Jump to content

Talk:Higgs boson/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

A stronger lay explanation would be helpful

Except for the first paragraph, the article is inaccessible to lay readers. In particular, the Theoretical Overview section would not be comprehensible even to people of high verbal intelligence who have taken some college-level physics. Someone with a talent for finding fitting metaphors for physics concepts ought to amend the Theoretical section with a few lines that explain this to lay persons, particularly given the general media interest in the topic.173.52.140.206 (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I would love a chance at understanding this :) 24.30.16.34 (talk) 05:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and as a specific example: Higgs excitation redirects here, but this article does not mention any kind of excitement, and that's a disappointment. I came here to find out why this joke is funny, but no luck. 74.68.152.245 (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Same here.
EDIT: Apparently it's just a lame Half-Life reference (based on the guy at CERN who looks like Freeman) crossed with an even worse pun about the zone allowed by Higgs, who said the particle would be found within the year. Maybe something about Don Hertzfeldt, too. Mostly, it was a strip that wasn't absurd or straight enough to be funny. Cf. Cow Tools.
In other news, this page has short, fairly clear explanations of the Higgs Boson, what it does, and why it's so special. -114.91.65.33 (talk) 06:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Also agree. ALL the wiki articles on physics, etc need a section that simply explains the basic concept.
--Jason C.K. (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see that "making articles" accessible is a Wiki guideline (Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_accessible), & they have some good ideas on how to do so (including copying from the "simple" Wikipedia
--Jason C.K. (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Higgsless Models Become More Attractive

GeV ranges for allowable Higgs: 

Theory:
 Supersymmetry models predict: 120-1000
   Corrections approach of SM: 129-285
Experiment:
                     Fermilab: 170+
                          LHC:    -1000+

So Fermilab has already excluded the lower range of allowable Higgs. This is significant. The higher experiment ‘pushes the range’, the less likely theory is correct. This means Higgsless models become more attractive. (Source of above data: Wikipedia, Higgs boson.)

Alternatives to Higgs: 

Strongly interacting dynamics:
 Technicolor models
 Abbott-Farhi models
 Top quark condensate
Higgsless models:
 Moose models
 Z0+TC-VP-NL

The first set of alternatives is listed on the same source as above. The second set (first item) is from “Higgsless Models”, p407-427 of a Workshop on CP Studies.. by CERN published in ’06. The last alternative is ‘my baby’: impedance of space plus temporal curvature minus virtual particles minus non-locality. It is important to note: QFT contains QPT implies VP: quantum field theory contains quantum perturbation theory implies virtual particles. (Source: Wikipedia, Virtual particle.)

So the burden becomes: provide viable alternatives to VP and NL. Quantum chemistry provides a practical alternative: density functional theory. When implemented on computers, this approach satisfies both deficits. Multi-state systems and atom-atom interaction can be simulated with arbitrarily high precision. My proposal is that density functions represent space-time-averages of electron distributions. As was the problem from QM inception, we cannot observe individual electrons because any observation disturbs them. Also, individual electrons possess unknowable characteristics that can affect behavior. I propose an alternative to the SM electron: a non-local entity capable of sensing its ‘life-path’ environment. Viable alternative: a stable mini-dynamical system with an extended component that appears to cause self-interference. Also, symmetrical decay processes appear to exhibit non-locality. This is a fully deterministic and local theory without the need for virtual particles. See http://www.msu.edu/~micheal/case/ for more details.&Delta (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Kid's Theory

I can't believe this! I am not a scientist. I am a cook. I work for an organization that houses and cares for severely handicapped individuals. So, I like to say my cooking is like a science project, a simple item like a meatloaf has to be converted into several consistencies taking into account the eating disorders of the resident patients. That aside, I have always been an armchair physicist. I read A Brief History of Time three times. I’ve read Einstein’s Theory of Relativity several times. I’ve watched TV shows on science since I was a kid. I thought up my own, homegrown theory of the nature of matter when I was about 12 years old (I’m 61 now). My theory was that there is no matter. The basis of all that exists in the universe are non-particles that alternate between being positive and negative, just charges. But at some time at the beginning of time as Hawking describes it two charges were attracted to each other at the moment they were of opposite charge. But as they came together their charges which are in constant state of flux, switch and they are repelled. But before they can fly apart, they switch again and are drawn together. This goes on forever. But as other non-particles come near them, some are repelled; some are attracted, etc. on and on. No other particle can pass between the pairs because any particle passing near enough will be attached to the pulsating pairs. This ever growing group continues to grow till it assumes a state we consider mass.

As I said this is some silly armchair idea I had when I was twelve. But all of this talk about the Higgs boson strikes me as similar to my childhood ideaChefhenry (talk) 03:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed

The whole subsection below is removed. Is there any particular reason to include each and every babble about serious things into their articles? IMO only important developments have to make into an encyclopedia article; e.g., if some pop-(mis)conception gained some degree of notoriety. But to include each casual reference of the term would be ridiculous. Mikkalai 22:09, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pop-culture references

In the sci-fi comedy series Lexx, one character points out that although all-out nuclear war sometimes destroys all life on planets as advanced as Earth, it is much more common for such planets to be obliterated by physicists attempting to determine the precise mass of the Higgs boson particle, since the moment the mass is known the planet will instantly be compressed to the size of a pea.

In Stanislaw Lem's Solaris, a crew of scientists find themselves beset by the inexplicable presence of other people, including absent or deceased friends and relatives, on their space station - apparently the creations of an alien phenomenon they are studying. They discover that their visitors, when killed, always return to life, even if they attempt to kill themselves; their struggle to cope with this "problem" embodies one of the important underlying themes of the story. In Steven Soderbergh's 2002 film adaptation, the script (interestingly) references Higgs: "So, if we created a negative Higgs field, and bombarded them with a stream of Higgs anti-bosons, they might disintegrate."

end of removed piece -----


I highly disagree on removal. These bits of information gives wikipedia not only its humorous quirk, but also the important distinctive that Wikipedia is an "all-subject" Encyclopedia. Since they are separated into the "Pop-culture" part, they help people to distinguish from fiction to science.

