand!) and contains two free parameters, as one can read from any standard textbook on Standard Model (SM). One of these parameters is the mass of Higgs bozon (coefficient in front of the quadratic term w.r.t. Higgs field). If one uses the notation from this page then one can easily see that this mass is the combination of the parameters lambda and v: m_h = lambda v^2.

Do you agree with that? I hope that you do otherwise we'll have to go back to basics of QFT.

Now: notice that EWT does not explain not only the value of the coefficient m_h but also its origin. In other words, EWT treats it as an abstract symbol, and all derived observables, including masses, would depend on it. Thus, one mass is explained by introducing another mass, which does not look like a fundamental explanation. Indeed, doing that way one can "explain" everything since initially you have input so many free parameters (in general, SM contains about 20 free parameters including masses, couplings and mixing angles which origins and values are not explained but borrowed from experiment). Am I wrong?

Moreover, don't forget that EWT (and SM in general) is not a finite theory but only renormalizable. This essentially means that if one tries to derive observables (including masses) using EWT, one gets meaningless expressions (divergences). The renormalizability means that one can somehow group those divergent Feynman diagrams into few combinations and replace (by hand!) those (still divergent) combinations with the experimentally measured ones. However, this again implies that EWT is not a complete theory - if you don't have your experimental data in hand then you would still believe that your theory gives divergent observables - including masses. This does not look like a fundamental theory or explanation of origin of mass either. Do you agree?

The "common misconception" means that not only general public but also many people working in high energy theory either are unaware of the above-mentioned issues ("it's not my job, I'm only processing data/computing diagrams") or don't want (afraid?) to speak up their existence to public or mass-media. Instead everybody keeps talking that "Higgs boson explains origin of mass, bluh bluh" which is not only incorrect but also dangerous for the evolution of the fundamental physics. Today you guys hide theoretical facts from people, tomorrow you'll start "correcting" experimental data.

Thus, don't rush with your judgement here, think about basics of EWT and QFT (as well as about what I wrote) a bit longer. --Rongended (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Please, read Ptrslv72's last paragraph again. Also, be sure to wear your tin-foil hat tonight.TR 16:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that the disagreement is just about what the word explain is supposed to mean, not about physics. (“If a tree falls in a forest and no-one hears it, does it make a sound?” “It makes an acoustic wave but it makes no auditory sensation.”) ― A. di M.​  17:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not in a position to debate the details of the physics involved in the discussion but it seems to me that Ptrslv72's response is an exemplary one from the point of view of Wikipedia policy and practice. If Rongended's views are supported by reliable authorities, then fine, let's include them. If they are not, no matter the power of their logic, then they have no place here. Ben MacDui 17:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Rongended, it would seem that you have some serious misconception about the meaning of a statement such as "the Higgs mechanism explains the origin of mass". Nobody claims that the Higgs mechanism can predict (or explain) the values of the masses of the Standard Model particles. As I wrote above, and as you seem to agree upon, the gauge and Yukawa couplings (as well as the Higgs vev) are free parameters of the SM, and it just so happens that they have already been measured, whereas another free parameter of the SM, the quartic Higgs coupling lambda, has not. When people say that "the Higgs mechanism explains the origin of mass", they mean that the Higgs mechanism explains how the SM particles can acquire a mass in a way that does not violate explicitly the symmetry principle the SM is built upon, i.e. gauge symmetry. True, this requires the introduction of a scalar field and of additional parameters in the Lagrangian, but so what? If a Higgs boson is indeed found, and if it is found to have the properties predicted by the SM, it will mean that the model works. If it is not found, it will mean that the model doesn't work, and people will look for an alternative description of electroweak symmetry breaking. You may dislike the Higgs mechanism (indeed, some people find it unsatisfactory that the Higgs mass term in the scalar potential needs to be set "by hand" to a negative value), and you may dislike (or - more likely - misunderstand) the concept of renormalization, but a Wikipedia article is not the right place to vent your personal frustrations, and least of all to howl at conspiracies. Find reliable sources for your statements (good luck with that) or bring your crackpottery somewhere else. Ptrslv72 (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Ptrslv72, I was writing about basic things which can be found in any standard textbook on QFT or SM. If you don't know the drawbacks of the renormalizable theories then please read this Wikipedia page. It is quite short but very mind-refreshing.

Further, there's some misunderstanding about my contribution. I am not rejecting the Higgs boson per se but I believe that this Wikipedia article (as well as this article, of course) must be more honest about the drawbacks and underlying hidden assumptions of the electroweak theory - those whose existence we seem to have agreed about. If you know the way how those issues can be properly reflected in Wikipedia then let's discuss it. Labeling me a crackpot is equivalent to locking yourself in a closet. --Rongended (talk) 07:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Random quotes on the SM Lagrangian from standard textbooks do not make your argument on the "explanation of the origin of mass" any stronger, while claiming that theoretical particle physicists conspire to hide the truth from the public does make you sound like a crackpot. I do not even know what you think we have agreed upon concerning the "drawbacks and hidden assumptions" of the SM. You created a strawman - this idea of yours that the SM should "explain the masses" from first principles - and proceeded to tear it down. As I already told you, the SM does not have to explain anything. It describes - to an amazing degree of precision - the properties and interactions of the known elementary particles, and it predicts the existence of one more particle - the Higgs boson. And while the SM does have well-known drawbacks (such as e.g. the hierarchy problem) which motivate theorists to consider its extensions, the fact of being a renormalizable theory is certainly not one of them. On the contrary, renormalizability is precisely what allows the SM to make meaningful predictions that can be tested by experiments, because it means that all the infinities cancel out of the relations between physical observables. If you want to embark on a bizarre crusade against renormalizability, leave the Higgs article alone and go to the renormalization article, which is already enough of a mess. But even there you will have to provide reliable sources for your claims, you cannot just use Wikipedia as an outlet for your personal speculations. Ptrslv72 (talk) 10:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, everything that could be said has been said. It's sad that you didn't make an effort to look behind the box, so let's wrap this up.

As for the accusations in conspiracy then I didn't make any claims about it, don't distort my words. But if you are trying to argue here that theoretical particle physicists are perfectly protected from any sort of temptations and unethical behaviour then it seems that there were some counter-examples (precedents), unfortunately: look here or, in more details, here. Notice that in this story people and institutions were involved who are working precisely in the electroweak business. Again, I don't know to what extent this story is true so, perhaps, you know the full truth (as long as you know everything)? --Rongended (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

And this has got exactly what to do with the article? The claim that the Higgs mechanism would explain the masses of elementary particles is correct, provided the word "explain" is taken to mean "constitute the mechanism by which it comes about". (If "explain" is taken to mean "constitute the ultimate reason why the universe works this way, as opposed to any other mathematically possible way", it doesn't, but then nothing in science ‘explains’ anything else in that sense – teleology is hardly within the scope of science, unless you count stuff like the anthropic principle.) ― A. di M.​  20:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Imaginary mass of scalar in Higgs sector at energies above symmetry-breaking scale (aka "tachyonic unbroken Higgs problem")

Contribution Open problems.

Discussion starts here. --Ownedroad9 (talk) 07:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Basic failure in thermic field theory. At temperature above the EW symmetry braking scale, the effective potential looses its tachyonic nature, and forms a proper stable vacuum. See any book on the subject, e.g. these lecture notes. There never is a tachyonic-like particle excitation of the theory.

More essential in terms of policy is that contribution is not backed by reliable sources that back the claim that the appearance of a tachyonic potential in the higgs model is somehow problematic. That conclusion is purely based on a flawed synthesis of the presented sources.TR 08:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thermic field theory and temperature are both irrelevant here because both Standard Model and GWS model are theories formulated in flat space (therefore, the lecture notes you provided are irrelevant too) and the electroweak system is not attached to any thermostat or thermal bath. Thus, the only scale which matters here is the energy scale not the temperature scale. Above the electroweak energy scale the scalar sector becomes tachyonic as it is explicitly mentioned in the first two references.

Notice also that thermic field theory is not a part of Standard Model but external theory which requires experimental evidence on its own, and thus it can't be regarded as a fundamental law of Nature. For instance, it is not even clear how to define temperature for systems outside the thermal equilibrium.

In any case, your arguments can be regarded at most as another possible solution to the problem (although it is known that SM is not fully compatible with general relativity and notion of curved space) but not as only one available. --Ownedroad9 (talk) 10:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

High energy scale is the samething as high temperature. And no those lecture notes are not irrelevant. (Please look for the section about the EW phase transition, which gives the standard treatment describing how EW symmetry is restored at high energies.)TR 11:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You don't quite understand the notion of temperature. Unlike energy, temperature T is not a fundamental microscopical notion but an effective description of thermal environment which is connected to the (sub)system in question. Indeed, take look at those lecture notes yourself: after eq (213), you can read out "The question we are interested in is the dynamics of the scalar field governed by the action (185) in a finite temperature bath, whose temperature slowly decreases, as it is the case in an expanding universe."

In any case, in "pure" SM there is no thermal bath and spacetime is flat. Any cosmological or finite-temperature modifications of SM are not a part of SM. --Ownedroad9 (talk) 11:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, the formulae in the proposed section are plain wrong, as are the implications drawn from them. This is standard textbook stuff and should not be discussed in the talk page of a Wiki article, but we can make an exception to keep the editor Ownedroad9 from spreading his misconceptions to all the Higgs-related articles.

Let's take for simplicity the Goldstone model, i.e. a complex scalar H with a mexican-hat potential (the generalization to the SM where H is a SU(2) doublet is easy), The scalar potential is:

V = m^2 |H|^2 + lambda |H|^4,

note that the parameter m^2 (absent in Ownedroad9's formulae) is not the mass of any particle. The potential has a mexican-hat shape if m^2 <0 and lambda>0. In this case, it's easy to see that the potential has a minimum for |H|^2 = -m^2/(2 lambda).

we can therefore expand the field around a real vacuum expectation value: H = (v + h + i G)/Sqrt[2], where v = Sqrt[-m^2/lambda]. Inserting the expression for H in the scalar potential we get:

V = (m^2*v + lambda*v^3) h + 1/2 (m^2 + 3*lambda*v^2) h^2 + 1/2 (m^2 + lambda*v^2) G^2 + (trilinear, quartic and constant terms)

Finally, using the fact that m^2 = - lambda*v^2 we see that the term linear in h disappears (as it should), the squared mass of h is 2*lambda*v^2 (positive!) and the squared mass of G is zero (indeed, G is the Goldstone boson associated to the global rotational symmetry of the scalar potential).

In summary, there are no tachyons in the model. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 10:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Formulae are correct. Please, don't confuse the Lagrangians below and above the symmetry-breaking energy scale. The contribution doesnt object the bradyonic mass of the Higgs boson (which is below the symmetry-breaking energy scale), it only points out at the problems in the scalar sector above the scale. --Ownedroad9 (talk) 10:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

In zero-temperature quantum field theory, there is no such thing as Lagrangians below or above the symmetry-breaking scale. There is just one Lagrangian, the one I wrote above (minus the kinetic term, of course) and the symmetry is either broken or unbroken depending on the value of the parameters m^2 and lambda. For m^2<0 and lambda>0 the symmetry is broken, and the Higgs field H acquires a vacuum expectation value. The physical Higgs particle - whose mass is never tachionic - is the fluctuation of the Higgs field around the vev. At energies much larger than the weak scale you can simply approximate mh~v~0 (with respect to the energies at play), but this does not mean that any field becomes tachionic. And if you are thinking of finite-temperature QFT, just have a good read at the reference proposed by TimothyRias (or any other textbook).

BTW, note that you can derive the same consequences that I outlined above even if you write the potential in your favorite way (it's just a different normalization of the vev):

Start from V = lambda*(|H|^2 - v^2)^2

This clearly has a minimum for |H| = v. Then expand your field H around the vacuum expectation value v as:

H = v + (h + i G)/Sqrt[2]

plug this expression for H into the potential and you get the same as above (only now the mass of h is 4*lambda*v^2 due to the different normalization of v). Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course, there is such thing. The set of your field-theoretical degrees of freedom below symmetry-breaking scale is different from above - and so is the Lagrangian. You can call it "two L" or "two forms of L" but it doesn't solve the problem.

