Jump to content

Talk:Higgs boson/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Practical impact of LHC on distributed computing

A sentence in the article currently claims:

The results of massive amounts of data produced by the Large Hadron Collider have led to significant advances in distributed and cloud computing, now well established within mainstream services.

I'd like to ask for citations for this sentence and propose its removal if we are not aware of any. The article on the Worldwide_LHC_Computing_Grid mentions that although popular press (incorrectly) wrote about how "the internet could soon be made obsolete" by the advances of the computing grid, to correct those perceptions CERN put out its own "fact and fiction" articles to clarify the nature of its more humble advances in that area. One example I was able to find is https://web.archive.org/web/20140212152732/http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/spotlight/SpotlightGridFactsAndFiction-en.html which says:

Fiction: The Grid was invented at CERN.
Fact: The first pioneering steps in grid computing were taken in the US. The term “grid computing” was first used in a book by Grid pioneers Ian Foster and Carl Kesselman, as a metaphor for making computing power accessible in the same way as electrical power. The LHC Computing Grid Project, led by CERN, uses resources contributed by grid projects around the globe.

Has work at CERN included research in distributed or cloud computing that has had an impact on mainstream industry or services? Xiphoris (talk) 02:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we need the section at all, apart from the first paragraph. This is not an article about the LHC or fundamental science in general. --mfb (talk) 15:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Mfb. This section is a good example of the (somewhat chaotic) growth the article underwent in the days of enthusiasm that followed the Higgs discovery. I am in favor of trimming it. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I trimmed the generic musings on practical applications of fundamental science (as well as a sensationalist and dubiously sourced Hawking story). The sentence about distributed computing was taken almost verbatim from this APS reference, which does look like a reliable source (but I'm not an expert of distributed computing so I wouldn't go to the barricades on that). Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Splitting the lead

I agree that the lead is a bit long and could be trimmed. However, moving all its paragraphs after the first one to a section named "History" does not look like a good idea. There is already a detailed section devoted to the history further down in the article. Moreover, the last paragraph of the lead is definitely not about history. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 12:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Naming

Basis of explanation: How about it's an English name, the author most probably benefited from English speaking media (interviewing him, reporting on him). Imagine having to go to Brussels, back in those days when not everyone spoke fluent English. Barbarians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.217.83 (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Was the rejection of section "Certification of the new particle as a Higgs boson" justified?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus that the removal of the section was justified by WP:VER. Though it was not mentioned the consensus argument follows its logic. References are required if material is challenged, and if the refrences are not supplied it may be removed. AlbinoFerret 01:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

An editor reverted a section named "Certification of the new particle as a Higgs boson" added to the [Higgs boson] page. The section deleted can be found here. Was it justified? Fred1810 (talk) 10:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