The article was well divided and balanced, and more information is not a problem.... --nihil 14:35, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rather than have "Pop-culture references" (which seems to be used more for listing references that the subject of the article makes to pop culture), I say it should be re-added and renamed to "Higgs boson in fiction" (or "science fiction", since both examples are). Many other proven and unproven ideas, stories, theories, objects, techniques, and peoples have such sections on Wikipedia: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 These are just a bunch of randomly found pages in no particular order, showing how such a section can live in harmony and mutual benifit with a serious or unserious topic. (Hopefully this won't start a witch hunt of removing such sections!) Splarka 08:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In this case I agree with removal. Sci-fi movies and shows often throw scientific terms about carelessly just to tech it up a bit, but that doesn't mean they're saying anything about the actual physical phenomenon. Only when the piece of fiction deals with it explicitly, in-depth, and it's a source of common-knowledge on the subject is it important to the article, in my opinion. In other words, only when the appearances in fiction ARE the public persona of the phenomenon or effect is it important to treat those fictional references; however, in this case, I'd bet that more people have read The God Particle than have seen the shows in question. --Laura Scudder | Talk 16:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree on several points. While some movies and shows do throw around terms for the tech effect (TNG, Dr Who), some don't as much. I agree the Solaris use was for tech effect, but the Lexx reference spanned a whole season of the show, with several mentions and implications. The Higgs Boson was said to be so elusive that most civilizations destroyed themselves trying to find it, as earth almost does in a near-future.
Once the LHC is up and running, we pretty much will have the answer. I don't think Sci-Fi like this helps educate because it isn't realistic nor even close to realistic. It might even make some ignorant people dumber. The last thing I want is for ignorant people reading the article and getting strange ideas in their heads. You have to be really careful how you present scientific information. A student once asked me what color some wavelength was and I joked plaid. She wrote that on her exam. She never got the joke. (CHF 14:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC))
You know, I think I might agree with you on that point... We don't want people who are already ignorant on these subjects to get confused between science fiction and real science. scienceman 13:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, as your your "I'd bet that more people have read The God Particle than have seen the shows in question." Solaris (2002 movie) grossed around 170 million worldwide. At a guess of about $10 average admission, that is at least 17 million (and very few repeats, who would want to see that movie more than once? ugh) and the DVD sales are pretty high too. I couldn't find any specific sales list of The God Particle by Leon Lederman, but about A Brief History of Time (Hawking): "It has sold in excess of 10 million copies; For a book to sell so many copies is almost unheard of in the history of science writing." The sales ranking at amazon.com shows TGP at #38,367 compared to ABHoT at #2,841. So I would wager that The God Particle has been read by fewer people than have seen Solaris. Not counting the addition of Lexx which has around 60+ episodes that have aired in most major markets, and the amazon sales rank of the first VHS tape of 1.0 "I Worship His Shadow" peaked at 150 (out of about 40,000). So I think it should be rephrased and readded. Splarka 21:43, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
but both references have zilch to do with the actual particle, except for the parroting of the name. So while it makes sense to link here from the movie's article for background, it makes no sense whatsoever to link to the movies from this article, because there will be no information at all related to the topic of this article. Both references have to do with 'Higgs bosons' being used to destructive effect. I don't know any weapons use for the Higgs boson has been suggested, theoretically. If there was a sci-fi reference that dealt with the actual theory, even if far-fetched, such as tweaking mass or inertia by modifying the Higgs field or something, that could be worth a link. Baad 08:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, Lexx was a pretty smart show and the reference did subtly imply something of the nature of the Higgs boson, connecting the notions of "this is the particle that imparts mass" with "Heisenberg uncertainty says that precisely measuring mass will constrain measurement of position" (ie. have a spooky physical effect that can be fictionally exploited). Obviously it's all gross oversimplification and certainly played for laughs, but it made me interested enough to better find out what the Higgs boson was and what measuring its mass meant (granted I was already pretty interested in particle physics). I do find that pop culture sections in Wikipedia are often excessively inclusive, but I was surprised not to find the Lexx reference here. Wikipedia is about ideas, and the sometimes surprising manner in which rather abstruse ones like this can leak into lay popular culture is interesting enough that it probably deserves mention when it happens. - toh 20:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the Lexx reference should be readded, at the very least. Even if it doesn't say anything about the particle, i found it quite funny and it brightened my day. --Quasar 19:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
You can always start an article entitled Higgs boson (pop culture). However, I agree with the opinions above: ignorance of science and math in the US is appalling, and the last thing we need are people believing that the Higgs particle is "plaid" because Lex Luthor said so. linas 19:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
It's a clear violation of Wiki policy to make a decision based upon how a certain audience may view content. If the content deserves a reference, it should be included in a normal manner. It's both a violation of WP:POINT and WP:NPOV to remove/move content based on how a certain audience may interpret it. -DMurphy 00:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The point is that readers expect to read about the Higgs boson in the Higgs boson article. They do not expect to read about technobabble nonsense that happens to go by the same label. Hence the IMHO appropriate disambiguation between the two. Considering what the average reader would think is a key part of determining the structure of disambiguation pages. -- Xerxes 00:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with the characterization of the Solaris concept of a Higgs anti-boson as "technobabble," and though I agree that the Lexx reference is a bit absurd, I don't think adding it would do any harm to the article. If the issue here is the detriment to someone who reads the article's knowledge, I must say the references would do very little to deter the quality of this article. We must remember that the field of Particle Physics altogether was once considered technobabble. I think the topic of the Higgs boson is incredibly important, but the remedy is not to distinguish between humor and serious topics, but rather to just add more information. We must remember that this is a global encyclopedia, not just for the science community, and as such someone who reads the reference in Lexx or in Solaris would look to this article to explain what the Higgs boson is too, and therefore the article can be considered incomplete without those references. -DMurphy 22:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the above post is absurd and just plain wrong. A discussion of Higgs on Solaris is just plain technobabble. I enjoy Lem as a funny sci-fi author but please do not confuse sci-fi with physics. It is equally insulting to claim that particle physics was once technobabble too; this demonstrates either an ignorance of history, an ignorance of physics, or outright trolling. 02:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. Perhaps it is "technobabble" in the sense that it is not possible under the current standard model, but I am familiar with history enough to know that at one time the proton and neutron were considered fundamental particles until they were found to consist of quarks, so to say that when they were found to consist of quarks every scientist in the world accepted this theory as fact and not "technobabble" is a bit narrow-minded in my opinion. I did unfairly mix the field of sci-fi and physics in hindsight, and for that I am sorry, but to say that a Higgs anti-boson cannot exist simply because it was originally theorized in a work of science fiction is equally unfair. However, I think this discussion has resorted to trolling and the focus should return to the topic at hand - whether or not the fact should be in the article at all, and if so, in what manner. -DMurphy 22:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
A Higgs anti-boson can't exist as there is no such thing as an anti-boson. For example the W+ and W- could be said to be each others anti-particles, but they are still both bosons. The term boson or fermion simply refers to the spin of the particle and the particular properties resulting from this spin. Some Higgs models (e.g. MSSM) do contain more than one Higgs particle, but none use the phrase anti-boson.Jameskeates 10:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