Again, your last argument applies only below the EW-scale energy. Above the energy this expansion is nor longer valid. --Ownedroad9 (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Please do not confuse the "bare" Lagrangian with the Lagrangian at large energy scales. (For any idea what the potential looks like at high energies see Fig 48 and 49 of the lecture notes I linked. Although that is a simple Toy model involving just 1 scalar field.)TR 12:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Even in the framework of zero-temperature QFT, Ownedroad9 appears to be totally confused about the meaning of "above" or "below" the EW scale energy. Ownedroad9, what do you think "above the EW scale" means? It just means that you compute some process (e.g. the scattering of two particles) that involves an energy E much greater than v (where v = 246 GeV or, in your normalization, 174 GeV). In that case you can approximate v~0 if you like. But then you must make the same approximation (i.e., neglect v) both in the expansion of the field H AND in the potential. You cannot neglect v in one place and keep it in the other, otherwise you get a nonsensical result. If you neglect v in the potential you are left with V = lambda*|H|^4, i.e. no mass term at all. Of course all of this is valid at the classical level only (quantum corrections would induce a mass term anyway), but there is no point in discussing renormalization if you don't understand the basic concepts first. Ptrslv72 (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyway the point here is that you reach a novel conclusion: that there is a "tachyonic unbroken Higgs problem". There is no mention of a "tachyonic unbroken Higgs problem" anywhere in the scientific literature. Wikipedia policy (specifically WP:SYNTH) prohibits the inclusion of novel conclusion. Even if they are reached based on individual arguments that can be sourced. The onus here is on you, to provide a reliable source which confirms your conclusion. Not on us to teach you physics. (Although I might suggest you read tachyonic field and the Motl blog you used as a source, to clarify some of the misconceptions you have about field theories with a negative mass squared term in the Lagrangian.)TR 11:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Needless to say, TimothyRias is 100% correct on the Wikipedia policy. Ptrslv72 (talk) 11:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Nope, this conclusion is not novel. Moreover, it is sourced: for instance, from the first reference you can read out: " What’s interesting is that the original, “unbroken” Higgs, with its tachyonic mass term, is still really there in the Lagrangian, albeit 246 GeV away from the vacuum state. " Besides, this conclusion was supported by a simple derivation. --Ownedroad9 (talk) 11:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

1) A blog post is not a reliable source.

2) That source does not say that this is a problem.TR 12:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The relevant paragraphs in Motl's blog post read:

The latter case corresponds to tachyons. As you can see, tachyons signal instabilities akin to Columbus' egg standing on its tip. For example, the Higgs field in the Standard Model would be a tachyon if the symmetry remained unbroken. However, the Universe with such a Higgs field would be unstable much like the egg. It would spontaneously choose a random direction and "fall"; the speed of the fall would be growing exponentially, at least for a little while.

The key question is what happens with the egg if you make it stand on its tip but it eventually falls. The ordinary egg will find another, stable position. Whether or not this occurs for a tachyon in a physical theory depends on the details. The final fate of the Universe with a tachyon - a counterpart of the egg - depends on the existence of a minimum of the tachyonic potential. For example, the potential has a minimum in the Standard Model (a whole sphere of minima whose points are, however, equivalent due to the original gauge symmetry). This minimum describes the spontaneously broken electroweak symmetry - a situation in which our world lives today. If you expand the potential energy around this point, you will find out that the squared masses are never negative. Higgses becomes massive particles and the tachyons disappear if the theory is described as a small perturbation around a stable point - around a minimum of the potential as opposed to a maximum (or a saddle).

Of course, there is nothing here that supports Ownedroad9's interpretation. The parameters of the Standard Model are such that the symmetry is broken, and the Higgs particles are the fluctuations of the field around the vacuum expectation value. Ptrslv72 (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The other blog post appears to be a crackpottish "explanation" of the OPERA result, and the sentence quoted by Ownedroad9 does not make much sense. In any case, TR is again right that neither blog post can be used as a reliable source in Wikipedia (although it is obvious that one of the bloggers understands physics much better than the other). Ptrslv72 (talk) 12:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

wording

The article currently says "...550 to 1 probability (2.9 sigma) that their observations were due to the Higgs versus a statistical fluctuation. "

Shouldn't that be a 550 to 1 probability against the observations being due to statistical fluctuations? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes (though “probability against” is not standard wording AFAIK – you'd say “probability 1/550 that” (or “551 to 1 odds against” or “1 to 551 odds that”)). And strictly speaking that's the probability that if there's no Higgs a statistical fluctuation would result in observations like theirs – I know that's a counter-intuitive question to ask, but that's frequentist statistics. For the probability that there's a Higgs there given the observation, you need Bayesian statistics. A. di M. (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I reworded it. How does it look? Woz2 (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

That is fine. The way is was worded before made it sound like there was a 1 in 550 chance that it had been found (to me, at least). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Two experimental sections?

As far as I can see, the sections "Experimental search" and "Timeline of experimental evidence" are mostly redundant. I think they should be merged. --D.H (talk) 10:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, "Timeline of experimental evidence" is a subsection of "Experimental search". When it was introduced (not by me), it was meant as a list of short, one-line items. I believe that the subsection could still be useful in that form, but it's true that some editors get confused about its purpose and load it with unnecessary detail (BTW this is why I just removed a quote from the last item). Anyway, the section is destined to undergo frantic editing in the next few days, I think that we should wait for the dust to settle before making major changes. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 10:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Let's just add brief bullets for now and rework into prose later when things settle down a bit. My 2 femtocents. Woz2 (talk) 10:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

BTW, there was a huge spike in page views yesterday, so readers are clearly interested and reading our contributions http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Higgs_boson No pressure! :-) Woz2 (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Over 100 000 views yesterday alone. Amazing - if the numbers are correct. --D.H (talk) 11:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Good luck tonight!

Hi everyone who has done such fine work on the article -- great job. Just want to say good luck with any changes tonight and hope that editing work can continue to balance the needs of scientists who will want very precise and detailed language about the Higgs boson and the latest findings and the many interested drifters (like myself) who will want a more simple (but not less correct!) encyclopedia article to explain the hoopla! Cheers! -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

FWIW - Seems AP News has reported that indirect evidence supporting the existence of the Higgs boson has been found => [< ref name="APNews-20120702">Heilprin, John; Borenstein, Seth (July 2, 2012). "APNewsBreak: Evidence of 'God particle' found". AP News. Retrieved July 3, 2012.</ref>] - a brief edit re this news item has been added to the lede in the main Higgs boson article - please feel free to adjust this edit as needed of course - In Any Case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The AP article is a cautious rehash of the July 2 release from Fermilab and CERN. The new release from CERN will be in a few hours. Woz2 (talk) 01:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments - and efforts - no problem whatsoever - should know something more substantial about all this in a short while I would think - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

This site:[1]?--Makecat_Talk 05:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Ease of reading by non-scientists

For the Layman Part 2

Like hundreds of thousands of people I have been led to this page after reading CERN news reports. I'm sorry but I was disappointed and I know that I am not alone. I'm not a physicist but I am an engineer with a long standing interest in physics. Even so, after the first paragraph I completely switched off. The article is self-indulgent, it feels like it belongs to a 'closed shop' of physicists only and it places being 'correct' above all other principles, including those of an open, accessible encyclopaedia.

We have to ask ourselves - what is the purpose of the article? If it is a reference for physicists then we must redefine Wikipedia itself and what it stands for.

Yes - I know - a subject like this is necessarily complicated, abstract and contains non-intuitive concepts - all of which adds to it's appeal, it's air of mystery and are reasons why everyone wants to know a bit more about it, to be caught up in the excitement perhaps.

Many people question the spending of many billions of dollars. Is it a fair question? Should the answer reside in this article, or be dismissed with a handwave - 'you won't understand'. Ok help us understand!

This is what the very interested layman/college student wonders: Why do things have mass and inertia? When I push something, it wants to stay where it is. Why? How can we answer these questions, accessibly, within the framework of the Higgs Field? How about a few well drawn illustrations? It's a very wordy article. The rudimentary concepts should come first. At present we have a 'top-down' approach which requires drilling through link to link to often end in frustration. Every high school will want to access this page, but it looks out of bounds.

I'm not here to criticise, just to help. The author has put much time and effort into the article, well done, but I'd love to hear some more opinions on this. Evans1911 (talk) 09:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree and it is a problem not only with this article but many that deal with physics and mathematics on Wikipedia. I think part of the reason it is that way is that there are very few with the qualifications necessary to explain it better. Most who edit Wikipedia are laymen just like you and me. 85.230.137.182 (talk) 09:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: perhaps a construction like Evolution and Introduction to evolution is what you're looking for. This could also be done with physics. --Pereant antiburchius (talk) 11:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

We don't even need to create a new article for that – we could turn this one into the analogue of “Introduction to evolution”, and leave all the more advanced stuff in Higgs mechanism. A. di M. (talk) 12:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Your disappointment seems to stem largely from the fact that this article does not live up to the media hype (which contains a lot of nonsense). The Higgs field does not tell us anything about why objects have inertia.

Nor is this the place to discuss whether the LHC is worth its costs. If anywhere that question needs to be adressed in the LHC article. (And even there, there is little that can be included on wikipedia due to the subject nature of the question.)

I do however understand you frustration. However, you do need to realize that it is not easy to write article about subjects as technical as this, which are accessible to a wide audience. Even more so, due to the restrictions set by Wikipedia policy.TR 11:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand the confusion caused by media hype, which is why there should be more information for the layman, in particular I think it would be helpful to answer these questions, the ones everyone wants an answer to:

Why is it so important to find evidence of the Higgs Boson? I can work out that doing so places a piece in a mathematical jigsaw puzzle, but is it the last piece? If as you say the Higgs field tells us nothing about mass or inertia, then what exactly does it tell us? How could it benefit mankind?

Why spend so much? I disagree that we can't talk about cost here. Every taxpayer wants to understand what his money is spent on and why. Placing an answer in the LHC article would create a circular reference to the Higgs Boson, the particle which needs a huge and costly accelerator to detect. Evans1911 (talk) 13:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Because the Wiki talk pages are NOT A FORUM.

In the layman's order; so we know, yeah kinda, mass yes inertia no, who knows?, for science! If there's more, we should work on having them in Introduction to the Higgs field. Darryl from Mars (talk) 13:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The Wiki talk pages ARE A FORUM for discussion of modifications to the article, in case you had forgotten. So the answer to why? Is 'because we can, but we don't really know'? Great answer. Your last sentence is really helpful. Can we just paste it into the article? Evans1911 (talk) 14:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Just scientific gobbledygook

I just came to this article too, after hearing that the "god particle" had been discovered. I hoped to "understand" what the fuss was all the about. However like another poster noted, this article has left me cold. It's punctuated with technical phrases that can only be worked out through their linking to further long-winded articles. Frankly I have to agree this is self indulgent. If Wikipedia is supposed to be an enclyclopedia for all, then arguably it should be written in terms that can be understood by all!! I do not think you should have to read Physics 101 to understand what a "Higgs Boson" is/does etc. IMO this article needs to be rewritten in a less heavy-handed manner with less dependence on scientific terms - that only mean things to those in the "know" - and more in terms that a lay person would understand. I am also prompted by the quote from Albert Einstein who sagely noted:

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.

I am sure the father of Quantum Theory would agree with that I am stating, considering the quality of this article, and others like it!!109.150.238.91 (talk) 11:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

By "the father of Quantum Theory", are you referring to Max Planck? ArishiaNishi (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

There may be a certain conceit in hoping to 'get it' when you jump in to any article. By this metric, every article must first explain every scientific concept which comes before it. The truth is that an encyclopedia is not a way to learn an entirely unfamiliar subject. It is a reference for existing knowledge. Darryl from Mars (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

In the interests of being helpful, but far from exact or rigorous, maybe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIg1Vh7uPyw is the right speed? Darryl from Mars (talk) 11:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it's possible to make things understandable without sacrificing accuracy. The experts do it all the time and acknowledge that Wikipedia has a problem. I also disagree that there is any conceit in expecting to get the gist of an article — but most of us can't even get that. Few editors, it seems, even attempt to follow WP:TECHNICAL. Has anyone read the caption for today's featured picture on the main page? That's the kind of convoluted nonsense I'm talking about! --50.46.252.252 (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Consider 'Write one level down'. At what level would you put an accurate understanding of this subject, realistically? Darryl from Mars (talk) 12:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

There is an introduction Introduction to the Higgs field which I have put on as a hat note. This is still pretty heavy going, but may be easier than this one. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The article doesn't seem that bad to me. Quite frankly how simple do you expect an article on the cutting edge of experimental particle physics is going to be. There is an article here which is written in simple english which might be helpful. As with most wikipedia articles, this is a work in progress. No one pretends it doesn't need improvement although if it's dumbing down that's needed then I think the Introduction to the Higgs field article is a good place to start. Polyamorph (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The simple version is: it's the particle that gives other particles mass. This is stated in the introduction. If you want to understand the hows and whys, though, that can't really be explained simply. It would require explaining quantum physics, atomic theory, etc. in this article, which gets out of hand quickly. It's not "gobbledygook." The jargon has a purpose. It's not meant to be obscure, but it's necessary to make everyone is talking about the same thing.

