Keskival

Hello Keskival, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

---

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

• Table of Contents

• Department directory

Need help?

• Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
• Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.
• Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

• Article Wizard — a Wizard to help you create articles
• The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.
• Guide to Wikipedia — A thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia.

How you can help:

• Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

• Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

• Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

• If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Keskival, good luck, and have fun. --LordVetinari (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Inflaton : reference to Higg's Boson

You recently added phrase "It is suggested that Higgs Boson might act as the inflaton." to Inflaton article. Would you mind expanding it, or just removing it?

The citation seems to refer Powerpoint slides of a PHD student, with little content. Quick Googling find some other initial papers for Higgs & Inflaton connection, but not much indication of acceptance/support for the idea.

Thus:

1. The link and phrase alone has little use : there are plenty of ideas explored by researches : listing them all in Wikipedia has little purpose
2. Or, if you feel its important point, could you expand it to more fleshed section, giving some idea about how experts in the area think about it?

lav (talk) 12:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. Inflaton as such is not a part of the standard model. Thus there needs to be some mapping from this hypothetical particle to the particles within the standard model. I am not aware of any other suggested mapping than inflaton being the Higgs boson. Sure, the mapping is hypothetical, as is inflaton as a particle also, but there is some basis to believe the inflaton is the Higgs boson; at least it seems more probable than the standard model simply missing this particle altogether and thus being incorrect. Some support for the Higgs boson acting as the inflaton is given in the reference article.

I don't want to write to the Wikipedia article anything that my sources do not directly say, so my comments here cannot be simply transcribed to the article, as far as I see.

If you think the whole mention should be removed, then fine, remove it, but the reason why I added it in the first place is that the article was not anchored into the accepted physics and the standard model in any way, and therefore seemed to be (in my opinion misleadingly) completely removed from accepted (non-cosmological) physics.

62.237.44.17 (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)