the Higgs field and inertia

I assume that if interaction with the Higgs fields is instrumental in giving particles mass, then the Higgs field can be assumed to be the mediator of inertia. Unlike drag, inertia does not relate to velocity. As far as inertia is concerned, any velocity is zero; inertia relates to rate of change of velocity.

I wonder how that is accomodated in the theory of the Higgs field. Why does there appear to be no interaction with the Higgs field as long as the velocity is constant, and how does the Higgs field oppose acceleration? --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 09:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


All massive particles constantly interact with the Higgs field, regardless of their velocity. Inertia doesn't relate to rate of change of velocity, that's acceleration. See http://hepwww.ph.qmw.ac.uk/epp/higgs3.html for a story/interpretation of how the Higgs mechanism gives mass.Rotiro

Another way to explain it would be this: Rotiro is correct that interactions with the Higgs do not depend on velocity. But the newtonian equation F=ma, which describes how mass relates to acceleration, is not correct in quantum mechanics. Quantum field theory explains what the relativistic quantum analogue of F=ma is (though I can't explain it here). So it's another part of the theory (or, if you like, another theory) which answers your questions. PhysicsGrad2013 (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

upper limit

what is this "theoretical upper limit" of 186 Gev? is this somehow calculated from the known particle masses? This should be carefully separated from the experimentally expected "upper limit" (expectation within 95% confidence), based on the observation of spurious events, according to one of the external links set at 251 GeV in 2004. Baad 08:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

the theoretical upper limit is the highest energy we expect the Higgs to find at, based on the standardmodel

More precisely, it's based on precision electroweak fits to the Standard Model, see http://lepewwg.web.cern.ch/LEPEWWG/ Note also the experimental limit is a lower limit, not upper, and is not based on observing spurious events. It's based on not finding the Higgs at those energy levels.Rotiro

Updated the upper limit (now down to 153GeV ffrom 166) to reflect the most recent work from Fermilab - perhaps a tad early, as this hasn't been published in a peer reviewed journal yet. Perhaps someone could reference it when it's reported. Ta. Routlej1 18:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it in the arXiv or posted as an official result on one FNAL's pages? I'd consider FNAL experiment papers that have been released publically in any form to be reliable sources. However, results that aren't formally blessed should probably not be used, because they are not verifiable by outsiders and might yet be revised by the experiments themselves. Remember that Wikipedia is a secondary source, not a place where new research should appear first. -- SCZenz 18:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
It is an approved, publicly available result. Bodhitha 18:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, should have said where it came from - New Scientist. It was in an article in the news section in the 13th of January edition. 130.88.52.124 22:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

A Few Thoughts

So, the Higg's Field is "something" that through interacting with every single particle is responsible for giving every single particles its mass. So because a particle is touching this field it has a mass. If it interacts with everything, al the time, no matter where something is or goes, it must be everywhere. Something that interacts with everything. Let me try to makes connections between this and other things that affect every single particle...the universes so-called speed limit, the speed of light. Could the Higgs Field be the Universes traffic cop? If something goes too fast for the Higgs Field does it no longer have mass and therefore have no speed limit and disappear from our universe. Are Black Holes tears in the Higgs Field.

No. And Higgs is not responsible for all mass, just the masses of fundamental particles. The mass of the proton, for example, is not due to the Higgs. Its binding energy due to the strong nuclear force. -- Xerxes 16:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Thinking a little too much into it... Higgs doesn't even exist. Why do you think that quantum physicists sarcastically refer to it as the "God Particle"? It's not "Because it does everything and is everywhere" it's because it's being blamed for everything that Standard Model cannot adequately explain. Have a hole in your theory? Higgs did it! 24.254.189.253 17:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The constancy of the speed of light is one of the postulates of relativity, which is an assumption of quantum field theory (and therefore the higgs mechanism). So it is not really possible for the Higgs to be the mechanism by which relativity works. Instead, physicists generally consider relativity to be a property of space-time, not of interactions. PhysicsGrad2013 (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Major edit explained

I have rewritten the whole article, mainly to achieve a more structured presentation. Most of the original information remains, with the following exceptions:

  1. The best estimate for the Higgs mass is not 91 GeV.
  2. The theoretical upper limit for the SM Higgs mass is not 186 GeV.
  3. The "experimentally expected" upper limit is not 251 GeV.
  4. The upper bound on the SM Higgs mass of 200 GeV (for the SM to be valid up to the Planck scale) was changed to 190 GeV to agree with the Particle Data Group.
  5. The sentence on Yukawa Interaction is out of place and looks like an unjustified self reference.

Thor Waldsen 19:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The results of Fermilab June 2004 changed the estimates of the Higgs mass and the upper bound was changed from 219 to 251 GeV because of a new value of top quark mass. The fact of being the interaction of Higgs fields a Yukawa interaction, i.e. short-ranged is indeed of importance, although it is nothing unexpected, since only massive fields interact short-ranged.Nbez 20:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Higgs

I think the Higgs boson is the answer to almost all of the questions about the Universe's Dark matter, and dark energy.--216.183.184.253 01:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

All your base are belong to us. 204.52.215.107 13:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

It's funny that 246 is the sequence of the first 3 even numbers, which happens to be double the sequence of the first 3 prime numbers. Ringthane

I don't think that 1 is a prime number.