To make a tortured analogy: it's like asking how a skyscraper stays up, without knowing what curtain walls, or tube structures are, or even what a girder is.

I don't expect to jump straight into molecular biology and understand the hows and whys, because I haven't studied chemistry beyond a high school level. There are a lot of subjects I'd have to read about to grasp what's going on in that article. That's the nature of educating yourself, though. Wikipedia at least makes it easy to find the other articles and proceed from there.

I'm not a particle physicist, so I only understand the loosest bit of what the Higgs boson is. I've been able to piece enough together from Wikipedia articles to get the basic gist, though. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

This article is the best direct explanation I've seen so far, but it gets dense really quick. It's really hard to discuss the subject without delving into some esoteric stuff. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Asking to be able to understand the Higgs boson without Physics 101 (as someone requested above) seems far-fetched. I think the best that can be hoped for is a general introduction for people who do have "Physics 101". Nice job with the article, folks. --C S (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I found the article to be extremely clear and well-stated. If you really find yourself tripping over these concepts, your basic knowledge is simply inadequate. Particle physics and quantum mechanics are not in Physics 101. It took humanity until the 20th century to really get close to understanding the physics of the very small. Inherent in that is the fact that you have to situate yourself in the context of the article before you will understand the implications. Everyone can say Einstein came up with the theory of relativity, E=mc^2, but don't even know that the former is not exactly the latter, although it does encompass it. Understanding what the theory of relativity is and means is not simple, as some would hope. The Higgs mechanism is even more advanced. That's just the way it is. If it really bothers anyone, take some university level physics classes or follow all those hyperlinks in the text and build up your own understanding. That is the only way to do it justice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.87.160.3 (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

lost in the verbage

For those of us who don't recognize its alternative names because we're not in the field, one of the alternative explanations should be labeled "string theory" if that's what it is, or "string theory falls into this class" or whatever is appropriate. The word "string" doesn't even appear on the page. 108.45.122.74 (talk) 11:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

String ‘theory’ (sorry, I can't get myself to call it a theory without scare quotes) is a different thing altogether. A. di M. (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

simple english link

Based on the feedback, maybe it's a good idea to give a prominent link to the Simple English Wikipedia version of this article? 24.84.4.202 (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

No, we don't do that, we solve it in this version of Wikipedia.

I've added a "simple non technical overview". Hopefully enough. Please add citations from elsewhere in the article, busy day here, but with luck this will help. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Also updated the introduction to make it more comprehensible to general readers. Any better? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

SM diagram with Higgs?

I noticed this SM diagram:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg

... is used in various place on Wikipedia, it but lacks the Higgs. Is there a reason? if not does anyone have an updated version that does include it? In other words a free version something like this:

http://www.benbest.com/science/standard.jpg

Woz2 (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Suspicious mass discrepancy

The infobox says that one team gave a mass of 125.3±0.6 GeV/c2 and the other team gave a mass of 126.5±0.6 GeV/c2. I see only threee possibilities: that the Higgs Boson has a mass of exactly 125.9 GeV, that there are two different Higgs bosons with slightly different masses, or that the actual mass of the boson is outside the confidence interval given by one of the two teams, which would call the reliability of their data into question. Should the article make note of this discrepancy? 70.99.104.234 (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The given bounds are probably 1 sigma. So, there is no real problem there. (Even if there were though, we could not say anything about it without a reliable source.)TR 15:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

As TR says, the ±0.6 isn't strict limits here. As time goes on and LHC generates more data the values will probably converge. If there would be a joint statement looking at both experiments results together they would calculate a single value (between 125.3 and 126.5), there is no evidence of two different particles as far as I know. During the press conference they mentioned that a joint statement would be presented before the end of the year.85.230.137.182 (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

five sigma

The lead says "exists with a very high likelihood of 99.9767% [3]("five sigma")" but doesn't 5 standard deviations CL correspond to 99.9999426697%85.230.137.182 (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

5 sigma?

There have been several reports stating that the data/peaks found were at a 5 sigma level. However, under the "non-technical" section, it states for some reason that further research is required because evidence has fallen short of 5 sigma. So which is it? I for one have not seen anything stating that it did NOT meet 5 sigma - even the article that is cited in the "fallen short" sentence says that it DID. Can someone who is more familiar on this topic please take a look into it? 70.92.15.101 (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

'citation needed' is not needed

Thanks for the work done writing this article! The article is dotted with 'citation needed' markings which disturb the reading. When a subsection refers to a main article people wanting citations should read the main article and leave the subsection in peace. Please! Bo Jacoby (talk) 19:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC).

That's not how Wikipedia articles work. Anything that needs a cite in this article should be backed up by references in this article. Cites and content in subarticles can come and go and cannot be assumed to be present. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

History, add fact that article regected

... Higgs had his first article on the Higgs boson rejected by the journal "Physics Letters", edited by CERN at the time, the same organization that spent much energy, time and money to find the particle after time...

This explain why the name is "Higgs boson", not "Englert boson"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.236.120.238 (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Still "hypothetical"?

Until today, the first sentence of this article stated that the Higgs Boson is a hypothetical elementary particle predicted by the Standard Model... (emphasis added). Now the words "hypothetical" and "predicted" have been removed, so the same passage states that the Higgs Boson is "an elementary particle within the Standard Model..." I have not gone through the very lengthy editing history since the CERN announcement to see exactly how this change came about and whether there was any controversy or discussion about it. However, in light of what the intro says about the CERN announcement, I wonder whether it is accurate to remove the words "hypothetical" and "predicted". What the article says the CERN scientists announced is that "a particle 'consistent with the Higgs boson' exists with a... likelihood of 99.99994%..." and that "however, scientists still need to verify that it is indeed the expected boson and not some other new particle." This seems to mean that they did not say "we have found the Higgs Boson," but rather "we found something that matches the description of the Higgs Boson, now we have to figure out whether it actually is the Higgs Boson or something else." That's kind of like if someone who has never seen me (or my photograph) is supposed to meet me somewhere at a certain time, and they know my age, skin color, gender, hair color, height, weight and the colors of the clothes I am wearing, and they see someone approaching them at that time and place, matching that description. What they see is "consistent" with me, so the person could be me, and under the circumstances stated it may even be "likely" that it's me, but it could be a lot of other people as well. The person in question still needs to confirm that the person they see is actually me, just as the CERN scientists need to find out whether they have met the actual Higgs or a different particle, which may lack some of the characteristics and functions of the Higgs. So, shouldn't we still say "hypothetical"? I am not sure we even need "predicted". Saying "... hypothetical elementary particle within the standard model" works for me. Neutron (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Typo!

"one of the most complicated scientific instrument ever built"

It should be 'instruments'. If the article was not protected, I would make the change myself, but it is, so I cannot, so I am pointing this out here.

Typo corrected. TR 09:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Future name of the particle?

Is there anything available on a possible future name change for the particle? The name 'Higgs boson' seems rather different compared to other particle names, so is there any talk about changing it when it's discovered, or are they going to keep the current name? CodeCat (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

No one knows. It will probably retain the name "Higgs boson" because that is what just about everyone in the field calls it. --Falcorian ^(talk) 20:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Why would the name change? 71.101.41.253 (talk) 21:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Well all the other particles have names with just one word, and this particle's name has two words. I thought they would follow the same procedure like they do with chemical elements, and let the discoverers decide the final name. Maybe they will call it the higgson? Or the cernon? Just curious! :) CodeCat (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

We also have the names Goldstone boson, Dirac fermion and Majorana fermion, although these do not refer to specific particles. Another issue is that most particles also have one-character symbols, such as μ and W, possibly adorned with sub- and superscripts (with J/ψ as a strange exceptional case). As far as I know, no character has yet been assigned to the Higgs boson, although H would seem to be the obvious choice.  --Lambiam 23:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, PDG (for example)[2] already consistently use H for the SM Higgs boson. I think the five MSSM Higgs bosons already have widely accepted standard symbols too. A. di M. (talk) 09:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

In regards to the two name thing: most people just say "Higgs", much like the W boson and Z boson are normally just refered to as "W" and "Z". Heck, even the muon is often referred to in conversation as just "mu". ;-) I guess we're lazy! --Falcorian ^(talk) 02:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The chances that the Higgs will change name is somewhere between zip and nil. Other particles have been predicted before and most kept their original names after discovery. These include the tau lepton, the top quark, the Z boson, the W boson, and the gluon. Dauto (talk) 03:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

(Nitpick: while the name “top quark” was actually coined earlier than “truth quark”, I suspect that before it was discovered the latter name was more common. A. di M. (talk) 09:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC))

"New Particle" is inaccurate

To say that the particle that was discovered is "new" is like saying that America was new when Columbus came. The "news" page and also the article itself just remove use of the phrase "new particle" unless evidence suggests that the particle was created by man for the first time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ren Guy (talk • contribs) 22:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure... I think 'new' can also mean 'something we didn't know about before'. In the time of Columbus, people called America the new world, didn't they? Even though it always existed? CodeCat (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ren Guy -- new means new, not something that has existed but has just been discovered. ("New World" was not accurate either.) So I have changed "new" to "undiscovered", but because they don't really know what it might be if it is not the Higgs Boson, I have added "possibly." If there is a source that says there is no possibility that it is actually a previously known particle, I suppose we could remove "possibly". Neutron (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It may not have been accurate, but it is what people said, and it's how the word 'new' can be understood in some contexts. Unless you have a citation about the meaning of 'new'? :p CodeCat (talk) 23:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Someone's forgetting Leif Eriksson - disregarding that, the Higgs boson is technically 'new' as its existence was unproven, therefore our near-proving of it has just introduced it to us, making it, from our point of view, new. 217.65.192.93 (talk) 01:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This use of the word 'new' is quite common and perfectly acceptable. Let's not be pedantic. Dauto (talk) 03:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

how far you can go against stated declarations

re: why this article is locked? Fix misquoted value. The σ differ by .1 . 99.90.197.87 (talk)

• 4 July 2012 – the CMS collaboration "announces the discovery of a boson with mass 125.3 ± 0.6 GeV/c² within 4.9 sigma" and the ATLAS collaboration announced that "we observe in our data clear signs of a new particle, at the level of 5 sigma, in the mass region around 126 GeV." These findings meet the formal level required to announce a new particle which is "consistent with" the Higgs boson, but scientists are cautious as to whether it is formally identified as being the Higgs boson, pending further data collection and analysis.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk • contribs) 06:08:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Some kind of section needed for "announcement/aftermath/impact" or "wider cultural impact of the search"

With the recent announcement, I think the article is now missing a section. Topics I would expect to see covered:

• Cultural impact of the search for the Higgs - how it was seen initially, how Higgs boson and search have been (and are now) represented and seen outside the physics community.
• The announcement, how it was represented, "significant voices" in the present scientific and media coverage, aftermath
• Key significant viewpoints in the analysis of the search and discovery
• Analysis of implications and next steps.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a bad idea. The section 'God particle' could probably be incorporated into it as well as the name is part of the media hype. CodeCat (talk) 12:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you kickstart this? Busy times here. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm not really good with writing big sections like that (finding citations especially) so I'd prefer to decline for now. CodeCat (talk) 12:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Someone else want to go for it? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Colour/color charge spelling

A small point, but I just noticed this article is tagged as being in the British dialect of English yet the word color in color charge is presently spelled (or should I say spelt?) the American way. Any one know the policy on this? Woz2 (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change. As far as I know the policy is just to try to be as consistent as possible within the article. The only place I didn't make the change is in the word "Technicolor". Also, I was careful not to break any links, but if I missed anything I apologize in advance.DoctorLazarusLong (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Higgs mechanism/field

It seems to me that alot of this information is not actually about the boson but more generally about the field. there is no good article on the higgs field yet. The higgs mechanism page required updates too— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aperseghin (talk • contribs) 19:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Overview's attempt to assign intent

Old text: The existence of the Higgs boson was predicted in 1964 to explain the Higgs mechanism—the mechanism by which elementary particles are given mass.

New text: The existence of the Higgs boson was predicted in 1964 to explain the Higgs mechanism—the mechanism by which elementary particles have mass.

Controversial, perhaps, but there is nothing that can 'give' particles mass.

205.193.94.40 (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)David Dougherty

Isn't it actually that what we call 'mass' is, in part, a particle's Higgs 'charge' (the strength with which it interacts with the Higgs field) much in the same way that electric charge describes how strongly a particle interacts with the electric field? Aside from that, a lot of explanations I've seen don't ascribe mass as such to the Higgs mechanism, but more specifically inertia. Does the Higgs mechanism have any effect at all on gravity (another result of mass)? CodeCat (talk) 19:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Why so rare and hard to find?

