Talk:Higgs field

Non-technical? LOL

This is supposed to be non-technical? LOL.

The world is complicated. Still, perhaps there is more that can be done to improve this, where did it lose you? Darryl from Mars (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

"a left-handed electron moving north"Feldercarb (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

"near heavily charged particles" are some particles more charged than others?Feldercarb (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

" Higgs field should be higher near heavy particles" the field makes the mass, but the mass makes the field? Feldercarb (talk) 22:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

How does the relativity idea that mass bends space reconcile with the Higgs thingie? Higgs explains mass - are we talkin inertia mass or gravitational mass or they are the same? reminds me of ether: do we expect a Higgs-wind as the earth moves thru space Feldercarb (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, spin...Well.

1) Left handed means its spin is pointing in the opposite direction to its momentum, the way it's moving. 2) Yes, quarks tend to have charges that are (-)1/3 or 2/3s of the electron charge. and the statement could also apply to more charged things in general, not just particles. 3) And, the Higgs field is higher near certain particles, that makes them heavier. Like...there's more water in a more absorbent sponge, even though holding more water is what makes the sponge more absorbent, its not circular, its actually a tautology, I suppose. 4) Well, relativity still happens, the higgs field is just why things have mass, then those things with mass go and do massive particle things, like have gravity and classical momentum. Also, the whole 'curving spacetime' thing is sorta a way of postulating that inertial and gravitational mass are just two aspects of the same quality, and that explains why they seem so exactly the same all the time. 5) Higgs wind...I can't see why there would be, things get mass by attaching to the Higgs field, or soaking it up, or however you want to put it; there isn't really a directional aspect to it like the propagation of light. But I could be wrong, somewhat. Darryl from Mars (talk) 00:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear, no dears, please. If it matters, please tell it in the article and explain it in the article. Eddi (Talk) 22:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not exactly lost, but in my opinion this isn't generally legible. We must assume that readers on all levels are interested in this subject, especially after the recent announcement from CERN. (I'm sorry I can't contribute much to the article since my English isn't good enough.) Eddi (Talk) 20:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

"There are solutions of the equations of quantum field theory that represent quantised oscillations of these fields." Solutions to equations of theories are, in daily speech, for example, probable interpretations of such theories, or even possible representations of reality. Can we please have a less technical language? Eddi (Talk) 20:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

"Some quantum fields represent the known elementary particles, while others are brought in to enable spontaneous symmetry breaking to occur." First of all, "spontaneous symmetry breaking" isn't something that would be understood by most. Of course we can't summarize symmetry in one sentence, but this sentence has to be written differently to be understood. Secondly, no quantum fields are introduced by anyone to enable anything. Fields exist or not. Theories are introduced to explain things. The final part of the sentence is just poorly written. Eddi (Talk) 20:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph on force unification / field unification should include a very short intro to the presumed existence of different forces / fields and the wish for simplification and unification of (he theories on) those forces / fields. Eddi (Talk) 20:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no need to use force and interaction interchangeably in a basic article. One word should be used consistently and, if necessary, explained. Eddi (Talk) 20:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The synonymity of particle and carrier should be explained, or only one should be used. Eddi (Talk) 20:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

"The "machinery" of the Higgs mechanism, the procedure by which spontaneous symmetry breaking endows gauge fields of zero mass with mass, is based on the assumption of the existence of a scalar field, the "Higgs field", which permeates all of space." The links to gauge field and scalar field may be satisfactory to the routine reader, but I think to novice readers, albeit interested, this is not very helpful. If gauge fields or scalar fields are relevant to understanding the Higgs field, this should be explained in more detail (and understandibly). If there's just a slight difference of theories, however, it could be presented briefly as a difference in theoretical assumptions. Eddi (Talk) 20:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The analogy to blotting paper is interesting to technical readers, but it bears no meaning to a reader who never set foot in a chemistry or biology lab. Eddi (Talk) 20:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This is maybe out of my league, but is theoretical, physical "mass" really understood in the public? Could there be a sentence in the introduction that relates mass to daily life, e.g. mass is the "heavy" property, not the "large" property? And maybe we could write "heavy" instead of "massive" - perhaps not theoretically precise, but it might be easier to understand. Eddi (Talk) 20:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, now that what I wrote is back where I wrote it... 1) You'll note that the very next sentence calls them particles. It can be reorganized somewhat, but we can't pretend it's not quantum mechanics. 2) The field is introduced conceptually. I'll add another sentence to this paragraph, but you can't just stop at the topic sentence of each paragraph, it's the rest of the paragraph which elaborates on those sentences; look for keywords like 'for example' which follow. 3) I think 'presumed existence of different forces' falls down the ladder to the 'Physics' article. I hope to safely assume awareness of gravitational forces, electromagnetic forces, and maybe the fact that there are others. 4) Rather, if this is going to be an introduction, they should be introduced to both; the similarities can be elaborated on. Similarly for 5). 6) They actually aren't overly relevant for a very basic understanding, so it's fine if they're just wikilinked for more advanced readers. 7) Do you mean to imply that blotting paper is a technical concept? I could say sponge, but it loses some elegance... Darryl from Mars (talk) 04:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I realize that combinations of sentences are used to try to explain things, but the given explanations are still too technical. Again, we must assume that readers on all levels are interested in this subject, and this being promoted as non-technical increases the expectations compared to other articles regarding how easy it should be to understand. Eddi (Talk) 16:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course there's interest, but it's important that we a) don't engage in 'lying to children', and b) don't turn the article into a 'Physics, 101-343 (inclusive)' textbook. Darryl from Mars (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Writing this article for children is not what I suggested. (Even though it might be nice for children to understand mass.) What it comes down to, don't promote it as non-technical if it isn't. I'm deleting the non-technical promotion. Eddi (Talk) 19:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