  • For some odd reason, they do not concider 1 to be a prime. However, I have yet to get a clear answer from any mathematician as to why it is not. They define a prime as "only evenly divisible by 1 and itself" and I'd like to see you divide 1 by anything other than 1 and itself... Granted 1 is itself, but technically meets all the qualifications. 24.254.189.253 17:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
This topic can be discussed on the talk page for prime numbers. However... a prime number is supposed to be a number with exactly two factors (one and itself). One has only one factor and is not prime. 69.156.31.181 00:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
The reason 1 is not a prime number has to do with unique factorization and is adopted just as a convention. All integers can be uniquely factored into primes. A prime is only factored into itself. However, 1 does not have a unique factorization. (ex. 6 = 2*3, 1 = 1*1*1*1*1*1*1 = 1*1*1 = 1) and thus all the unique factorization theorems do not apply to it so we say it isn't a prime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.50.167 (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
It is not logic it's "definition war", most people define prime as can be devided only by one and itself.

and so yet som math people say that's not fair. But who are we to define such things?

There are a lot of exmples with zero and 1 there is even in math. So if 1 is prime it's rather up to your definition you can define yourself, as others did also. Even in Prime discusion board this is a comlpex topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.143.153 (talk) 11:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh BTW the nearest prime = 241
and the next = 251
in the middle of these there is 246 non prime
factored into primes (or ) depending on prime definition
Oh and remember 41 + 1 = 42 which was debated in the hitchhickers galaxy book as the ultimate answer.
But ehm what's the deal with 246 and higgs ?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.143.153 (talk • contribs)
OMG BIBLE CODE FOUND!!11! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.165.196.84 (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - and I so hate to spoil y'all's fun with trivial mathematics and popular culture nonsense, but we really need to stay on topic. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum, or a "chat room", or "blog page" for airing and discussing cool things that you learned in school, or found at another web site, or read in Scientific American, or on some geekmath-ter's blog page - unless it is 100% relevant to the article. The only material that should be posted and discussed here on the talk page is that which is required to improve the article. If you find some information with useful, updated, or corrected information on Higgs Boson, then by all means post it here and we can discuss working it into the article in an appropriate way. Otherwise please feel free to take up the prime number trivia and HHGTTG stuff for discussion at an appropriate mathematics or fan forum. Thanks, and again sorry for having to spoil your fun and calling the place to order. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 14:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Merger

I really recommend a merge of the pop culture page... I realize that this has been discussed, but just because this is a scientific topic does not mean it is above the rest of the articles. If the information is important (but not large enough of a subtopic to warrant its own article), it should be included in an encyclopaedic matter in the main article. If not, it should not be on Wikipedia. There's no need to make a new article (which has all of two references and is AfD-worthy if this article didn't exist). -DMurphy 23:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The main problems I see here are that:

  • The article was split without clear consensus. A rough tally of the sides of the previous debate count four in favor of re-adding the information (since it was removed outright by Mikkalai): Quasar, toh, Splarka, and nilhil, as well as a 5th unsigned comment in favor of replacement. Five were in favor of the removal: Mikkalai, Laura Scudder, CHF, linas, and Baad. If anything, this vote should indicate no consensus and the default should be to status quo (and the facts should remain, or in this case be added back to the article since the debate on the change reached no consensus), as was done in the Second Search Box poll.
  • There is no precedent (that I can find) for this type of disambiguation, which could indicate a violation of WP:POINT.

I really don't mean to wag my finger here, I am merely trying to offer some type of policy to solve this matter. -DMurphy 22:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

There is clear precedent in the dark matter (fiction) article, another physics topic which accrues much pop culture nonsense. On the other hand, there is the counterexample of tachyon#Tachyons in fiction, which takes up nearly half of that article. Perhaps this is an issue which should be referred to some greater policy-setting body? -- Xerxes 14:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I wasn't aware of that precedent. As far as a policy-setting body goes, the only one that jumps out is WP:AFD. As you probably can see I've added a vote below (since there doesn't yet seem to be a consensus), but if that vote reaches no consensus I am in favor of referring the pop culture article to AFD. -DMurphy 23:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I created the new article, mostly so that the information would not be deleted. I am in favor of merging. — goethean ॐ 22:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Creating a new article is not a valid way to bypass community consensus to delete. I don't feel strongly that the pop-sci section shouldn't be here, so I wouldn't oppose a merger, but if the consensus is that it shouldn't, your page must be deleted. -lethe talk + 05:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand that Wikipedia is not paper. But I shudder in horror to think if someone would want to expand the article Jesus in Pop culture with all novels and films in which someone said "Holy Jesus!" or "Holy Christ!". `'mikka (t) 21:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Vote

I realize that this may be considered a violation of Not an experiment in Democracy, but there doesn't seem to be a consensus here. It seems to me that there are three clear options - delete the pop culture article, re-merge the pop culture article, or keep things the way they are now. Since the first option should be done through AfD rather than here, this vote will have two options: Merge if you are in favor of re-merging the references or Don't Merge if you are against re-merging the references. If the consensus is Merge, the references will be merged with the main article in their own sub-topic. If the consensus is Don't Merge or if the vote is No Consensus, the article will be referred to WP:AFD (which will further decide the fate of the article). Please refer to the debate above for the argument of both sides, and debate may also continue below. All votes should be signed.
Please add your vote below of either Merge or Don't Merge:

  • Merge Though the topic is not of importance in a scientific aspect, it seems to be of significance. Since the topics are not significant enough to warrant their own article, it seems to me it should be re-merged. -DMurphy 23:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Don't Merge Considering the summary written and the recent additions to the other article, I feel the best way to go is to leave well enough alone and focus on what to do with the other article (but not merge it). -DMurphy 20:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Merge. Wikipedia tradition is to put separate toppics into separate articles. There is absolutely no trace of similarity between pop-Higgs bosons and the "real" ones, with the exception of the name. I totally agree that a section "Fermat's last theorem in fiction" makes sense, because the topic is essentially the same. But in our case only the buzz-name is reused. `'mikka (t) 21:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. Same topic. These are science-fiction treatments of a scientific concept. I don't understand where the urge to delete this information comes from. — goethean ॐ 22:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge I guess (I might vote delete if that were a choice, I'm not sure yet). Given the choices of this vote, I definitely have to say that giving it its own article is silly. Neither article are barely more than a stub, and giving pop versions of science article their own page is inappropriate for an encyclopedia and sets a bad precedent. -lethe talk + 22:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually technically a delete vote would fall into Don't Merge, since if the consensus is Don't Merge the Pop culture article will be referred to WP:AfD. The options here are relatively irrelevant... the vote is whether or not the references should be included in the main article. -DMurphy 00:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah, but my main position is that I do not support an independent page. I can only vote don't merge contingent upon another vote that might not pass. Better to vote merge. -lethe talk + 00:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. It should not be the role of the encyclopaedian to judge what is "useful" o "good" information beyond the limits of technicalities in an Encyclopedia (Ok, I know I am an Inclusionist). This is information and may be interesting for some people (as it is for me). One can, for example, try to understand why people in Soderbergh's Solaris talk about a "Higgs Field". It can also contain explanations why usages of scientific technobabble is correct or wrong in cultural references, providing a meaningful source of education. Besides, all around wikipedia, using "pop cultural references" sections seems prevalent. nihil 22:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain. WHile I dislike the pseudoscience blather, I suppose I should be grateful that popular culture is interested in such a obscure and arcane topic. If it helps create interest in young students contemplating careers in science, that's great. Just don't let it degenerate into silliness. linas 22:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't merge. I agree with mikkalai that the pop culture Higgs bears no relation to what's described in Higgs boson. — Laura Scudder ☎ 23:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or at least don't merge. Technobabble is not information, much less encyclopedic information. This material is of marginal interest even to the articles about the shows in question. (It is not mentioned in either of the articles related to the shows.) It is of zero interest to anyone interested in the Higgs boson. If anyone were to read this nonsense and confuse it with the physics of the Higgs boson, they would be dumber for having read Wikipedia, a situation I think is completely unacceptable. -- Xerxes 01:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. As the particle itself is hypothetical, it is closer to science fiction than to fact in my opinion (...and before you berate me for making that statement, science fiction is more than just technobabble-enhanced fantasy storytelling: science fiction writers like Clarke and Niven have predicted several actual technological and social changes/inventions/discoveries. Who knows, the Higgs Boson might destroy earth! Or kill off ghosts...) Splarka (rant) 06:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    Bzzzt. There is a vast ocean of difference between a scientific hypothesis and a tale of science fiction. This is a terribly basic misunderstanding of what science is, and how the scientific method works; I am appallled. Perhaps the above vote should be cast out, and said editor should consider abstaining until they gain some experience. linas 00:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    We don't have scientific requirements for suffrage here at wikipedia. Let's be nice. -lethe talk + 00:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps I was too mean, I apologize. But there's an awful lot of nonsense that goes on, and I find it quite exhausting. Surely there's a better way. linas 00:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - the main article is strong enough to withstand the presence of a couple of slightly silly but also mildly interesting or amusing pop culture references (and if it isn't, strengthen it!). They certainly don't belong in a separate article. - toh 15:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - For reasons stated above, and the same reasons toh stated. I feel that pop culture references strengthen Wikipedia; no one wants it to be too dry.. --Quasar 23:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Don't Merge. Mixing real science and science fiction just dilutes and corrupts the science. There's already too much confusion and ignorance in the general public about what science really is. I agree with Xerxes.Rotiro 05:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't merge. I wouldn't mind if it was actual appearences of the Higgs boson in popular culture, but this is just other things that were randomly named the Higgs boson as technobabble. -- SCZenz 16:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't merge. Fiction writers are free to appropriate whatever ideas they want and paint them in any colors they fancy, and they do. Writing may make them famous but doesn't make their stories true. Scientists have a much harder time of it, and the ideas of Peter Higgs and his 1960s collaborators have had a particularly long and difficult time. The LHC coming on line in 2007 may finally provide a signature of the Higgs boson. Background for the Higgs and its literary references are in the traditional pattern of SciFi with art imitating nature, or at least its scientific students. The reverse pattern held with the quark, which Murray Gell-Mann chose as a whimsical name for his physics concept based on an offhand remark in Finnegans Wake. In both cases, however, later imitators sought prestige from the scientific concept and not the literary one. As with "quark," the hard-won scientific idea should get the page, and the page should refer to disambiguation for other uses of the word or phrase. --Craig Bolon 16:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't merge For the reasons I have already given. The portrail of the HB was not accurate. It will confuse people and implant bad ideas in their heads. If it was rewritten to not mention any psuedo-scientific ideas, then I would abstain. CHF 10:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I would definitely recommend at least a disambiguation page for these articles. (The scientific and the pop culture versions of Higgs boson). scienceman 13:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

  • There's no need for a third page to disambiguate two topics... if there were a third topic, I would agree, but that is not the case. I think that issue should be addressed if the pop culture article holds up in both here and AFD (by adding a link to it at the top of the article in italicized form), but until then the articles are already linked to each other and adding the text would just muddy the waters on this issue more. -DMurphy 00:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

See the content of the above category. WAS 4.250 17:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the controversial article could be merged into an article called "particle physics in popular culture"? -- Xerxes 18:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think that is an excellent idea. You know, in the Tarkovsky version of Solaris, it was netruinos, not Higgs bosons, that formed the aliens or whatever (I don't know what it was in Lem's story, probably netrinos as well). An article that covered all particle physics in pop culture could have a section on neutrinos. Or why stop there? Why not have an article called modern physics in popular culture? It could do not only neutrinos, Higgs bosons, and antimatter, but black holes, wormholes, extra dimensions, and dark energy as well. -lethe talk + 20:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I think "Modern Physics" is a bit too broad, considering the huge number of sci-fi prose pertaining to science out there, but I do think a Particle Physics in pop culture article seems reasonable. -DMurphy 21:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, maybe you're right. To include all of mordern physics would entail a catalogue of 25% of all sci-fi works. But anyway, the point is, while I don't support a separate page for Higgs bosons in pop fiction, I would support a page for particle physics in pop fiction, with a heading for Higgs bosons, and a link from this article. -lethe talk + 22:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

How about a compromise?