For completeness, three different editors reverted successive incarnations of that section on POV/OR grounds, see also here, here and here. Extensive talk-page discussions of the issue can be found here and here. Additional opinions are obviously welcome. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, the rejection was justified. I'll be the first to say that I know little about the Higgs boson compared to other editors here, and therefore if it comes to it I'd gladly retract this comment to let people with real expertise decide. Nonetheless I'll say that to my untrained eye the section is dangerously close to if not outright OR. Take this paragraph for example:
Its mass, "expected" to be roughly between 100 and 200 GeV. The lower limit is the result of previous experiments that have excluded that the Higgs boson can have a mass lower than 100 GeV (otherwise one would have already seen it). The upper limit is a "trick" to avoid a bad consequence of the theoretical model itself, called the quadratic divergence problem. When the mass is less than around 200 GeV, the theoretical problem is still there, but has no physically observable consequence. To summarize, the mass range in which physicists expected to find the Higgs boson is not a constraint given by the theory, and finding a new particle in this mass range is not a sufficient evidence that is particle is a Higgs boson.
This sentence makes several claims. It claims that the lower mass limit 100 GeV arises because of previous experiments, which is reasonably obvious (at least to anyone with a very basic understanding of particle physics), so I can look past this being unsourced. The other main claim though, that the upper mass limit is 200 GeV, is not obvious, and neither is the explanation provided clear. What is this quadratic divergence problem? Why is there no physically observable consequence if the mass is less than 200 GeV? Who claimed that the 100-200 GeV mass range is not a constraint given by theory? Now I don't doubt that it could be that all these claims are justified or even obvious to a scientist working in the field, but they're not obvious to me, nor I would think to most people. They therefore need to be sourced. The section does cite sources, but they're extremely wide. Citing the entire collection of ATLAS and CMS papers is rather like citing "scientific discussions over the past 100 years" for the statement "there are four fundamental forces". Such a citation isn't wrong, but it sure isn't useful.
In principle I think the section could be included (perhaps positioned immediately after the 'Confirmation of new particle as a Higgs boson, and current status' section however), but it should be better sourced, and there should be some indication that there is controversy over the identification of the particle as the Higgs boson (i.e. this isn't a WP:FRINGE view). In its current form, I think removal is justified. Banedon (talk) 02:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete or source and rationalise. I have no problem with the material, once the objections have been overcome, but as yet they have not. I support the previous deletes in substance. It not only needs sourcing for substance, no matter how obvious the claims might seem to physicists, but the lines of reasoning, if any, are presented implicitly and require explicit clarification and justification. I have no problem with the text being included more or less as is, but as a reader I need to know which points are independent, where to find material on them (whether within WP or not, ie preferably with links that explain the material or citations where the points are not accessible in WP and the ideas are disputable). Less handwaving, and more substance please. As it stands even the alleged summary is neither encyclopaedic nor comprehensible to the non-specialist. JonRichfield (talk) 05:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Justified lots of unsourced claims, apparent derived conclusions and possible original interpretations. Something along these lines could be a great addition to the page but this isn't it. SPACKlick (talk) 10:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Dear Banedon (and others): you say that the fact that the 100-200 Gev mass range is not given by the theory is not clear to a non specialist. I agree with that. The same comment applies to many parts of this wikipedia article, like the mathematical section. But both can be found in any textbook about Quantum Field Theory, some of them being already referenced in the Higgs boson article (Peskin and Schroeder ...). Regarding the list of sources, and more specifically to the ATLAS and CMS publication lists, these lists have the advantage of being updated from time to time, providing up to date information. And selecting the ones dealing specifically with the Higgs identification would restrict the lists to only a few publications, of order 10 at worst, which is reasonnable compared to the 200 references of the article. But please note that these references where removed in the second version of the section I have added, which is the version under consideration here, not the one copied above in this talk page! In the modified version are 5 external references plus many references to existing wikipedia articles. By comparison to other parts of the main article I think that the number of references in my section is not so ridiculous, even though I agree that more references would be better. In particular the mathematical section contains only 2 sources: chapter 20 of Peskin and Schroeder book, and the Particle Data Group website for the measure of the parameter named v in particle physics. But any reader opening chapter 20 of the Peskin and Schroeder book will have some difficulties to consider that it is a relevant and reliable source for this section since the presentation is completely different. Of course a specialist would recognize that the book explains the same thing as in the article, but I cannot consider the argument that some parts are not clear for a non specialist as a valid argument with respect to the wikipedia guidelines (otherwise lots of articles would have to be removed...).Fred1810 (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