Since the effects of this particle (mass) seem to be ubiquitous, it is very unclear to us ordinary mortals why the particle should be so rare and hard to find. It would be useful if the article could explain this point. 86.179.113.11 (talk) 02:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

A fair point, we cover a lot of that already.

• It's extremely massive hence takes a huge amount of energy (comparatively) to produce;
• The energies involved require high energy collisions and even so a lot of luck;
• It decays extremely quickly, too fast to directly detect, so you have to create and then analyze an immense number of particle patterns to exclude all the other things it could be;
• A "find" requires a very high level of certainty (of the order of 1 in a million +/- a factor) so again you need enough collisions with other causes excluded to allow that extreme level of certainty;
• Technically creating and controlling that level of energy in subatomic particles is a staggering feat of engineering;
• Theory doesn't actually say where to look in the first place (even if it exists) so you have to build a machine capable, build detectors capable, then replicate all of this, then recheck for every and any energy range it could be;
• Last because there is so much new, you do the whole thing with more than one different experiment (in this case ATLAS and CMS) so if you do think you're seeing something, or for some reason something odd happens, you have a second set of results completely different in origin to cross-check with.

Actually that is quite a lot! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Some additional remarks:

• Not all mass is due to the Higgs Field. In fact, most of the mass that we observe in every day life is simply QCD binding energy! It is only the mass of the fundamental particles which are produced by the Higgs mechanism.
• The masses of the fundamental particle are due to the ground state of the Higgs field. The Higgs particle is an excitation of this field. These excitations are rare because of the reasons listed above.

TR 16:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

@FT2, thanks, all those things make sense, but don't really answer the question I had in mind, which perhaps I did not express very clearly. Those things explain why the particle might be hard to create, but they do not explain how a particle so elusive could be implicated in endowing stuff with mass, which is how the popular explanation goes. The obvious question when I hear those popular explanations is why, since almost everything has mass, is space not stuffed with these Higgs particles, or, conversely, why, if there are not countless of these particles pervading all space, does anything at all have mass? The picture is no doubt more complicated that popular science explanations have it, and I suppose the answer is related to TR's points. 86.160.84.196 (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the points I mentioned above address exactly that issue. First of all, it is the ground state of the Higgs field that gives fundamental their mass. The Higgs particle is an excitation of the Higgs field above the groundstate. The upshot of this is that there do not need to be "countless Higgs particles pervading all space" to provide fundamental particles their mass. (In fact, there are almost none.)

The second point I made (listed first) is that most of the mass you encounter in the real world is not due to the Higgs mechanism. About 95% of the mass of atoms and molecules is due to the binding energy of the quarks.TR 10:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

See also Yukawa interaction#Spontaneous symmetry breaking which briefly describes the mechanism giving rise to the masses of elementary fermions in terms of an interaction of two fields, the Higgs field (bosonic) and Dirac field (fermionic). This is not the same as an interaction of particles, so you don't require any actual Higgs bosons to interact with fermions. I think that detecting the Higgs boson through its decays (if that does happen!) would lead to information about the Higgs field, and it's all about understanding the fields. Puzl bustr (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I would like to repeat the question why it was so hard to find, considering it has 125 GeV mass. The answer didn't fully answer the question, since the Z boson has 91 GeV mass and the top quark has 173 GeV mass and both were found before 1996.

Not rare... just hard to find (or, more precisely, to detect) because it is so heavy. As has been stated, it is hard to find because it is a heavy particle and requires a super-massive accelerator to generate the required impact to release one on demand. Which is why CERN is the only accelerator that can do it. On a side note, whether the effects of the particle are ubiquitous or not, in neither case does it follow that it would be either rare (which it is not) or hard to find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.174.91 (talk) 03:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Results

Joe Incandela just reported that the CMS experiment has found a new boson at 125.3 +/- 0.6 GeV with 4.9 standard deviations significance (in agreement with the standard model).85.230.137.182 (talk) 08:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

We don't know if it's the Higgs yet or an unexpected new boson. Readro (talk) 08:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

True (but it seems very likely). Fabiola Gianotti from ATLAS reported a signal at 126.5 GeV with 5.0 sigma confidence. Although I'm not sure if the confidence was lower if you consider the "look elsewhere effect"...85.230.137.182 (talk) 08:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Relevant "Results" Reference? => Video (04:38) - CERN Announcement (4 July 2012) of Higgs Boson Discovery - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

To state the Higgs boson has been discovered (July 2012) is wrong and must be removed. A so far unknown particle has been detected, but whether it is the Higgs, is still a theoretical guess. The likelihood of this guess being true has nothing to do with the probability of the detection as such, which is > 99.9999%. At the press conference it was explicitly stated that they do not know when the properites characterizing the Higgs will be tested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.151.209.196 (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is correct. From [3]:

So once the discovery is confirmed, the next question is: "What kind of Higgs boson do we have"? Positive identification of the new particle's characteristics will take considerable time and data. It's rather like spotting a familiar face from afar; closer observation might be needed to tell whether it's an old friend who loves coffee, or her identical twin sister who favours tea. But whatever form the Higgs particle takes, our understanding of the universe is about to change.

So they are calling it a Higgs but are unsure what kind of Higgs it is. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

No it is correct, during the press conference they said they personally believed it must be the Higgs boson, but the only thing they were willing to explicitly confirm (i.e. based on experimental data) was that they had found a new boson consistent with the standard model Higgs boson (although lighter than expected). That it was lighter than expected might be worth mentioning? 85.230.137.182 (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

History Section

Please add a link to the page about the Indian physicist Satyendra Nath Bose, after whom this particle is half-named. I find the omission of the Indian physicist's contribution prejudicial, to say the least. He should also be mentioned in the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dontforgetthebose (talk • contribs) 18:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

See "The Bose in the particle: The Higgs bit we know. But the boson? Western science is overlooking India’s contribution" (http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article3602966.ece). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dontforgetthebose (talk • contribs) 18:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all please assume good faith before making accusations of prejudice. Second, this topic has been discussed already and a consensus reached based on accuracy not prejudice:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Higgs_boson/Archive_2#Origins_of_.22boson.22_in_article_.28collated_threads.29

Hope this helps! Woz2 (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The caption on the picture in the History section seems to have been hijacked by someone, could someone else delete the impromptu Bose biography? I'm not savvy enough to do so.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.162.184.207 (talk • contribs) 08:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistencies and Explanations Needed for the Non-physicist

The lay explanation needs to explain why a new particle is needed to explain mass. I thought mass was a characteristic of matter, and therefore needed no explanation. Also it needs to explain why, if a Higgs Boson is so important for the existence of mass it is so rare and hard to detect. Surely, if mass doesn't exist without it, then given the widespread existence of mass, then the Higgs Boson would have to be extremely common throughout the universe (at least one in each atom?) and be easy to detect. I don't agree with some (see above) that one should have to read every related article on physics in Wikipedia to read this one. For example, a short explanation of what a Boson is would be useful. --Zeamays (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The boson doesn't make the mass, the field does. The boson is a significant deviation from the normal state of the field. Unfortunately, what a boson is is actually almost completely not relevant at all here, and really does belong is some other article, like Boson. Because applying the principle that you should be able to understand anything you want in one article, to explain that, we would be explaining spin, and wave functions, and quantum mechanics....Darryl from Mars (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

At the level of fundamental particle physics, mass is apparently not an actual "property" of matter; rather it emerges ina consistent manner due to forces and fields that act and between those particles (according to best theories). This isn't really very outside everyday experience. For example, we think water "cannot" support objects (but it can if they are small due to surface tension), that fluids cannot flow uphill (but they sometimes can), that everyday objects are solid (but they are almost all empty space in and between atoms), that objects cannot vanish from A and appear at B (but they do at the quantum level), and so on. In simple terms, a lot of what we see and believe is "real" at the everyday level is a kind of illusion created by trillions of particles and force carriers and god knows what, giving rise to large scale epiphenomenae. It seems that the property we know as "mass" is yet another of these things. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Those helpful explanations need to be placed into the article. Since Darryl from Mars and FT2 provided those explanations, I take it they agree that the article needs further clarification. --Zeamays (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

FT2, I would say that it is a property of matter but that the way it manifests itself is not. Charge is also a property, but electromagnetism is how it manifests itself. Or am I misunderstanding something? CodeCat (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

At this level it's almost semantics to try and separate what is a "property" of the fabric of this universe and what is an "emergent" or "epiphenomenon" of other properties. From the perspective of physicists trying to develop a fundamental model of the physical universe though, it's clear that any competent model needs some way to produce the results (or demonstrate the behaviors) that we would interpret as "mass". Whether that implies that mass is an inherent or an emergent property of certain particles, is probably beyond the scope of this talk page though :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps an explanation is needed of what relevance the Higgs boson would have to the layman's quotidian existance. For instance, ray guns, microwaves, zombie apocalypses--what hath the Higgs boson wrought? What will be buying in Wal-Mart this Christmas that wouldn't have been created except for the discovery of the Higgs boson? Something needed to be added that is identifiable and conceivable to the average nitwits who knows who Snooki is but not what the Vice President of the United States does and scratches their collective heads wondering if Higgs boson was the corrupt sheriff in Smokey and the Bandit or some country band we only hear of during the Grammys.--ColonelHenry (talk) 02:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

@CH - my own answer: it often doesn't work that way with major "pure science" discoveries. They don't tend to have immediate uses, rather the uses emerge and the knowledge is waiting to support them. Take elecronics. The ancient greeks knew about electrostatic forces, the electron was speculated to exist purely as a way to explain chemical behaviors in 1838..... now look what we gain from it in real terms. Quantum mechanics was the same - what on earth use can it be to prove whether a proton is really made of quarks. Nowadays, quantum theory underlines the reliable operation of microelectronics, tunnelling effects are used in the lab. What use was it to know if light travels at 186k miles an hour or immediately, in the age of horse and steam of the 1900s? GPS, fiberoptics and myriad devices are based on that knowledge. What use to be able to time nanoseconds and picoseconds? GPS, microelectronics. Quantum effects underpin everything from your hard drive, to modern satellite and communications, to medical and genetic research. These in turn underpin (for the selfishly human-centric) the global supply of food and resources, human rights, education, potentially lifting of many from poverty, the arts, the ability of widespread communities and families to remain in contact, protecting of knowledge otherwise lost, and other benefits.

Knowing that we can surpass one hurdle often has huge ripples - it might encourage others to research other rich areas they wouldn't have done, with completely unforeseen benefits. These often can't be predicted at all but can be the most profound long term (think of Columbus).

In other words, a reader asking that question needs to fast forward a few decades before asking if proving the Higgs boson made a difference. Claiming there's no practical uses right now, today, is a bit like arguing that a newborn baby is worthless because nobody can prove at birth he/she will change the world, write a book, or whatever. We can't list right now the exact uses it will offer humanity if knew whether the Standard Model is correct or not, but from the past record, it would be a very foolish person who argued that in 200 years it won't repay us many times over. None of this is suitable for Wikipedia unless we can find significant analysis to write a section on it. If we could, it wouldn't be a bad idea though. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Lead needs some help

Every time I visit this article, the lead is worse than it was the last time. Kaldari (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Give it some time. The article is being edited heavily right now as more and more information is added, all of which needs a proper place in the article. Once things have settled a bit, the article will probably be fixed up and cleaned out some. CodeCat (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

You're probably right. However, it's sad that we can't keep the lead in decent shape while millions of people are reading it. I tried tweaking it some more just now. I'm continually amazed at the ability of Wikipedia editors to mangle the English language :) At least it's not as bad as the lead for Second law of thermodynamics. Kaldari (talk) 00:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Tried improving it - may have made it worse. Although I have a couple of important points: 1) Whatever consensus we reach regarding technicality of the rest of the article, the lead should be as non-technical as possible. 2) The lead should definitely *mention* the recent experiments - after all that is the reason most of our readers are here in the first place. In general, I feel we need a much longer lead with the content of the entire article condensed in an easy-to-read format. Best, SPat ^talk 00:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Expanded to a medium sized 3 paragraph lede. Can't summarize this entire article in the lede without being fairly technical. At present, the lede is a "non-technical" summary. Truth and clarity are conjugate variables! Or is that truth and brevity? "The pure and simple truth is rarely pure, and never simple" (Oscar Wilde). [Later] And I see that somebody has pared down even my lede, so it's even farther away from being a summary.SBHarris 04:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice work. I've removed/altered some of that. One general comment: many sections feel as if they have been "dumbed down", as in someone is deliberately trying to talk down to the reader. For example, this line (which I have removed):

...detection around 125 GeV. (A GeV is used as a unit of particle mass. Using Einstein's famous equation E-mc², scientists use small energy units to describe particle masses. A GeV can be thought of as the energy of a billion electrons crossing the poles of a one-volt battery.)