I'm going to put a short subsection into this article, that very briefly mentions the idea of the Higgs boson being used in popular culture, and then refers to the other article—in analogy with what is currently done in dark matter. Let me know what you think. -- SCZenz 23:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The difference between this situation and Dark matter is that the pop culture article here can't really survive on its own (or avoid AfD). Unless more references are added, it's going to be tough to justify keeping the article at all. Right now the vote is 8-5 in favor of the merge. The question is more than just whether or not the facts are relevant to the main article, but also if they can survive on their own at all. I think making a Particle Physics article (as mentioned above) would successfully solve this problem, but I also know that if the consensus is to merge the facts, that's what should be done, instead of maintaining a second article which, as of now, has only 3 references, one of which is unverified. -DMurphy 03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The votes above depended on the options presented. I would change my vote to the particle physics option we discussed. I'm just waiting for someone to be bold. -lethe talk + 03:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I think there are a lot more pop culture references to the Higgs boson than have been put in yet—I've watched the dark matter (fiction) article expand greatly over a relatively short time. I also think that a highly-tangential subject being too weak to stand on its own is a very dubious reason to stuff it into the main article. (This article should be more readable to laypeople, sure, but it should be about the physics concept.) As for the poll, all it shows is that there's no consensus yet. So by all means, if you want to make an article on particle physics in pop culture, go for it. -- SCZenz 07:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I actually like the idea of how it is now, with the subsection. I think it works and it's a good compromise. However, it doesn't solve the problem of what to do with the other article. As it seems that, as you said, there is no consensus, something needs to be done with the other article, whether it be putting it into a Particle Physics in pop culture article, adding more (cited, hopefully) references to make it a legitimate article, or, if all else fails, put it up for AfD and let that program work the situation out. Until that happens, though, I think a merger is still a viable option. There has yet to be a consensus on whether or not the subject is "highly tangential," and this has been debated for over a year. I think forming the other article into something legitimate and non AfD-able would satisfy both sides, but until that happens the debate on whether or not the facts should be included in the main article will continue. After all, this has been going on for a year (though the other article has only existed for a month) and almost nothing has been done to add to the references, so I'm a bit skeptical that if we throw out the merger idea and just let the article develop that it will actually turn into something worthwhile. Sorry, but I think we need to see some progress before the problem is solved. When we have at least 5 cited references on the other page, or if the other page is merged into Particle physics in pop culture, then I think we can consider the matter solved and remove the merger idea. -DMurphy 23:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind leaving the merger tags for a while; that can serve as the status quo until something else happens as far as I'm concerned. However, I'd like to make two points also:
  1. Nobody will delete the pop culture article, even as-is, for one very important reason: the physicists who edit physics articles and take their content seriously like the fact that there's somewhere else for people to put random pop culture trivia. Deleting that outlet is the last thing we want.
  2. On the question of whether the material is highly tangential, let me make one thing clear. It is my opinion as a professional (albeit lowly) particle physicist that the things called "Higgs bosons" in the sci-fi references do not accurately reflect the properties of the Standard Model Higgs boson, nor are do they reflect theoretically plausible variants on its properties. At best, they use its name and (vaguely) the idea that it has something to do with the origin of mass (and one of them mixes it up with magnetic monopole searches). I don't know of anyone here who has the technical expertise to dispute that view and disagrees with it; I mean no insult when I say that my view is based on a lot of knowledge, and that those lacking that knowledge aren't in a position to reasonable dispute it. Reading above, I see some harsh words have been spoken precisely because other physicsts (most of whom know more than me) have taken insult at some implications that we pull the details of hypothetical particles out of our asses; believe me, we don't. I think experts who take the time to contribute on subjects we know a lot about should be respected; that doesn't mean we own the articles, but it does mean that our views should not be overruled based on random people saying "I disagree, and my opinion is just as good as yours." All that being said, I suppose it's possible to dispute whether something that's called a Higgs boson, but isn't, is "highly tangential" to the article or not—that's mostly a matter of semantics.
Anyway, the status quo is cool with me. In the meantime, I'm going to do some work making adding detail to this article, and maybe making it more readable to the general public as well. -- SCZenz 23:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The pop culture article certainly won't be taken to AfD by any physicists (SCZenz is exactly right on that one in my opinion). I don't mind a short summary section, but for me a merge is scary because I can see the article being taken over by an incredibly long section of pop references that are really just jargon being thrown around. — Laura Scudder ☎ 01:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Very good point... considering the size of the pop culture article at the moment, it very well could take over the Higgs Boson article. I'm thinking it's best to just leave things the way they are, but I'm just not sure what to do with the vote at this point... we can't just ignore those people who want to merge. -DMurphy 20:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Polls gauge consensus. We've talked since the poll started, and the consensus among seriously interested editors is now leaning away from the old poll (which was divided in any case). In such circumstances, it is not ignoring people who cast a merge "vote" to agree that not merging is best after all. -- SCZenz 20:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I voted merge, but I'm not going to call for a recount if the merge doesn't happen. -lethe talk + 03:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Another option which doesn't seem to have been brought up yet is to merge the content into Fictional applications of real materials. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Calling the Higgs field a material is a stretch. -- SCZenz 21:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Units

The units for the masses are given in GeV, but aren't the units for mass GeV/c²? Or have I missed something somewhere? 138.253.202.101 01:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right, of course. We physicists are habitually lazy about this sort of thing; that is, when we write a mass in GeV we all know we mean GeV/c². (In general we set c = 1, and h-bar=1 too, make calculations without them, and then insert the correct number of each constant by dimensional analysis if we need to.) Anyway, for Wikipedia purposes, I think it's helpful to be clear, so I'll put the c² in. -- SCZenz 02:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I've changed my mind about adding c² to the article, as it would have looked rather cumbersome. Instead, I made sure that GeV is wikilinked so that anyone who's curious about this question can see the Electronvolt#Using electronvolts to measure mass section which explains this. -- SCZenz 02:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
[Edit conflict]: There are many different units for mass, including kilograms, pounds, stones, tons, GeV and GeV/c2. The last two units are equal if you work in units where c=1, which is often done. -lethe talk + 02:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Indecipherable

I seem to be saying this too often, which suggests it's my fault, but I can't understand the "explanation". That's a bad sign, I actually have a little physics background.