References are not something you need once per x words. They are needed for disputed, unclear or otherwise problematic claims. And your section is full of them, while mathematical parts can closely follow a few references for the whole section. --mfb (talk) 00:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Not justified. The editor who contributed the content went through a lot of time and effort to create it. If suitable references are not found for the statements, then the content could be deleted. from an un-involved editor. Best Regards,   Bfpage |leave a message  22:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
So far, no one found suitable references. --mfb (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Encyclopedias aren't written for specialists. A textbook source is OK, but it should still be cited. Also, the sources cited should back up what is said, not provide up-to-date information. Internal references to other Wikipedia articles are much less than ideal since Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. As for the mathematical section, I personally think it's rather technical and hence probably shouldn't be included in the article; on the other hand it is sourced, it just continuously refers to the same source. In the section under discussion, I can't tell which assertions can be justified by the sources, and which can't. Therefore I maintain my opinion: the text is very poorly sourced, and hence its removal is justified. Banedon (talk) 09:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
mfb, I'd rather say that the references I gave are not considered suitable by you or Ptrslv72. But anyone looking at our discussions from the beginning would notice that you did not comment on any specific reference I gave. Just saying "there is no suitable reference" is a bit short. Also for Banedon: you said that the mathematical section IS sourced! But how do you know that? It refers mainly to one reference, and only a specialist could make the mapping between the statements of the mathematical part and the corresponding source (just open this book and check if you don't believe me)...and you admitted not to be a specialist in the field (which is not a criticism of course), but I really don't understand your logic when you then say that the section I wanted to add is poorly sourced???? So far only one editor (Ptrslv72) gave specific arguments against the sources I provided (and I disagree with these arguments).Fred1810 (talk) 13:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm frankly astonished by that because that's not how references work. References show where a particular claim can be verified. That it isn't obvious how the reference directly maps to the text for a non-specialist is not a big deal; the source is there and you agreed that it backs the claims up. The section you wanted to add however is different. There are no sources - at least, not any relevant ones (again citing the entire collection of ATLAS and CMS papers is just plain not useful, to the point one might as well treat it as not a source). I haven't seen the 'modified section' you referred to, but it's not the section under dispute in this RfC. Banedon (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Banedon, the section under consideration in this Rfc is the one for which I have provided this link in the description of the Rfc. This link shows clearly the section deleted by mfb, which is under consideration here (and again not the section I copied above in this talk page).Fred1810 (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Apologies I must have confused the revisions. Nonetheless, the section you linked still goes five paragraphs with many claims that require sourcing (like the ones I mentioned above) that go unsourced. In its current form, I still think the removal is justified. Banedon (talk) 03:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Fred1810, the problem is not really the sources you provided, but rather the sources you did not provide for your derived conclusions (as aptly put by SPACKlick). So far I count seven editors (Ruslik0, Mfb, Dailycare, Banedon, JonRichfield, SPACKlick and myself) who tried to explain to you, one way or another, that your section does not comply with Wikipedia's guidelines on sourcing. Even the lone editor who opposed the deletion did not give a better reason than "you put a lot of work in it", and he/she also stressed the need for suitable references. Will you ever be touched by the doubt that maybe - just maybe - it is you who doesn't understand how Wikipedia works? Ptrslv72 (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Dear Banedon, I think there is a contradiction between your requirement to add some sources for "many claims that require sourcing" (you don't specify which ones) and the almost single reference for the mathematical part of the article which seems to be ok for you. Even mfb said "References are not something you need once per x words", and I agree with his statement even though he does not estimate that the references I provided are sufficient or sufficiently relevant. But well, I have provided references that you have clearly not evaluated, like the others except Ptrslv72 and (possibly) mfb. May be because you somehow admitted not being a physicist or a specialist of the topic when you said "Now I don't doubt that it could be that all these claims are justified or even obvious to a scientist working in the field, but they're not obvious to me...". Therefore we are left in the situation where only Ptrslv72 provided specific arguments in the discussion, but from an outside view many contributors disagree with the addition of the section I wrote. Since there have not been any more comments since some weeks I think it is hopeless to obtain a positive support for my contribution, so I give up. Ptrslv72, regarding your personnal attacks, I often have doubts regarding my actions and thoughts, and I think it's just the main difference between you and me. Farewell! 22:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred1810 (talk • contribs)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lead