"This Higgs boson announcement typifies a big problem with science. The men (and sadly, it is mostly men) in the ivy tower throw information to the masses expecting them to appreciate it and even worse be grateful for it.[1]]

Thanks 'Feldercarb', though my tower is mostly brass, that quote is mostly out of context, and I don't see how one could not 'throw information' at you when you ask questions. Darryl from Mars (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I would recomend that this sentance "The Higgs particle is to the pervasive mass-generating Higgs field what the photon is to electromagnetic fields." and possibly a small bit of elaboration be put at or near the top of the article. Most who want to read a non technical article will want and need a simple answer to what the Higgs noson is before they get into the rest. Jbhunley (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hm, well, the first sentence/para after the lead does state something to that effect, are you recommending it be in the lead? Darryl from Mars (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Oopps... I missed that completly... Having it in the lead would be good since it is a nice simple definition by analogy of what the Higgs boson is. Most people who are interested in popular level science are familiar with the idea of photons but probably have heard the word boson in conjunction with Higgs. 176.67.84.13 (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Ref 10

Reference #10 "Piel 180" is extremely vague. Can somebody please provide a more robust citation here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.74.219.145 (talk) 10:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

possibly discovered?

Isn't "possibly discovered" more like news coverage? The phrase doesn't even make a whole lot of sense to someone who doesn't know what it is yet.

66.30.48.212 (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

No, because it has been possible discovered. The issue at hand is that while the numbers all line up with the particle found, there still is a bunch of needed examination of the data before everything can be shown to fall right into line with what is asserted.

One thing is off though. What exactly does this mean in Criticisms in the Inflation section -- "The Higgs field is one of the leading, theoretical explanations for the observed expansion of the universe. But there is no empirically or mathematically conclusive evidence for this cosmological model, nor for the existence of the 10-dimensional strings." It is the only place in the entire article strings are even mentioned, why is it mentioned here? Actually that whole section seems piecemeal and REALLY needs some work in my opinion. For example, this section is on Inflation, not expansion, these are quite distinct efforts, ie. inflation was the initial inflation period whereas expansion continues and is tied in with the cosmological constant. The criticisms section is wholly out of context. 24.42.221.147 (talk) 02:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone else find it strange...

...that we already have an "entry-level" version of the Higgs field article before having a regular version of said article? Doesn't an article like this usually pop up only as a supplementary version of the article instead of the only article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.255.107.182 (talk) 22:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Higgs_field&oldid=165094572 you can see that there was an article called Higgs field but it ended up that the introduction became better than the main article, so it was redirected. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

---

and Introduction to the Higgs field → Higgs field – A technical move but as discussed above, requesting move per guideline. Reason: deletion/redirect at Higgs field resulting in this "orphaned" article as intro to a non-existent one. Consolidate. Widefox; talk 08:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

General impression

When I read this, I get the general impression that while mass particles are attractive to one another - the Higgs carrier particles may be repulsive to one another, no ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LG2003 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in this article

The final section, entitled 'Motivation' suggests that the weak interaction violates Lorentz invariance. I do not believe this is true, as no experiment has observed CPT violation, which would imply Lorentz violation (see the Wikipedia page on CPT symmetry, for example). Furthermore, I have not heard any claims that the discovery of the Higgs implies anything about Lorentz invariance. This section only has one reference and looks extremely dubious to me. Can anyone confirm this as true or false? Being at the center of much public attention, it is important that this page is factually accurate. ETHJILA (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Merge to Higgs boson?

The article on the Higgs boson has been improved over the last few months, and is now a better quality description, including at lay-level, while this article seems poor quality with quite a bit of speculative WP:OR.

It doesn't need a separate "less technical" article now (or if it does then it is easy to modify that page for the purpose), which was part of the original motive for this page.

Also it's dubious whether a separate page is needed for a field and its quantum, given that this is a case where both are still strictly speaking, hypothetical.

Finally unlike longer known fields and their quanta, where we may have a lot more to say on both, there's little we can say about either of Higgs field or Higgs boson, that doesn't apply to the other, so there's a lot of redundancy.

On the basis any valuable sourced or useful content is retained, I'd like to merge these pages.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree. The opening is ludicrous ("In this context, the word "field" is used in the sense used in physics and not in the everyday sense"); the section "Overview" does not add anything to what is already in the main Higgs boson article; the section on "Inflation" is overblown, vague and contains inaccuracies; and the section "motivation" falls into WP:OR. For what I'm concerned, this article could simply be deleted. If some other editor is sufficiently familiar with the topic, he/she could add a small section on inflation to the main article. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)