"which permeates every place in the universe at all times."

Sooo, is this field non-local? If so, isn't that a little more interesting than this statement suggests? And if not, isn't this statement somewhat unclear?

"The existence of this non-zero VEV plays a fundamental role: it gives mass to every elementary particle, including to the Higgs boson itself."

Like photons? What about neutrinos?

"In particular, the acquisition of a non-zero VEV spontaneously breaks the electroweak gauge symmetry, a phenomenon known as the Higgs mechanism."

As it stands this statement is completely non-explanatory. It relies on references to other unexplained terms and concepts. No, I don't expect this article to explain these in detail, but certainly what this means overall is something that it should attempt.

I found a semi-understandable overview in Constructing Quarks, but I'm not up to merging it usefully.

Maury 21:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Just some comments: I think the first quote has sine been removed. The second quote is very misleading, since not all elementary particles have mass, as you correctly point out. I've changed this. I'm not sure it's worth trying to give an 'overall meaning' to the third quote since there are 3 separate articles required to properly explain this. Symmetry breaking is relatively simple, electroweak gauge symmetry is relatively complex. PhysicsGrad2013 (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

hard!

I try to follow studies in quantum physics as much as I can, but... I understand nothing of this article... I hope wikipedia doesn't turn into a source only for professors with multiple Ph.Ds.

Read Peskin & Schroeder's Introduction to QFT. And yes, quantum field theory is even more complicated than quantum physics. Remember one thing: many physics professors treat quantum field theory rather like folklore than strict mathematics. There are even nobel prize winners who write books that don't contain much mathematical sense...
Did I read that right: "Read {a book}" to understand a Wikipedia entry? Surely the ridiculousness of that is obvious? 216.185.5.254 (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Edits by Impunv (talk · contribs)

This looks like classic WP:OR, quoting from the user's own blog. Please prove me wrong.

The belief in Higgs bosons comes from the belief that all objects are invariant under gauge transformations, which strongly disagrees with experiment. Instead of giving that belief up it is kept, because physicists are emotionally attached to it, and a new field, that of Higgs bosons, is introduced to give objects mass. However gauge transformations are the form Poincaré transformations take for massless objects and are possible only for these. See Massless Representations of the Poincaré Group: electromagnetism, gravitation, quantum mechanics, geometry, although it can be explained in one obvious paragraph as given in Our Almost Impossible Universe: Why the laws of nature make the existence of humans extraordinarily unlikely: R. Mirman. For complete information see impunv.blogspot.com. They cannot be applied to massive objects and it makes no sense to so apply them. That would be like saying that since orbital angular momentum has integer values all angular momentum has. Since this is not true a new field is introduced to produce half-integer values. That would make no sense and neither do Higgs bosons. There are no Higgs bosons.

  • Mirman, R. (2006). Massless Representations of the Poincaré Group: electromagnetism, gravitation, quantum mechanics, geometry (republished by Backinprint.com an imprint of iUniverse, Inc., ed.). Commack, NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.,. p. 213. ISBN = 1-56072-259-2. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |coauthors= and |month= (help); Missing pipe in: |id= (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
  • Mirman, R. (2006). Our Almost Impossible Universe: Why the laws of nature make the existence of humans extraordinarily unlikely. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse, inc. p. 523. ISBN = 0-595-37841-2. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |coauthors= and |month= (help); Missing pipe in: |id= (help)

If there are more acceptable sources for this text, please bring them here for checking before adding it back. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 22:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, even if other sources are found, the style of writing would need to be made more encyclopedic. But yes, I agree, it looks like OR. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Impunv just added it all back with no edit comment. I've removed it again. Please discuss the issue here before re-inserting any of the text. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

One thing that struck me as odd is the statement "They cannot be applied to massive objects and it makes no sense to so apply them. That would be like saying that since orbital angular momentum has integer values all angular momentum has. Since this is not true a new field is introduced to produce half-integer values. That would make no sense and neither do Higgs bosons. There are no Higgs bosons." Partly because it's not clear what is referred to with 'they' and partly because the conclusion "There are no Higgs bosons." doesn't rhyme well with the experimental search for it. If it can be proved by reasoning that there is no such thing as a Higgs boson, how come scientists are searching for it? How come they have seen detections which may be interpreted as the existance of the boson? Zheft | Talk 11:42, 10 February 2007 (CET)

Intro

"It is the only Standard Model particle not yet observed, " this is a bit cavalier . . . the quarks haven't been observed and unlikely to be in my lifetime (due to confinement). I suggest this be reworded - alot. --66.194.118.10 22:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC) D.A. York

The text is consistent with scientific consensus and with reasonable constraints on the word "observed". Some of the history is described at Quark#History and Deep Inelastic Scattering. Melchoir 22:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The top quark can also be directly observed since it decays before it gets to hadronize. Bodhitha 13:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
No. Not directly. *More* directly because its properties determine that decay.