I don't want to disrupt the work that is being done here, and I understand how hard it is to come up with a good lead for scientific articles that is also comprehensible by general readers. However 2nd sentence in the existing lead bothers me:

The Higgs boson or Higgs particle is an elementary particle in the Standard Model of particle physics. It allows scientists to explore the Higgs field—a fundamental field first suspected to exist in the 1960s . . .

I understand that the article wants to make the point that the Higgs field is more important to scientists than the Higgs particle, but is this the way to say it? The 2nd sentence neglects to specify that the Higgs particle is actually the transmitter of the field, implying that it is trivial or ancillary. I think it would be better to actually describe the relation between the particle and the field:

The Higgs boson or Higgs particle is an elementary particle in the Standard Model of particle physics. It is the quantum particle that is the carrier of the Higgs field—a fundamental field first suspected to exist in the 1960s . . .

Comments? --ChetvornoTALK 00:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the point you are making, although the term "carrier" is usually referred to forces as opposed to generic fields. What about "It is the particle associated to the excitations of the Higgs field ..."? Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I also agree, although I would go with "It is the quantum excitation of the Higgs field..." or something similar. "Particle associated to the excitations" seems a bit roundabout.TR 14:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
My feeling is that this is better than the previous wording, but it is vague and doesn't get across the crucial idea that the Higgs is the quantum or carrier particle of the Higgs field, the same way the photon is for the electromagnetic field. You editors have done an exceptional job of making an esoteric subject understandable to general readers. I think this page should be put up for Good article or Feature article status. But I think that more concrete wording could be found for the lead, which is going to be all that some nontechnical readers, who just want the simplest definition of a Higgs particle, are going to read. --ChetvornoTALK 20:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Non-technical summary and Overview

It seems to me that, instead of the content in the "Non-technical summary" in the "Overview" sections, and we could reasonably just have the "Overview" section". There is quite a bit of redundancy between the two sections. I'm willing to do this, moving cited sources into the Overview. Thoughts? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Further Applications

Sorry if this ends up not looking right, I'm new to editing wikipedia. As a person with a strong science background outside of physics, I just wanted to point out that the further applications are something that I think should definitely be in this article. However, the cases sited in the text (copied below) are terrible examples of further applications. They have nothing at all to do with the physical phenomena of the Higgs particle but instead are tangential scientific improvements due to having to deal with the data involved. Can someone come up with some better examples, such as something that grew out of our knowledge of electromagnetic fields? The semiconductor comes to mind but I don't know enough about the physics to be sure it is actually a reasonable example.

"The challenges in particle physics have furthered major technological progress of widespread importance. For example, the World Wide Web began as a project to improve CERN's communication system. CERN's requirement to process massive amounts of data produced by the Large Hadron Collider also led to contributions to the fields of distributed and cloud computing[citation needed]." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.226.99.46 (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

if energy and mass are equal, higgs bosons would be the opposite of light

Off-topic discussion: talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles. Take this to the science refdesk, if anywhere. -- The Anome (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

if energy and mass are equal, higgs bosons would be the opposite of light(which is why the most massive objects: black holes, are black), this explains why all energy including light is attracted to higgs bosons via gravity. mass is the most compact form of energy and light is the least compact form of energy whereby gravity acts as a form of magnetism between the two.

The5thForce (talk) 10:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

This does not make sense at all. --mfb (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I value all responses, please elaborate which part do you have trouble following? The5thForce (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
It's not that it's a difficulty in following what you say, it's that what you say makes no sense on a level similar to "cakes are the opposite of trucks, one gives energy, the other consumes it". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
due to the uncertainty principle, analogy is fundamentally how all information is transmitted- energy is no different. while i agree associations in the realm of science should be narrowed down to the most efficient analogy, the burden of improving the coherency of my original statement is on the person claiming it is incoherent. assuming energy and mass are equal, if higgs bosons are the heaviest particles known and if light particles/photons are the 'lightest' particles, higgs bosons would be the opposite of light on the energy spectrum(every-thing is energy). assuming higgs bosons are the heaviest form of energy it also follows they would have the 'most' energy which allows them to stretch spacetime enough to force lighter particles to follow in their wake which we call gravity. lighter energy literally falls down the curved spacetime created by heavier energy, from an observers perspective eventually the spacetime can appear to tear resulting in black holes where energy is spatially moving faster than light and in the process appearing black. considering the well established fact that the universe is expanding faster than light, and the only objects causing light to appear black is the spatial folds created by mass, we might also consider black holes to play a fundamental role in the creation of new universes which has been proposed by Lee Smolin for quite a few decades now. The5thForce (talk) 03:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
-building on the cake-fuel/truck-machine analogy(you went there, not me), you might also say the higgs boson could potentially be the most abundant energy source in the universe IF we could find a way to exploit it, perhaps by creating and sustaining a black hole then harvesting the hawking radiation to convert for mechanical work similar to how the multiverse appears to create new universes, or if we could find a way to fissure/fuse a higgs boson theoretically it would release all forms of lighter energy/particles lighter than higgs bosons but that might already be what hawking radiation is(the process of a white hole fusing with a black hole releasing hawking radiation), ultimately it reflects the axiomatic fractal(frack|fraction) symmetry(axiom)|break(frack) nature of existence(which im attempting to show by stacking opposing concepts/contradiction loops): heaviest energy fusing with lightest energy, abstract(black|white) information fusing with the real(observer|observed) energy, space-time is multi-verse(literally space+time=2 verses)|(figuratively observation is the symmetry break of light as in the double slit experiment- light(photons)+heavy(higgs mass)=energy spectrum=multiverse), nothing-uncertainty|something-principle (uncertainty|principle) creating everything inbetween(duality spectrum/binary logic), a perpetual motion feedback loop we experience as 'time'(and space) fusing with our awareness of it- loops and strings being the analogy used in string theory and loop quantum gravity. The5thForce (talk) 06:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Your text is not even wrong, it is so far away from anything remotely reasonable that it is impossible to pin down what exactly would be wrong. Top quarks are heavier than the Higgs, by the way. --mfb (talk) 12:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
"not even wrong" is another way of saying 'i dont know', "impossible to pin down what would be wrong" is a claim that it is unknowable- yet you have not provided evidence for the claim, you're saying my comments are unreasonable without providing a reason. aside from that, top quarks(left|right) actually fuse with higgs bosons via yukawa interaction(analogy): the Yukawa interaction is used in the Standard Model to describe the coupling between the Higgs field and massless quark and lepton fields (i.e., the fundamental fermion particles). Through spontaneous symmetry breaking(dictated by the uncertainty principle), these fermions acquire(fuse with) a mass proportional to the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field. The Higgs boson has a Yukawa coupling to the left- and right-handed top quarks. After electroweak symmetry breaking (when the Higgs acquires a vacuum expectation value), the left- and right-handed components mix(analogy), becoming a mass term.
-if observation is the symmetry break of light(double slit), and everything is energy- observation is also the symmetry break of all energy which is why relativity is between the observer(uncertainty) and the observed(principle), spatially distant energy relative to the observer becomes black(devoid of light/color). if the observer is the symmetry break between all energy, the observer is the symmetry break between all concepts including quantum mechanics and general relativity, but the goal of science is to minimize these 'breaks' to the most efficient analogy. The5thForce (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: this entire discussion is off-topic here. See wp:talk page guidelines. - DVdm (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Emperor's New Clothes