I think the attempt should be to present in a clear and consistent manner, at the level accessible to a New Scientist or a National Geographic reader. This means that jargon should be minimized, but not necessarily eliminated (à la the GeV example above). I truth and clarity definitely commute, in fact they have a simultaneous eigenbasis that we can aim for ;) </nerdjoke> Best, SPat ^talk 04:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Request

Perhaps somebody with some insight in this could add an account of what has actually been studied in the "Experimental search" section (as opposed to a mere timeline of announcements). From the slideshow in the CMS presentation, I understand that the cumulative effect was seen by taking into account various decay modes (and consistency with the SM by calculating a number of production modes). Unfortunately, the slides presented alongside the video here have a low resolution so that the diagrams are partly illegible. My question would be to what extent (if at all) the Peskin–Takeuchi parameters plays a role here. I know they played a significant role in finding the top quark in the 1990s, whose mass is higher than that of the Higgs. I would like an explanation of why it was so much harder to find Higgs than to find the heavier quark, and if Peskin–Takeuchi is a part of the explanation. Thank you. --46.245.145.186 (talk) 06:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

PS, also the Peskin–Takeuchi parameter article mentions the Higgs boson and is in need of an update. I do not understand what the phrase "a reference point in the Standard Model" means in the context, so perhaps this could be clarified a bit. --46.245.145.186 (talk) 06:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Higgs particle

Google Books search over English sources gives 30,900 hits for "Higgs particle" and 123,000 for "Higgs boson"; 30,900 is a significant number, and Higgs particle redirects here, thus I believe Higgs particle should stay in the lead. User:Jw2036 apparently disagrees and cites Google hits. They are also large for "Higgs particle", but with a lower ratio; however, Google hits are a weak argument for a scientific term. Materialscientist (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 July 2012

Only need to change a comma! The second sentence of the entry currently reads: "The Higgs boson is named after Peter Higgs, who along with others, proposed the mechanism that predicted such a particle in 1964."

It should read: "The Higgs boson is named after Peter Higgs who, along with others, proposed the mechanism that predicted such a particle in 1964."

Separating "who along with others" by commas (in this case) makes it an extraneous clause that should it be removed the sentence would still make sense (a bit like brackets). Currently, this isn't the case. By moving the comma to after the "who", it will be correct. It would also be correct to keep the comma after "Higgs", but one would still need to be added after the "who", i.e.:

"The Higgs boson is named after Peter Higgs, who, along with others, proposed the mechanism that predicted such a particle in 1964."

Many thanks!!

Davedachef (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. Done! Woz2 (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

What if the new particle isn't the standard Higgs boson?

Alternatively the newly discovered particle may not be exactly what the standard model of physics expects the Higgs boson to be, it could be a different and more exciting particle that some non-standard models of physics predict. If that is true the new particle may in the long run explain more than discovering the standard Higgs boson would have explained. Physics experts, please tell us, is the article below important?

• What If the New Particle Isn't the Higgs Boson? Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I would say it's fairly important but it's already known among scientists. It could be useful as a source for this article, although I'm not sure. After all, it deals more with the recent discoveries, whose connection to the Higgs is still unconfirmed, so it might be strange to discuss the what-ifs of it not being the Higgs boson on the Higgs boson article. Perhaps the experiment itself needs its own article (if it is notable enough; it would seem so), or maybe it could be added to the Large Hadron Collider article. CodeCat (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Negative Higgs-boson mass?

"and ATLAS of a boson with mass ∼126.5 GeV/c2"

That's a tilde for ‘approximately’, though I've seen fonts in which, at small sizes at least, it looks too much like a minus sign. A. di M. (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

So this is where all the Bose supporters are coming from!

I realise this isn't a forum, but if people keep coming here expecting the article to give credit to Satyendra Bose because of the word 'boson' I think it does help to be aware of all sides of the story. I came across this blog which details a statement from the Indian government about Bose's supposed role in the discovery. Of course Bose did have a big role in detailing the properties of bosons, for which he is credited in the class of particles named after him, but he had little to do with the Higgs boson in particular. I find the name the statement uses particularly telling: Higgs-Boson, with a hypen and capital B, as though the particle was named "Higgs-Bose particle" or something like it. They also call him a 'forgotten hero', although I expect pretty much all particle physicists know of his contributions. So these statements might explain why people are coming here expecting more credit for Bose... CodeCat (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Wonder if we're doing a WP:BEANS by opening this up again... but yes accuracy is being compromised by a combination of sloppy journalism and a desire to treat physics as nationalistic sport complete with cheerleaders: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article3602966.ece ... An irony is it was another Brit -- Paul Dirac -- who coined the term boson in Bose's honour. Woz2 (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

People coming here wanting to insert Bose every time a boson is mentioned, are hereby given a WP name: Bosos. They are clowns. Just revert; do not give them a Bose soundsystem for their nutty ideas. SBHarris 22:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I think most of them have sincerely held but misinformed beliefs. Woz2 (talk) 00:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Higgs boson nominated for good article

Restored from archive 2 on 5 July 2012, in case anyone wants to re-list for GA or to look up the GA outstanding issues (high profile article, GA is referenced on mainspace page)

Now the article is easily understandable and fairly comprehensive and balanced (I think), can we get it to GA?

1. Probably needs review by someone expert on the subject for technical accuracy
2. Review for cite quality and all facts cited
3. Anything else?
4. Let's push for this quality level!

GA criteria are here.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to have a non-physicist read the lead section and tell us how much they actually understand of it. All in all, I agree that the article is GA level or very close to it. ― A. di M.​  11:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Two possible edits now you draw attention to that section -

• Duplicated text (...is a hypothetical massive elementary particle that is predicted to exist by the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics. Its existence is predicted by the Standard Model to explain how...)
• Possibly add a para break before the sentence "Alternative sources of the Higgs mechanism...", which otherwise gets lost or looks awkward, and might make the 1st paragraph a bit too dense?

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

A proposed edit in the introductory section: The following sentence suggests that physicists' understanding of what is and isn't excluded is subjective and ill-defined, whereas in fact what physicists mean by confidence level for exclusion has a precise objective definition: "It is also believed that the original range under investigation has been narrowed down considerably and that a mass outside approximately 115–130 GeV/c2 is very likely to be ruled out". I would suggest: "The original mass range under investigation has been narrowed down considerably and masses outside the range 115–130 GeV/c2 have been ruled out by both experiments with 95% certainty".Dave4478 (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Technical points needing physicist review before GA

1. Q: This edit. Is it best to say that the Higgs boson would "confirm" or just "further validate" the SM as essentially correct? My concern here is that SM includes the Higgs field/boson and the latter is considered an integral part, it's not "Standard Model + Higgs field". (Though that part can be removed and replaced if HB doesn't exist). So if HB doesn't exist, most of SM would be correct - but SM would in fact be disproven as a model, since it includes the field and boson and that part would be incorrect. So the importance of the boson is that it essentially proves the SM is correct. Comments? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

   A: I agree that the SM includes the Higgs boson (i.e., without Higgs it's not SM). However, consider that the LHC might also find that the rates of production and decay of the Higgs boson are different from those predicted by the SM (for a given mass of the boson). In that case, the discovery of a non-standard Higgs would disprove the SM. I would leave 'further validate', although I don't feel very strongly about it. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

   Either way the importance is that if a standard HB is found it further confirms the SM, but if it's not found, or a non-standard HB is found, it actually disproves the SM. What's at stake either way is confirming or disproving SM, not merely "further validating" it. That's presumably a big part of why it's so important. We get to find out if SM is essentially correct at heart, or if it's disproven (in favor of some other model).

   In lay terms, the "intention" behind LHC and the HB search is that we get data that lets us identify which of many currently plausible models and approaches are plausible and which can now be ruled out, and we get evidence to allow a choice between fundamental theories. That's essential for theorists who have not got the kind of data needed to advance or select between theories beyond a certain point. I think it's worth making clear that its deeper importance stems from that point. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

2. Q: The "timeline" section listing results as announced step-by-step is possibly not entirely complete. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

   A:

P.S. I think we should remove from the "Experimental search" sections the sentences about the indirect bounds on the Higgs mass from electroweak precision observables. Strictly speaking, those are not experimental searches for the Higgs boson, and the numbers quoted are not even up-to-date. The up-to-date bounds (including the latest, post-2009 measurements of the top and W masses - see here) could be added to the relevant paragraph in the "Higgs boson" section. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 12:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

They're certainly experimental results as they derive from "measurements". But you're right, that's not the right place for long details of outdated measurements from 2006-09. Maybe we can do what we did with detailed LHC results - move specific (outdated) findings into their place in the "timeline" section, and condense the paragraph under "Experimental search" to summarize the progress of indirect measured bounds to date. This raises a second question - the timeline is probably incomplete? (Added as Q2 above). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, the measurements of the electroweak precision observables (W and top mass, Weinberg angle and so on) are experimental results, but they cannot be considered searches for the Higgs boson. The fit on the EW observables that provides bounds on the Higgs mass is a theoretical interpretation of those measurements (indeed, it assumes that the SM is valid, and that there is no new physics beyond the SM). I think that the section "Experimental search" (as well as the "timeline" subsection) should rather focus on the direct searches for the Higgs boson. As I wrote above, the indirect bounds can be quoted in the previous section (where they are already mentioned anyway). Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I can go along with your key point ("but they cannot be considered searches for the Higgs boson...no new physics beyond the SM"), so probably I agree with you enough to deal with this, but I need to think on it a bit. Also a major legal case that changed legal history, society, and police culture just ended in England, its article was a mess, the article on the government report doesn't even exist, and I love love love the occasional high profile law article (one GA was last year's Supreme Court case Berghuis v. Thompkins), so I'm just getting that one in shape too! But haven't forgotten this one :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The statement that the Standard Model is valid for a Higgs mass above 115 GeV is incorrect. The actual critical mass is more like ~129 GeV and includes the (possibly) observed mass of about 126 GeV within 2 standard deviations. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.6497v1.pdf I know media sources are preferred to technical literature, but I'm not sure where you'd find reliable numbers outside the journals... Law of Entropy (talk) 17:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Higgs boson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: StringTheory11 (talk · contribs) 20:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

This article appears to cover an incredibly important subject, so it may take me a while to review the whole thing. I will go section by section.

I have placed the article on hold until the problems are dealt with. StringTheory¹¹ 20:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the lack of refs means that I have to fail this article.... StringTheory¹¹ 01:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Having been busy on SOPA and other matters, would you be willing to "unfail it" but put it on hold for more than the usual GA week? I should be able to get back to it once SOPA is over, in maybe a week. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   We seem to have, well not a problem per se, but something with the first image. It appears it is fine for now, although it appears that this could change at a later date.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Theoretical origins and background

• I recommend that you split this into two sections: history and (predicted) properties. More detailed info for subsections available below.

I retitled these, but overall I'm still happy to have them in one section. In this article and at this time, the particle itself is still theoretical, the alternatives are theoretical, the background is a discussion of how theory evolved..... the 3 sections read well as a whole. Once a definitive answer is available then a distinction of fact v. previous theory makes a change to sections sensible, and much of the "theoretical properties" or "alternatives" will be consigned to history too (and best shown in a "historical" section). For now as we don't know and it's all the story of theory, it really does seems to be better in one section as it is. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Origins of the theory

• First image should say who is not pictured.

Images of authors now side by side with caption covering both. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• First para does not have any refs. It should have at least one ref, preferably more.
• Last sentence in 3rd para needs a ref.
• Quotation in 4th para needs a ref.
• Why is the "a" in the last paragraph italic? Please make it normal text.

Fixed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Last sentence in 5th para needs a ref.

StringTheory¹¹ 19:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The Higgs boson

• The whole section only has two refs, both in the same para. This thing needs WAY more references before it can become a GA
• The section name should not be the same as the article.

Fixed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Try not to have multiple links next to each other; try to rewrite to spread them out.
• Since it is its own antiparticle, it has zero net charge, which should probably be stated.