Are there any sources that label the Higgs Boson as The Emperor's New Clothes? This article is completely absent of any criticism as to its actual existence. That is a bad sign that the bandwagon effect has taken place on a massive scale.Trilliant (talk) 12:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The article about the sun is also absent of any criticism as to its actual existence. Is that really a bad sign? --mfb (talk) 19:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

weak charge of higgs boson

In Leon Lederman's new book "Beyond the God Particle", pg 139, it is mentioned that Higgs boson has weak charge -1. It seems to me that this is a fairly important property prescribed to the Higgs boson. Why isn't this property included in the article? Should this property be included?--LaoChen 06:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello LaoChen . By weak charge, I believe the author is referred to the weak hypercharge of the Higgs field. The weak hypercharge is computed according to the formula given in here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Weak_hypercharge

For the Standard Model Higgs field, the weak hypercharge is normally taken to be +1 (or +1/2 if one uses the formula Q=T_3+Y_W. This is the value stated in this specific article if you read the section "Technical aspects and mathematical formulation"). There is however a theory called Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model, that predicts the existence of a second Higgs field which has a weak hypercharge Y=-1 (or -1/2 if one uses the convention mentioned in the previous parenthesis). This last detail is not included in this article but it is mentioned in the section "MSSM fields" in the relevant theory which is described here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Minimal_Supersymmetric_Standard_Model#MSSM_Higgs_Mass

I do not have the book and I could not download it so as to know what is exactly written on page 139 but I hope that I answered your question. If not, then please feel free to ask me. Irene000 (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

If we work in unitary gauge, Higgs field is a SU(2) doublet (0, phi0), and boson is the excitation on top of phi0. Thus, like other SU(2) doublets ((u,d) (ve,e)) lower components, Higgs boson has weak isospin T3=-1/2. Since it is electrically neutral, from Q=T3+Y/2 we get weak hypercharge Y=+1. 213.175.37.10 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Verified or not?

Our article says that the Higgs boson is "unverified" and the page edit notice says "Do not say the Higgs boson has been definitively discovered or confirmed." Yet our article has a section titled "Preliminary confirmation of existence and current status" which lists five different ways that the particle has been validated as a Higgs boson. Not only that, but numerous reliable sources state that the Higgs has been confirmed or verified, including CERN physicists:

  • "Without a doubt, it is a Higgs boson, but is it the Higgs boson of the Standard Model?" – John Ellis, CERN (2014)[1]
  • "... every alternative option tested has by now been ruled out with a high degree of confidence." – John Ellis, CERN (2014)[2]
  • "Beyond any reasonable doubt, it is a Higgs boson." – Nobel Physics Committee (2013)[3]
  • "The Higgs boson is the final piece of the Standard Model – when it was discovered by the CMS and ATLAS experiments in 2012, it was the last particle predicted by the Model to be verified experimentally." – André David, CERN (2015)[4]
  • "That uncertainty has now melted away. This week, physicists gathered in Moriond, Italy announced that additional data from the Large Hadron Collider's 2012 data run now conclusively show that the new boson has a spin of zero, and is thus a Higgs boson." – Scientific American (2013)[5]
  • "... they never yet saw the particle’s telltale decay into 'matter' particles... Now scientists have succeeded in that observation, confirming that the particle whose discovery was announced at CERN on July 4th 2012, is indeed the long-sought-after Higgs boson." – Discover (2014)[6]

CERN is never going to come out and say "We are now 100% certain this is the Higgs Boson" as there is always uncertainty: "I’m not sure one will ever say this is the Standard Model Higgs boson ... You can never prove something is right, you can only ever prove something is wrong. All we can do is rule out more and more alternatives."[7] However, it now seems to be more or less accepted that the 125 GeV particle is indeed the Higgs Boson for all intents and purposes. The staunch skepticism of our article no longer seems to be in line with the preponderance of reliable sources. What would people think of relaxing the lead wording and edit notice to no longer impose such a strong degree of uncertainty about the Higgs discovery? Kaldari (talk) 05:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd say give it another year or so. LHC collected lots of data in 2016, digesting it should significantly increase confidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.175.37.10 (talk) 13:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Sure, but the situation won't change. Every particle physicist called the discovered particle "Higgs boson" since 2012, but no one will ever say "we are absolutely sure that it behaves exactly as the SM Higgs boson", because infinite precision measurements are not possible. With the same argument, we are also not sure that the top quark behaves exactly as the SM top quark. So what. We still call it "top quark". The top part of the edit warning was outdated in 2013 already. --mfb (talk) 11:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Pinging User:M.O.X: What would be necessary to change the page notice? --mfb (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
@Mfb: The issue was that a bunch of discontent Indian editors, at the time of that notice, were unilaterally adding that the Higgs was supposedly named after Bose, an Indian scientist. When in fact it was named after Higgs. The boson, as a type of particle, was named for Bose, and not the Higgs. That is why the edit notice is there. Any user with template editing rights or account creator can edit it. James (T • C) • 01:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the edit notice is outdated, particularly given the fermion couplings measurements and no deviation in the cross section from the SM in 2015. In much of the recent scientific literature (both peer-reviewed and in press-releases written by CERN and other institutes) the Higgs boson is spoken about as if it were definitely discovered in 2012. It is no longer a valid argument to say "CERN have been cautious [...]" Dukwon (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Changes in the editnotice have already been made thanks to Izno. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks all. Updating some articles is my next todo-item after the remaining press release weblinks are fixed. I know the "Bose" story, that's not the part I was questioning. --mfb (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Converting text tables to prose

Hello all, The issue of the tables containing paragraphs of text has been raised previously by Kaldari. 2.28.156.81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has converted the non-technical summary table to prose. I've now gone ahead and also merged the scientific impact table into the significance section. Some duplicated info could definitely be cut down in the non-tech summary. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 10:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I've integrated the non-technical summary table info into the overview info to create a single non-technical summary. I've endeavoured not to change any info, however please check that I've not inadvertently introduced any errors. Similarly, the section is still poorly sourced, since the original text that I combined contained few citations. More will need to be added. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 06:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
A lot of text from "overview" went away. Not sure if that was fully redundant. --mfb (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I tried to check that I only removed redundant info, but it's always possible that I missed something. I have also done a quick check to make sure that al the wikilinks from the old "overview" are present in the new text. Hope that helps. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 03:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Higgs boson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

H->bb

ATLAS showed updated H->bb results at EPS, 3.6 σ significance. Talk, PDF, I expect that we get a conference note in the next few days, and ideally some news article. Not 5 sigma, but we can add it as "seen" once we have more than the slides. --mfb (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Minimal Standard Model

The name Minimal Standard Model is used in the article but isn't explained. What is this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.135.87.8 (talk) 04:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

That word didn't make sense there, I removed it. That section needs an update anyway, it was written before the Higgs discovery. --mfb (talk) 09:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Higgs boson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Higgs boson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

First, congrats to all on an excellent article! And apologies in advance to anyone who might feel my edit is not appropriate. I mean no disrespect. And I fully understand that this article is not the place to describe what a boson is.