Added but needs disambiguation. In this context does this signify electric charge, color charge, magnetic charge, or all of these? We have articles on all 3. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Clarified that electric charge is meant -- as in the diagram, no interaction between photon (the mediator of the electromagnetic force for electrically charged particles) and Higgs. Colour charge, as stated in the relevant article, is a property of quarks and gluons (only) and serves to determine the strong force between hadrons, for example. Magnetic charge redirects to Magnetic monopole and is clearly not relevant to the standard model which does not mention them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puzl bustr (talk • contribs) 21:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The reference to the Higgs being its own antiparticle also implicates electric charge -- antiparticles having equal mass to the original particle but opposite sign of electric charge. Of course, having charge zero you could say it has none of any kind of charge you like but it makes sense to respect the way the physicists use terminology and be consistent with Standard Model. Puzl bustr (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Many theorists expect new physics beyond the Standard Model to emerge at the TeV-scale, based on unsatisfactory properties of the Standard Model." Any specific names to mention here?

The statement existed in the article historically, was unsourced, needs researching and specifying (what theorists? what properties? on what basis "unsatisfactory"?). Will look into this. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The Challenges section of the Standard Model lists these problems. Too many physicists to mention, I suspect. Can't find this statement in the current article but if it reemerges, suggest linking to Physics beyond the Standard Model. Puzl bustr (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• What different functions, if any, would the multiple Higgs bosons serve in the extensions to the Standard Model

Good question, will try to research it but at the moment - honest answer is no idea. Good question! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that the multiple Higgs particles are there because the special requirements of the particular extension theory require them in order to be consistent. For example, in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) you have to have superpartners so you get a Higgsino, even if you didn't want one:-) I don't know the details but I would say the various Higgs bosons (not the Higgsino, it isn't a boson) are together responsible for the electroweak symmetry-breaking (EWSB) which results in the assigning of mass to particles. It is well-known that EWSB occurs and some of the details are known but there are any number of ways in which you can introduce it into your theory. Hopefully the LHC will help sort out this mess by scouring for bosons in the appropriate mass range. Puzl bustr (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The SM is just the simplest realization of the Higgs mechanism: one SU(2) doublet of complex fields corresponds to four degrees of freedom, three of which are "eaten" by the gauge bosons while the fourth is the physical Higgs boson. However, there is no reason in principle to assume that the Higgs mechanism is realized in the simplest way. There might e.g. be two SU(2) doublets, in which case the role of the SM Higgs would be played by two combinations of the neutral components of the two doublets, and there would be three more physical fields (one pseudoscalar and two charged). This is e.g. how the Higgs mechanism is realized in the MSSM (because supersymmetry makes it impossible to give mass to both up-type and down-type fermions with just one Higgs doublet). In summary, I would not say that the additional Higgses "serve different functions", it's more like the role of the SM Higgs is spread among multiple particles. Ptrslv72 (talk) 10:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

StringTheory¹¹ 04:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Alternative mechanisms for electroweak symmetry breaking

• The first para needs a ref
• The last sentence needs a ref

StringTheory¹¹ 04:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Experimental search

• How quickly is the Higgs boson predicted to decay?

"The tau lepton is a heavy brethren of the electron. Due to its large mass (approximately 3500 times the mass of the electron) it decays in less than a trillionth of a second after creation into electrons, muons or hadrons (a bunch of quarks)". I found this quote in [4] which serves to explain that, in essence, the heavier the particle the faster the decay. The mass of the tau from Standard Model (SM) is 1.78 GeV and we now expect the SM Higgs to have mass around 125 GeV so you can see it decays pretty fast! I would suggest quoting "less than a trillionth of a second". But I am no expert and would prefer to track down a direct reference. Working on it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puzl bustr (talk • contribs) 23:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No longer working on it. Can't find a direct reference to the decay half life of the Higgs. That may not be surprising as it may not even exist and even if it does until it is discovered there may not be enough information to compute the half-life theoretically. Awaiting an expert who knows how to do the calculations. My guess is that, though there are massive variations in half-lives with mass, you would still expect a very heavy particle to have a very short half-life. Also, if the Higgs exists and has a long enough half-life to survive to reach a detector, it would surely have shown up by either being detected or sailing through the detector and leaving its indirect imprint in missing momentum. All the really heavy particles detected by accelerators have been detected through their decays. Puzl bustr (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Decided to be bold and fixed this by clarifying that the rapid decay of the Higgs is expected, not necessarily known, because of the decay rates of similarly high mass particles. If this is wrong or the half-life can be theoretically calculated, please amend the article. By comparing with the known decay rates of the similar mass W and Z particles gave a quantification of what the Higgs decay rate might be. It could vary by several orders of magnitude and still be too rapid to detect. Puzl bustr (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This is wrong, the decay width of the Higgs boson can be theoretically calculated (in a given model, e.g. the Standard Model) and is not related to the decay widths of W and Z. See e.g. this rather old reference. Please refrain from modifying the article if you are not sure of what you are writing. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 10:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Brilliant, I knew I could provoke someone into providing a reference! From Decay width the mean lifetime is $\hbar /\Gamma$, where $\Gamma$ is the decay width. So from the graph in your reference, with the Higgs mass around 125 GeV, $\Gamma$ for the standard model Higgs boson is, extremely approximately, somewhere between 10^-2 and 10^-3 GeV. From Planck constant $\hbar$ is about 6.57*10^-16 1 eV. So the Higgs boson mean lifetime is between 6.57*10^-23 s and 6.57*10^-22 s. All the reviewer wanted was a qualification of how quickly the Higgs boson decays. I don't want to get into an edit war so I'm not going to make any change myself. But if anyone wants to do the calculation for themselves and put in some helpful qualification at this point, they can. Meanwhile, I shall retire from this discussion and lick my wounds. Puzl bustr (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Second para needs a ref.
• Last sentence of third para needs a ref.

StringTheory¹¹ 20:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Timeline of experimental evidence

• All appears to be good here.

StringTheory¹¹ 20:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

"The God Particle"

• There should not be quotation marks in the heading

StringTheory¹¹ 20:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Why not? They seem to me to be warranted both for use–mention distinction reasons (the section is about the phrase "the God particle", not about the particle itself) and for scare quotes reasons (we don't want to ‘endorse’ that phrase). ― A. di M.​  21:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Removed the quotes in the heading. They aren't appropriate in a section heading, only in the context of a sentence which describes why the use is deprecated. That correct use of the quotes in the section is maintained. Hopefully that is acceptable. Puzl bustr (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

My change was reverted. After thinking about it, I agree with the reversion. Removing the quotes seems to lend an authority to the phrase it doesn't deserve. Puzl bustr (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I would recommend retiring the tiresome and now over-quoted phrase regarding 'God Particle'--"a name disliked by many scientists." First, 'liking' or 'disliking,' even when scientists are the actors, is completely and absolutely irrelevant requisite for scientific fact, other than detaining or accelerating inquiry. Second, it's not a God particle merely because scientists don't like the term. A recent Economist article pretty well nailed it without being so dismissive outright: "Such power to affect the whole universe has led some to dub the Higgs 'the God particle'. That, it is not. It does not explain creation itself." (The Higgs Boson, Jul 7th 2012 print edition of The Economist). Catrachos (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, retiring phrases isn't really the purview of an encyclopedia as I understand it. If it has actually fallen both out of favor and out of any historical significance with our sources in general because of that economist article, then so be it. Darryl from Mars (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Leon M. Lederman wanted to call it the goddamn particle but his publisher would not allow it so it was changed to the god particle for his publication. 10 July 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.176.245 (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

His publication in 1993 was The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question? 11 July 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.156.147 (talk) 12:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Confirmation of the particle's existence

Now that the particle has been "officially discovered" should the word 'hypothetical' in the first sentence of the article be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calydon (talk • contribs) 22:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source to show that it has been confirmed? As far as I am aware, all that has happened is that a particle has been discovered that could be the Higgs boson. But they have not confirmed that it is, it could be something else. There still needs to be a lot of work done before they can actually be sure it's the Higgs. CodeCat (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

And a lot of work before they know what kind of Higgs particle it is.DoctorLazarusLong (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of that... it may be useful to mention in the article just what the different possible Higgs particles are. More exactly, how they differ and what the differences arise from and imply. Is anyone able to write something on that? CodeCat (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I am not well equipped to make the edit, though. "Dammit Jim I'm an Anthropologist not a Particle Physicist." My understanding of the search for the Higgs boson comes mainly from lightly perusing scientific publications, so I am not comfortable enough with the nitty gritty of it all to do more than lightly edit the article.DoctorLazarusLong (talk) 23:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I would replace "proposed" with "tentatively discovered" or something similar. The chance that this new boson is not the Higgs is nonzero, but it is vanishingly small. Law of Entropy (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Electron and quark masses without Higgs mechanism

Okay, I can accept that neutrinos would be massless without Higgs, but neutrinos are nearly massless anyway. Take away Higgs from an electron, and how do we know it's mass wouldn't decreases by only the tiny rest mass that an electron neutrino has, and we'd hardly notice? After all, in charged fermions, SOME of the rest mass must be electromagnetic in origin. I always assumed 99.999% of it was in electrons, mainly because of the clue of the tiny rest mass of the otherwise identical electron neutrino. Why are we assuming none of the mass is electromagnetic, in quarks OR electrons?? Anybody? SBHarris 04:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The core of the confusion here is the difference between the bare mass (as it appears in the Lagrangian) and physical mass (as measured in experiment). When we say that the Higgs field explains why elementary particles have mass, we mean bare mass, not physical mass.TR 08:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

compare the mass for the proton with the relatively tiny mass of the elctron, both posessing equal but opposite electric charge. or the mass of the electron with the other equally charged leptons, the tau and muon. it is clear there is another parameter, or degree of freedom, that leads to these particles having different mass. that additional parameter is their coupling to the higgs field.

not sure where you're getting the idea of 'electromagnetic mass' from...Jw2036 (talk) 06:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the answer but Alan Barr, UK physics coordinator for LHC's ATLAS experiment, says "Without that field, the electrons and quarks would be massless, and would zip around at the speed of light." which makes it sound like electrons and quarks would behave like photons without the Higgs field http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/science_blog/110704.html hth Woz2 (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The long answer. The issue Sbharris mentions actually occurs in QED. In QED, the electron mass gets any (infinite) correction due to the electromagnetic self energy. However, the same does not happen in the standard model. The reason for this is the assymmetry between left-handed and right-handed fermions, which have different SU(2) charges. Consequently, it is not possible to form a gauge invariant mass term, and since it cannot exist it also does not get higher order correction. The only way a mass can be included is if there is an addition scalar field with isospin-1/2 (such as the Higgs). It is this term, that then gets corrections due to EM selfenergy, but without such a field, such terms cannot exist.

Although, the may be a caveat with the last statement due to virtual mesons masquerading as a Higgs field. I know that the W/Z boson, can in fact acquire a mass this way, but I vaguely recall that a similar mechanism could not work for fermion masses. (This was a difficulty that technicolor models had)TR 15:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I had no idea that the standard model differed from QED in this regard. But I suppose that makes sense, as QED just posits a "bare mass" that nobody knows the value of, and this Higgs mechanism provides some bare mass (but alas, I gather still doesn't say how much). You suggest EM self-energy correction terms for charged leptons (and of course quarks, which are charged) ON TOP OF the bare mass term from the Higgs interaction? Anybody have any idea how large these are?

Again, I have the funny feeling that the "bare mass" of the electron (what it would have, if it had no charge) is the bare mass of the neutrino, which is a neutrino rest mass-- a few eV. An electron can't decay to a neutrino since it would have no way to get rid of its charge. But the neutrino looks suspiciously like the "pit" or undressed core of charged leptons, don't you think? An electron has one "pit", which we never see, and a muon has a muon neutrino, and a tau has a tau neutrino pit. When muons decay, they need to get rid of their muon neutrino pit and make a new electron neutrino core for the electron they will become, so they emit the muon neutrino and make an electron neutrino core by emitting an electron antineutrino, in a sort of pair-production (where one partner is emitted and the other kept). The fancy math of this is just flavor quantum number conservation, but mechanistically, it looks fishy that charged leptons are always far more massive than uncharged ones, does it not? Surely nature is trying to tell us that EM self-energy contributes to rest mass by some mechanism that has nothing to do with Higgs, and that makes you wonder why neutrinos have so little rest mass, but not NONE. SBHarris 20:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Massless fundamental particles cannot pick up the kind of quantum corrections to their masses that allow for mass derived from their charge. So, without a Higgs, the electron would be protected from gaining mass from its own electric field. For example, neutrinos are charged under the weak force and so would not be massless even without the Higgs due to quantum corrections from the Z boson, except massless particles are protected against such corrections and so the SM predicted neutrinos to be massless. As another example, gluons are charged under their own force, and yet remain massless because of this protection. Law of Entropy (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

More basic request

As above, more explanation of the experimental search would be helpful for lay readers. My question is: Why has it taken so long to find the Higgs, and why are such high energies required, given that W and Z masses are of the same order? --Cedders^tk 07:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Because the Higgs usually decays to bottom quark pairs, and QCD produces such pairs about 10^7 times as often as the Higgs does, if memory serves. Good luck distinguishing your 10000 events on top of a stack of 100 billion. So, you have to look in obscure, rare decay channels to observe the Higgs, like h > gamma gamma, which occurs ~1/500. Compare this to the Z, which decays relatively often into two high energy muons or electrons, or the W, which decays to a high energy electron/muon and associated neutrino a large percentage of the time, all of which stand out above the overwhelming QCD background. Law of Entropy (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Truth

Why is the fact that Brout and Englert's paper CAME FIRST hidden? Is it because Higgs is British and this is the English wikipedia? Are British people more important according to the English wikipedia? It's quite logic to mention that all three 1964 papers are more or less the same (they proposed a mechanism which implied a field and a particle) and that Brout and Englert's paper came first, Higgs paper came a month later and the three others paper came last and contained a reference to Brout and Englert's work (which means they were aware of it existence). This is the true history and it should be mentioned.

It's already sad that Brout and Englert's work is completely ignored (although they were first, again). Wikipedia should not encourage this bias with Higgs mania.--Wester (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

This information is already present in the History section. Why does it belong in the lead of the article? The lead should only contain a brief overview of the basics of the topic. It is not censoring history or anything, the information is there, it just doesn't need to be part of the lead.DoctorLazarusLong (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It's saying that Higgs proposed it simultaneous with five other authors. It does not say that Brout and Englert's paper came a month earlier than Higg's and that Guralnik's, Hagen's and Kibble's paper came a few months later and contained a reference to Brout and Englert's work (and the then unpublished work by Higgs).--Wester (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, Wester, please assume good faith and don't accuse other editors of bias. We are trying to write an encyclopedia article including information about the difficult and contentious topic of who discovered what first using reliable sources. Please conduct yourself in a civil manner. Cheers! Woz2 (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding to this - Wikipedia isn't a place to rehash battles for this or that group. From the perspective of today and this article, the matter of which 1964 paper predated the other by a few weeks is not a big deal for the introduction on an article on a particle in the Standard Model. I would say that regardless of whatever order the papers had been released. It would be like hijacking the article on the Boeing 747 to argue who was responsible for inventing the jet engine or whether Mr Boeing's other partners were under-credited in the name of that corporation. To me, this isn't an argument we need to re-enact in Wikipedia. It would have a place in the article on the 1964 papers by reference to reliable sources, but I think it's already there. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

improper citation ~ plagiat. The fact other do it is not an excuse. Some above justifications err: adjustments show scientific truth is not respected here. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 09:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Higgs or BEH (or BEHGHK)

Editor "Wester" keeps modifying the article to redress what he/she perceives as an injustice in the naming of the boson, as is clear from is/her latest edit comment:

all papers were telling the same story, they all proposed it. This is the most complete story. It IS true that Brout's and Englert's paper came first and the naming of the particle to Higgs alone is a actually inadequate. Wheter you like it or not

Now, it is well known that the issue is a thorny one, but it's not up to Wikipedia editors to solve it. It is a fact that the boson, right or wrong, has been called "Higgs boson" for the last forty years, and alternative names are not widespread (just have a look at the slides of Gianotti and Incandela's seminars). This is why mentioning the BEH-BEHGHK alternatives in the first line of the article, as Wester tried to do earlier, gives undue relevance to the issue. There also seems to be some consensus in the physics community (see e.g. this guy) on the fact that, while all six authors can lay claim to the Higgs mechanism, Peter Higgs was the first to mention the existence of an additional massive particle, and the first to elaborate (in a later paper) on its properties and its decays. But again, it's not up to Wikipedia editors to decide who's right or wrong, we can only report what reliable secondary sources say about the issue. From this point of view, it is OK to quote this or this newspaper articles about the naming disputes, although I would rather quote them further down in the paper (e.g. in the History section). On the other hand, it is NOT OK to quote some random webpage of a Belgian university to "prove the point" that somebody actually calls it BEH boson, as Wester (I suppose) did in the first sentence of the Overview section. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the neutral name "God particle" more common actually? ;) 85.230.137.182 (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The neutral name is 'scalar boson'. 'God particle' is a horrible name since it is very misleading. The BEH boson has nothing to do with God (unless you're a creationist of course ;-) ) .--Wester (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

“Scalar boson” can also be taken literally to mean any spin-0 boson. A. di M. (talk) 00:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

A agree that 'Higgs boson' is the common name and of course should be used as the title and in the article. But there is nothing wrong with mentioning that it's a bit arbitrary that it's named only after Higgs. And also Brout and Englert should be prominently mentioned. As well as Guralnik, Hagen and Kibble. Also other names which are in use like Brout-Englert-Higgs boson, BEH boson, BEHGHK boson should be mentioned.

BTW: I do not agree with the view that Higgs was the first to actually mention the particle to justify that he is the 'true' discoverer. They all proposed a mechanism which is inextricably linked to a new field and a new particle. So they all theorised the BEH particle, whether they explicitly mentioned it or not.--Wester (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works. It is wrong to mention that you find the naming arbitrary, and it is irrelevant whether you (or I) agree with the view that "Higgs is the 'true' discoverer". All we can do is report in a neutral way what reliable secondary sources tell us about it. Anyway, I added the publication dates of the three PRL papers in the History section, to make clearer which paper came first. Ptrslv72 (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It's quite objective that it's arbitrary. Wikipedia should tell the whole story.

The naming issue was also widely covered in Belgian media. See eg. [5]. But also elsewhere. So it's not just me. It's a controversial issue which makes it worth mentioning.

BTW: I like your latest edit in the history section. It's good the way it is now. --Wester (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm far from knowing the language, but; is it at all possible there's a specific, nationalistic reason the Belgian media has a particular view of the issue? When an article in India mentions them, I'll be more impressed by the significance of the issue in terms of how it should be treated in this article...Darryl from Mars (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Ditto for the Belgian media crediting Bose. Woz2 (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

In this case though, we are probably able to find reliable sources that support the claims made in the newspaper, which is that the credit for Higgs is based on an error in reading the dates (my personal guess is that it's because Americans use Month-Day-Year and Belgians use Day-Month-Year!). That certainly is significant, even if it doesn't change how the particle is commonly named today. (And no I'm not Belgian) CodeCat (talk) 00:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

See my comment in the previous section. For whatever reasons, the names have ended up as they have ended up. If there is significant debate about the name in high quality sources, and not just a very minor 'fringe' view then some sources to refer to would be more useful than all the rhetoric. For example, if physics papers used other names, and the widely used choice of names has changed over the last 50 years, that would be sensible to mention. A few minor media references - as we seem to have now - is probably not. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

maybe a good resource for 5 sigma explanation:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303962304577509213491189098.html July 6, 2012, 6:52 p.m. ET How to Be Sure You've Found a Higgs Boson By CARL BIALIK The physicists who announced the likely discovery of the long-sought Higgs boson particle this week were operating according to an extremely high standard of certainty. As was widely reported, in order to achieve discovery status their experiment had to clear a threshold of "five sigmas" of statistical significance. What precisely the five-sigma mark means, however, wasn't always clearly explained in the coverage of a ground-breaking development that could explain how particles have mass and, by extension, why planets and all other objects exist at all. That is partly because the five-sigma concept is somewhat counterintuitive...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.102.38 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 7 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Take help

From this source take help http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/265088/Higgs-particle Thanks.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 09:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Is the third sentence of Note 2 correct?

A few days ago, I added a paraphrase from Alan Barr to Note 2 namely "However, without the Higgs mechanism quarks and electrons would be massless and would move at the speed of light." But now I'm having second thoughts: I'm wondering if Barr is correct or not. Electrons have a small extra mass over their bare mass from their photon "dressing" and quarks have a huge extra mass over their bare mass from their gluon "dressing." So my question to the experts here is "Would quarks and electrons really move at the speed of light if they were both a) massless AND b) dressed in their force carriers?" In other words is the Higgs mechanism required to give quarks and electrons mass, or is it simply in addition to the mass they "already have" from their force carrier dressing. (see also glueball) Thanks! Woz2 (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The chiral symmetry of the photon-electron, photon-quark and gluon-quark interactions guarantees that, in both QED and QCD, the quantum corrections to the electron and quark masses are proportional to the masses themselves. Therefore, if quarks and electrons had zero bare mass, they would remain massless even after quantum corrections (i.e. what you call "dressing"). However, quarks would still be bound into hadrons. From this point of view, the statement that "quarks would zip around at the speed of light" could be considered inaccurate. Ptrslv72 (talk) 14:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. So what you're saying is it possible for both to be true: you can zip around AND be bound e.g. a photon zipping back and forth inside a perfect laser cavity or gluons inside a glueball... But, what should we do about note 2? It seems that my addition is a bit misleading, but I don't know how to fix it without making it worse and/or much longer. Woz2 (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The concept of mass for quarks inside a hadron is tricky, see e.g. here. In the comment above I was referring to the current quark masses (on the other hand, no such ambiguity exists for the leptons). As to your addition, perhaps it was not really necessary. The purpose of the footnote is to clarify that most of a hadron's mass is not due to the Higgs mechanism, and this is already accomplished by the first two sentences. Since it would be difficult to clarify the third sentence without entering too much in detail, we could just drop it. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Very good I'll delete it. I think I added confusion not clarity. The question I (and I'm guessing others) was hoping the article could answer is "If the Higgs field gives mass to the particles with proper mass, what would happen if someone flicked a switch and turned it off? Would the universe fly apart completely?" Maybe it's not a very useful question... Woz2 (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Getting past physics jargon for the layman

Some quick suggestions, to make this article more understandable for the curious layman.

(fyi - my educational background is engineering physics, so the technical details aren't lost on me, but I'm echoing the need for the public to have some information they can understand).

Most people aren't aware of the basic jargon, for example, the following terms are greek even to the highly educated without physics training at the undergraduate level: - standard model - particle physics - scalars and vectors - spin - quantum - matter

I believe that most of the public's grasp of physics ends at the idea that atoms are made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons, and have a picture of electrons orbiting a nucleus like planets around the sun. Most people wouldn't be able to name the basic forces, or be able to accurately describe the differences between forces, momentum, or energy.

I would suggest the following

- start with the context of the physics problem (even if it somewhat repeats other articles)
- Most people learned about protons, neutrons and electrons in high school - Particle physics is about understanding "particles" that are even smaller.
- In the early days of physics, light / energy and matter seemed like very different things, but as einstein and other scientists developed new theories at the turn of the century, there was an effort to unify human understanding of these phenomena - that's what relativity, quantum physics, and the standard model are all about
- There are still unanswered questions - physics understanding coalesced to the 'Standard Model', which describes even "smaller" particles than protons, neutrons and electrons, which describe basic forces like gravity and electromagnetism.
- this understanding has enabled the technology of this last century including wireless communication
- Einstein's famous equation e=mc^2 relates the conversion of mass into energy - which is how we get energy in a nuclear power plant (and why that process is so completely different from chemical sources of energy like the burning of fossil fuels)
- Despite this fantastic improvement in our understanding - there are still huge gaps - the smaller particles that were first described could not explain how particles that are smaller than atoms ("subatomic" particles) obtained or lost their mass in this conversion - enter the Higgs boson (here admittedly I am probably oversimplifying - but at least I'm trying to illustrate the kind of understanding that I believe most lay people might seek).