But I do believe that a wikilink to the first occurrence of the term boson is both appropriate and helpful (depression and fertility reduction from wikilink-blue not withstanding :) ) to the general reader who is likely not familiar with the term.

Duedilly (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

That link is there already. "In the Standard Model, the Higgs particle is a boson with spin zero". It is the first occurrence of "boson" as type of particle, not as part of the name. --mfb (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 23:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you and I see that now, in the 5th paragraph and 10th occurrence of the term (not counting the title). But might I suggest, as had been my experience today, that many people unfamiliar with or curious for more details of the term will have already googled it or searched WP for it prior to getting to the 10th occurrence? Perhaps a wikilink could be added sooner, so as to be more useful to the average (non-particle physicist) user? I certainly appreciate the article and am only looking to make it easier for someone reading wikipedia to understand and enjoy the article more easily. In any case, that is my opinion and experience today, as a medical scientist, and I will now leave it to you all (who have spent so much time making the article as excellent as it is) to decide what is the best presentation. Thanks - Duedilly (talk) 06:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
That paragraph or at least a part of it could be moved further up. The naming part can move down and the experimental search can be shortened. --mfb (talk) 06:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Article length

This article is __very__ long. Is there anything that can be done to shorten it? Ergzay (talk) 08:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

The Higgs mechanism could be shortened, it has its own article. Large parts of the introduction before that are not specific to the Higgs boson either. The experimental search could be shortened or be moved to a separate article, this article can focus on the now measured properties.
Large parts still need rewriting anyway. "If Higgs particle theories are valid" ... uh yeah. --mfb (talk) 08:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Section needs rewrite

Bolded and after:

Physicist Matt Strassler highlighted "considerable" evidence that the new particle is not a pseudoscalar negative parity particle (consistent with this required finding for a Higgs boson), "evaporation" or lack of increased significance for previous hints of non-Standard Model findings, expected Standard Model interactions with W and Z bosons, absence of "significant new implications" for or against supersymmetry, and in general no significant deviations to date from the results expected of a Standard Model Higgs boson.[121] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.177.73.138 (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

"Hugs bison" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hugs bison. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Section Symmetry breaking

I've made minor edits to improve readability, and shaved away (some) parts that don't address the section heading. I'm hoping a content expert can build up a better introduction to what symmetry breaking is, the steps through which it was discovered (at least 2 Nobel Prizes awarded for its elucidation) and the role it has had in keeping the Higgs boson "hidden", despite considerable progress in elementary particle research. Naturally, these are just suggestions and represent nothing more than what I, as a reader, would like to take away after reading this (sub)section. Prime Lemur (talk) 07:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Higgs Mass

Why has my edit to the higgs mass been reverted? The value used here is outdated. The global average value as of 2020 is 125.10 +/- 0.14 as given in the reference I added https://pdg.lbl.gov/2020/listings/rpp2020-list-higgs-boson.pdf . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.39.90 (talk) 16:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It would seem that your source confirms the measurement; therefore that user was incorrect to revert it. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Rename to "Higgs boson and field"?

The page covers both, and while for many years the boson was the more prominent search term (due to media attention), that has largely faded in recent years.

The topic is probably searched for, under both, by now, and it would look strange if for instance the entry for "electromagnetic field" was a topic titled "photon", or the entry for "weak interaction" was just titled "W and Z bosons".

There isn't as yet, any point in having two separate pages for the field and boson, but we could at least joint title it.