Then go on to explain how the Higgs boson helps. Godwin.liu (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

While the format makes it hard to read here, this may be just the thing for Introduction to the Higgs field. Darryl from Mars (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with most of your points, except the one about applications. I am unaware of any applications of physics that require understanding of these new particles and force fields that are new since I took college physics courses in the mid-1960s. We need an explanation of why a Higgs Boson is so important to mass if it is so rare and difficult to observe. Mass is a property of all matter and of energy, so why is a new particle required? --Zeamays (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

One famous example is positron emission tomography. 85.230.137.182 (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The 1960s may seem like long ago, but radioactive decay was known in the 1890s and the positron was discovered in the 1930s. --Zeamays (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this article should try and focus on the higgs-boson, explaining particle physics (etc) belongs to other articles. (And electrons are elemental particles even if protons and neutrons are not). I do share your concern that the article is difficult to make sense of for anyone who have not studied physics at a university though. 85.230.137.182 (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Relevant? - (And Added To External Links Section) => "Video1 (07:44) + Video2 (07:44) - Higgs Boson Explained by CERN Physicist, Dr. Daniel Whiteson (16 June 2011)." - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Nitpicks:

• even "smaller" particles than [...] electrons – nope; electrons are elementary particles in the SM;
• describe basic forces like gravity – gravity is outside the scope of the SM;
• this understanding has enabled the technology of this last century including wireless communication – actually, wireless communication doesn't need any more electrodynamics than was known in 1900 as far as I know;
• which is how we get energy in a nuclear power plant (and why that process is so completely different from chemical sources of energy like the burning of fossil fuels) – nope, the difference is just quantitative. The molecules of water and CO2 produced in the combustion are lighter than those of fuel and oxygen burned much like in the case of fission products, though the difference is a few parts per billion for chemical combustion and several parts per thousand in nuclear reactions;

A. di M. (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

"Most people aren't aware of the basic jargon, for example, the following terms are greek even to the highly educated without physics training at the undergraduate level: - standard model - particle physics - scalars and vectors - spin - quantum - matter"

I don't really think so, GCSE mathematics is compulsory which teaches the basics of what a vector and scalar are, most people have an idea of what is meant by particle and as such can tell what particle physics is about, quantum, standard model and matter are all touched upon in GCSE physics. Spin is the only one I would agree with that most people wouldn't know of, but definitely not having to be at least an undergraduate it is touched upon in AS chemistry. I don't think many people would consider someone highly educated in any subject if they didn't even know up to GCSE standard. 80.195.215.233 (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, they teach what scalars and vectors are in the context of classical mechanics, but definitely not in the context of quantum field theory. I don't think I learnt that scalar boson means ‘spin-0 particle’ and vector boson means ‘spin-1 particle’ before my third year of university. And anyway I suspect that what little particle physics people learn in high school most of them forget within a few months. (OTOH, the OP's list does seem excessive to me. If a reader A. di M. (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Archive Higgs boson nominated for good article section?

The "Higgs boson nominated for good article" thread was brought back from the archives "on 5 July 2012, in case anyone wants to re-list for GA or to look up the GA outstanding issues". Given that the review was done on 27 Dec 2011 and a lot has changed since then, should the thread be archived again? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Hatting is another option of course. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It still wouldn't pass, some of the sections need cleaning up and there's maintenance work to be done. I'm not that familiar with the Higgs boson, but I'll see what I can find in textbooks and the internet. James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 2:18pm • 04:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Having checked, i don't think the technical sections, timeline, experimental search etc are much changed - the recent discovery hasn't has much impact. The main changes have been to the intro and the new "easy understanding" sections. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I oppose this getting "good article" status. There are still a lot of problems. Some examples: 1) We're still getting complaints that lay people can't understand it. 2) There is repetition of certain points in different sections, as though one editor wasn't paying attention to what the other editor was writing. Yep, this needs work.206.248.157.184 (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 July 2012

Extended content

It is mentioned that the term 'Higgs' has been taken from Peter Higgs, but no where it is mentioned that the term 'boson' has been taken from the surname of the Indian Bengalee physicist, Mr.Satyendra Nath Bose. Sayansinha (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC) N Not done and not likely to be done. It is mentioned, but you did not read the message that appeared when you posted your message. Please read it. CodeCat (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Yet another "Satyendra Bose" edit request - declined by another user, now collapsed. Please see archived section for past discussion and reasons. See also page notice for this page by User:HandThatFeeds. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It is truly the Higgs-Bose particle, and Dr Bose deserves most credit for this

Why is there no mention of Bose who is the other inventor? This particle was jointly discovered by the extremely distinguished Dr. Satyendra Nath Bose of India. There can be no Higgs without Bose. Dr. Bose deserves most of the credit because he invented the particle long before Higgs. Higgs only added a flavor to it, similar to adding chocolate to ice cream which is a minor variation of the ice cream itself. It's the ice cream which is important here, not the chocolate variety. Asmatam (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you're misinformed. Satyendranath Bose did not know about the Higgs particle or work on its discovery. His work is in describing the physics common to all bosons, the so-called Bose-Einstein statistics. The Higgs boson is yet another kind of boson, like photons and gluons. So Bose did not contribute specifically to the Higgs boson's discovery, but he developed the theory of bosons in general, which serves as a base for theories of each individual kind of boson, including the Higgs. We don't say that Bose discovered the Higgs boson or worked on its discovery, just like we don't say he did those things for the photon or the gluon, as that would be rediculous. To give you an analogy that might help you understand the relationship: Isaac Newton developed laws of mechanics and gravity in the 17th century. In the early 20th century, Albert Einstein refined Newton's laws and this resulted in the theory of General Relativity. But we don't say that Newton discovered or helped to develop relativity. CodeCat (talk) 00:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It's worse than that. S. Bose didn't name ANY particles, or even guess that there were an entire class of particles that were different from another class. He merely noted that if a certain kind of statistics were used to count photons (a known particle) you could derive Planck's laws in a new way. Albert Einstein generalized the statistics to certain other particles (thus making two classes by default), but knew this statistics couldn't apply to all particles, like electrons. The particle class that Bose-Einstein statistics DID apply to, were named "bosons" in Bose's honor, by Paul Dirac, in 1945, more than 20 years after Bose first thought in this new way about photons (but not any other paricle). So the class of particle that includes the Brout-Englert-Higgs particle, should really be called bose-einstein-dirac-ons, and omitting Einstein and Dirac is racism. The truth must out. I demand therefore that this article be renamed Brout-Englert-Higgs bose-einstein-dirac-on. If nobody objects I'll do it myself, per WP:BRD. <wink> SBHarris 03:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

But... What about Guralnik, Hagen and Kibble? ;-) A. di M. (talk) 07:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

My comment on them in the previous section. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

FWIW - Seems Somewhat Related? -> < ref name="NYT-20120706">Subramanian, Samanth (July 6, 2012). "For the Indian Father of the 'God Particle,' a Long Journey from Dhaka". New York Times. Retrieved July 7, 2012.</ref> - In Any Case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 09:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

This link isn't really any use. The article is titled "Indian father of the god particle" but doesn't give any suggestion that Bose had anything to do with the Higgs boson. In fact for an article supposedly about Bose's relationship to the Higgs boson, we find just one sentence: "In the word 'boson' ... is contained the surname of Satyendra Nath Bose". That is the only mention. The whole of the article apart from that one sentence is about his work on statistical physics, already covered under boson and Bose, and not really very much evidence of anything very significant for this page. We're probably done here. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank You For Your Comments - Yes, I Agree - No Problem Whatsoever - Seemed Worth A Mention Due To Timing, Title, Source & Related - In Any Regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

AS A HIGHLY CREDENTIALLED PATHOLOGIST WHO IS WORKING IN THE US I AM HIGHLY CONVERSANT WITH ALL ASPECTS OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE. THEREFORE I FIND IT OBJECTIONABLE THAT WIKIPEDIA.ORG REFUSES TO ACCREDIT THE INDIAN SCIENTIST SATYENDRA NATH BOSE WITH THIS MOMENTOUS DISCOVERY WHICH BEARS HIS NAME. REPEAT: THIS DISCOVERY OF CERN BEARS THE NAME OF SATYENDRA NATH BOSE. THIS FACT HAS BEEN REPORTED BY INDIAN NEWSPAPERS. YOU MUST RECTIFY THIS INJUSTICE FORTHWITH. US-Patel (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Read the page Boson and you will see that Bose's contribution is acknowledged there. Despite what you may have read at the newspapers, Bose did not contribute to the Higgs boson theory. Dauto (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

But he is a highly credentialled pathologist, highly conversant with all aspects of scientific knowledge which can be found in the tabloid press. Furthermore, CAPS! 86.0.198.250 (talk) 00:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Hold the phone....

After all those discussions and warnings, how did this line make it to the lead? "The Higgs boson is named after Peter Higgs who, along with Indian physicist Satyendra Nath Bose and others, proposed the mechanism that suggested such a particle in 1964." That statement is completely not true - I will take the trouble of getting sources for that if anyone really demands. I'm taking it off for now. SPat ^talk 15:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting it. There is a high volume of misinformation floating around, causing this misperception to be added (and reverted) a bazillion times. Woz2 (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

THIS IS HIGHLY INCORRECT BECAUSE THE DISCOVERY OF CERN BEARS THE NAME OF SATYENDRA NATH BOSE. THIS FACT HAS BEEN REPORTED BY INDIAN NEWSPAPERS. PLEASE CORRECT THIS GRAVE ERROR.. US-Patel (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't, get your facts right first before demanding changes be made. See also the numerous other discussions on this talk page regarding this now rather tedious issue. Polyamorph (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

In addition, typing in all caps is the online equivalent of shouting in real life, and I consider it a violation of Wikipedia's policy of being civil. Also, please observe Wikipedia's guideline of assuming good faith. Also, you might want to read Bose's biography before you attempt to propagate sloppy reporting in the media further http://rsbm.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/21/116.full.pdf (the server seems to be slow but if you hit refresh a few times you should get the PDF). Hope this helps... Woz2 (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Yeah, newspapers are totally reliable when it comes to quantum field theory.</sarcasm> Facepalm A. di M. (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

This unmasked sarcasm, is it put on comment due to origin of those sources ? Otherwise arguing why thesis originated from people of central Asia origin is sarcastically flanked, while story originating from people of west Asia origin quite godly particulated ? This skew neutrality balance. The constructive proposition is to kick off the offending mass of the media section. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 08:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The whole ==Mainstream media== section is because according to Physic Noble laureate: "the God particle because the publisher wouldn't let us". Isn't it intriguing to find out who was this publisher and why k^ want this information to be deleted ? 99.90.197.87 (talk) 08:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I said “newspapers”, not “Indian newspapers”. A. di M. (talk) 09:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, wow. Just made a comment, only to see that one of my earlier comments is now the page notice for everyone who edits here. That's both flattering, and a little freaky. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Mainstream media

I'm not wild about "supposed neglect" as it seems to impart a POV but can't think of better wording. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Something along the lines of "mistakenly/erroneously/naivly/ reported that Satyendranath Bose deserved credit for the discovered particle". I'm not sure that helps! :) Polyamorph (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

For the Layman

Is there any chance that someone could write a short article understandable by the layman? I have read and re-read the article and could easily be reading another language - it's so complicated!

By the way, English is my mother tongue.

 ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malchris (talk • contribs) 10:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this article ought to be more accessible – lots of laymen will want to read it, whereas physicists can read about more advanced detail at Higgs mechanism etc. ― A. di M.​  11:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I've rewritten what looks like the most confusing part of the introduction (without "dumbing it down"); the detailed precise data is in the body of the article. Is this better? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks better now. ― A. di M.​  16:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed this has become an increasingly common problem on wikipedia, when it comes to articles on scientific topics. Articles should be encyclopedic, providing a rounded and concise understanding of the topic, not a textbook only understandable to a person with a background in the particular science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.249.99 (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW, when the dust settles, we should take lots of stuff out of the section “Experimental search”, according to the ‘will people give a damn about this ten years from now’ criterion. IMO there's not much point in keeping any more stuff than the limits as of when the LEP was shut down, the limits as of when the Tevatron was shut down, and the most recent results available. ― A. di M.​  19:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully putting a lot of the timeline of findings into a timeline section is a start. Long term I can see a "timeline of the search" being a "stayer" in this article. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't expect this can be made understandable to the layman. The news reports this week following the CERN announcements of likely discovery were accompanied with the statements that the Higgs Boson provides all matter with mass. However, since the introduction to this article contains the lines "Because all particles within atoms contribute to an atom's mass and some of these do not interact with the Higgs field, the Higgs interaction can account for only some (about 1%) of the mass of ordinary matter" it seems to me that all the news reports are wildly incorrect (no surprise) and everything I wanted to know about this event is not going to be explained to me, being a layman. I greatly admire the fellows (male and female) who do understand all this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.174.91 (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The Higgs provides all subatomic particles with mass. 100% of the mass of the electron comes from the Higgs. However, the vast majority of the masses of the proton and neutron come from the interaction energies of the up and down quarks composing them via E/c^2=m. So the reports are correct that the Higgs provides all matter with mass (all subatomic particles except photons and gluons get mass from the Higgs) but it is also correct that only about 1% of the mass of your chair comes from the Higgs because it is swamped by the quark interactions. Law of Entropy (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

the organization of the introduction is terrible. you start with saying it is an elementary particle, jump to telling us who it is known for because he theorized it's existence, then go back to poorly explaining what it is. then afterwards, the way the article is written now, i see this: "theory(just not labeled as such): [higgs boson/field explain why things have mass]. this theory says they gain mass by interacting with the field, it also says that a higgs boson should exist because it is part of the field." that makes no sense. specify the theory you are using before you go using it to explain the entire concept. Just because it is a complicated topic doesnt mean writer's etiquette should go out the window. there is a reason college forces *everyone* to take those writing classes. 76.25.228.41 (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)