Thoughts? FT2 (Talk | email) 11:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. First, I believe that the current name is the WP:COMMONNAME. Now, I do suspect that the article is long enough that it could be split (somehow). It is not so well understood that quantum mechanics always has a field to go along with any particle, and that the reason we call them particles is that they are quantized and always come in whole units. I wouldn't rename to Photon and the electromagnetic field, or Electron and electron field, though. There are redirects for Higgs field, Higgs Field, and even Introduction to the Higgs field, and for me those are enough. That is leaving out why we don't have the Optical boson or electrical fermion. In other cases, we know which ones are fermions and bosons. Gah4 (talk) 09:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Agree strongly with Gah4 that the current name be kept, for the reasons he gave. I would also oppose splitting the article into separate articles for the boson and field, unless it gets a lot bigger. --ChetvornoTALK 13:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Just to be sure, I do believe that the article is big enough to split, but don't believe that particle vs. field is the right one. As well as I know it, particle vs. field are two different ways to look at the same thing. People find it confusing, but nature (that is, QM) doesn't care. Much of that confusion already shows up with photons, and explaining it here won't help. One thought, maybe not serious, would be a whole article just on quantum particle vs. quantum field. That is, independent of the actual particle/field. Gah4 (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
OK, it seems that quantum field is a redirect to quantum field theory. Also, it seems that this article has links to both. I am not convinced that one well explains the particle vs. field question, but asked in its talk page. Gah4 (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
It seems to me Quantum field theory would be a good place for a simple explanation for nontechnical readers that all elementary particles have an associated field and all fields in physics interact with matter in quantized units as if they are particles. We could write an introductory section explaining this; the article desperately needs some content that general readers can understand. Quantum is another possibility.--ChetvornoTALK 23:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I asked in talk for Quantum field theory, and will see if anyone replies. I am not up to doing it, though. Gah4 (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Also agree with Gah4 that name should remain as Higgs boson, as that name already implies excitation of a field. And a separate Higgs field article would overlap too much with this one and even more with Higgs mechanism. Dilaton (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Mean lifetime

We need to change mean lifetime. Check reference. It's not right. Intelligent boy 13 (talk) 10:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

A pedant writes: extra comma

It feels silly to write a Talk page post about this, bc I'd normally just fix it, but the page is protected, so: there's an unneeded comma in the third paragraph of the intro, in the sentence in parentheses. The comma after "...gain mass at lower energies" shouldn't be there and should be deleted. Sooooo yeah. Tpth (talk) 08:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

lede not readable for a general audience

I'm a physicist with a background in experimental low-energy nuclear physics. Although I'm able to follow most of the lede, parts of it are heavy going for me, and there are parts I don't understand. WP articles are supposed to be understandable to a general audience. The writing in the lede is simply not intelligible for laypeople. Not even close.--2603:8000:8900:6E00:D156:AA5E:D00F:414F (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

You mean the second paragraph? Ruslik_Zero 20:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
The whole article is extremely daunting. While I appreciate the difficulties of explaining modern particle physics to a general audience, there must be a middle ground between the current article and describing HBs as 'god particles' or 'magic moonbeams'. --Ef80 (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Without reading the above, I just looked at the article. I was about to say that it was fine, except for the second paragraph. Maybe it can stay, but it should not be anywhere near the top. Gah4 (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

renaming the page

This page should be renamed Brout-Englert-Higgs boson to reflect the simultaneous discovery as recognized by the Nobel comitee npettiaux (talk) npettiaux (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I've not seen any sources that call it anything other than the Higgs boson or the "God particle". –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:19, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
@Npettiaux, as I said after I undid your move of Higgs mechanism, Wikipedia articles use the most commonly used name for a topic. See WP:COMMONNAME. You will need to provide evidence that Brout-Englert-Higgs boson is the term most commonly used. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia uses the most common name, and that's "Higgs boson" (and "Higgs mechanism") without any doubt. See e.g. ATLAS and CMS. --mfb (talk) 11:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
As the article indicates, there were six names on the PRL paper. As well as I know, it is usual to name things, more generally than physics, after one or two people, but not more. Bose-Einstein statistics gives us boson, not bose-einsteinons. Someone once noted that successful presidential candidates have easy to pronounce names. It might be that Higgs was easier than the others. In any case, it is the WP:COMMMONNAME, whether it should be or not. Gah4 (talk) 00:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

Is there any possibility for this page to be a good article, or a featured article maybe? The article seems fine, maybe even enough to be a good article. I don't know much about physics, therefore I just wanted to see the opinions of the Wikipedians on this article, and if possible, brainstorm if this article in a shape that is adequate for a nomination. Cheers, Harald the Bard (talk) 12:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Higgs_boson/Archive_7&oldid=1259348068"