God particle

I know there has already been a lot of discussion here about this alternative name for Higgs, but does anyone object to having "God Particle" redirect here? (Currently it does not) Originalname37 15:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Redirect should be fine, unless an article gets written about the book The God Particle by Leon Lederman. The article says that the Higgs boson "is affectionately known among scientists as the 'God particle'," but I think that was Lederman's own coining, and I don't really hear it from physicists. It mostly seems to come up in popular press reports on physics. Not really wrong, but perhaps the "among scientists" isn't needed. --Reuben 15:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a small issue with the first sentence: "The Higgs boson, also known as the "God Particle", is a hypothetical..." I'm a researcher in high energy particle physics and I've never heard it being called "God Particle" in the professional community. I believe the term "God Particle" is a popularization of the Higgs boson; so I recommend that the first sentence be rewritten to reflect this: "The Higgs boson, popularized as the "God Particle", is a hypothetical..." (Perhaps a citation on a popular book whose title is "The God Particle" might be useful, too.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TriTertButoxy (talk • contribs) 04:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Either way, someone needs to have some sort of reference, because the term "God particle" is used in the beginning, and then we are left to wonder what and why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippypink (talk • contribs) 14:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Lederman originally wished to label this particle as "the goddamn particle"[1]- this is a quote from the article about the book. Omitting this fact opens the way for mystical claptrap which many people are willing to exploit. So the 'god particle' should direct to the book or eventually to a disambiguation page but here the first occurrence should link to the book.al (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
There is also a novel by Richard L. Cox so the redirect was transformed into a disambiguation page. Restored the connection in the section about popular culture.al (talk) 09:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

An Amusing Phrase

The article states "the Higgs boson has an enormous effect on the world around us." Well, yes, but so does every other elementary particle out there. The Higgs isn't special in any way in terms of "effect on the world around us." —Preceding unsigned comment added by FredricRice (talk • contribs) 20:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Just noticed that there was a Higgs field stub. I don't see any reason to maintain a page regarding the Higgs field (which I guess is a mathematical abstraction) separately from the Higgs boson (the actual particle, if it exists). Any thoughts?

Jtuggle 02:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I made the change. No information was lost.

Jtuggle 16:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What does this mean?

"Tevatron results continue to hint at a Higgs mass near the low end of the allowed range, presenting a potentially awkward situation to the LHC project."
--JWSchmidt 14:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It does seem unnecessary, given that the preceeding couple of paragraphs give more substantial information. I'll remove it.

Jtuggle 03:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Graviton

The Graviton is not a particle in the Standard Model. I have removed references to it as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.107.231.18 (talk) 07:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, so why is it still written? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.45.13 (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


I've fixed it again and added a comment in the text. --Sean 18:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Is an Encyclopedic entry the same as a textbook (entry) ?

Could this article be made a little more accessible? I suggest that the text here is a little too technical and advanced for any other than physics students. If the same approach were taken everywhere in Wiki the project would stop being an Encyclopedia and become a collection of erudite but inaccessible texts. Specifically for anyone grappling with the unfamiliar terminology, the reference to the Vacuum Expectation Value links to a page that contains only mathematical explanations of the term. Also there are confusing grammars - Surely: If THE Higgs Field permeates everywhere at all timesd then there cannot be more than one of them so the term "A Higgs Filed seems an odd term. LookingGlass (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


I am no physicist and as such cannot understand half the article... This seems to be a rather advanced subject, and people who really are interested in advanced subjects without mastering them will find the info and understand the technical stuff one day. As long as it is clear and concise, I see no need to simplify the article. 82.16.205.213 (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The section in this article entitled "Theoretical Overview" is probably the most important. An encyclopedia article, as distinguished from a specialized textbook, textbook chapter, etc., should be able to convey some meaning to the nonspecialist. This section does not. I understand that attempting to explain esoteric subjects to laypeople can be an arduous task. Wikipedia should at least strive to to provide an accessible explanation of the subject matter of an article or subsection. This article does not even come close. It provides no useful information whatsoever and may as well be deleted.75.22.190.220 (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe that simplification of the article will either lead to an incredibly long article or an ommission (or payment of too little attention to) of important yet complicated facts. The Higgs Boson is a complex topic and I do not pretend to understand the whole article (I am just a lowly AS Level Physics student) that said, the introduction and the theoretical overview are understandable. In short, I feel that oversimplification would be to the detriment of the article. Tory88 (talk) 12:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Higgs = dark matter ?

Are the Higgs particles part of the so called dark matter ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphachapmtl (talk • contribs) 22:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The Higgs boson cannot be any part of dark matter because it is not a stable particle. We know the higgs isn't stable because it couples to everything massive. We also know dark matter is stable because of its dominant role in formation of large scale structure of the universe. It had to be around since the big bang to result in galactic structures observed today. PhysicsGrad2013 (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What about how gravity has nothing proving how it works, but all other forces have particles that cause them (W&Z parts cause weak nuclear force, photons cause electromagnetism activity etc.), what if the Higgs boson is what causes gravity?

Well, the Higgs Boson causes mass which in turn causes gravity so you could say that the Higgs is responsible for gravity. There is research for gravitational waves being conducted around the globe, and I've heard from a leading quantum chromodynamicist (heh) at my university that they are close to a major discovery too, i.e. gravitational waves. RevenDS (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I SMELL A NOBEL PRIZE. ~~ Gothicrocka

Actually my guess is there is no higgs boson, exactly because the collider does not create an unique incident, it would have been indicated in radioastronomy. Perhaps the difference is that gravity is a force with different parameters because on quatummechanical scale (one particle compared to another) it has no influence. 1 H atom would not collapse into any dark matter(i think),gravity is extraparticular.(u don't need 2 but 3 particles for gravity), the reason i come to this is i dont believe there was an unique bigbang, within the limits of the dimensions of our 'universe'.perhaps science was fooled to think all elementary powers come from "1 god".77.251.34.32 (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What about falsification?

I realize that if LHC find the Higg's, this will proof the Standard Model. If LHC won't find it, there are other models higgless. So... is it impossible to falsify the Standard Model, any mistake will always have a branch of spaghetti-code backup theories? I think it's not correct. Scientists made this falsification claim and simulatneusly they made a parachute for the Standard Model. Poor Popper...83.103.38.68 (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It is impossible to falsify the standard model insofar as the parts of it that have been experimentally observed are correct and it's nearly impossible that they will be found to be wrong in the future. On the other hand, everyone knows the standard model is incomplete, even if the Higgs is real. PhysicsGrad2013 (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
"even if the Higgs IS real"? Well I was talking about the falsification if we do NOT find it. But no answers.83.103.38.68 (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
If the Higgs Boson isn't falsifiable, is this really a scientific theory? 67.184.14.87 (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Higgs Boson can be Falsified by LHC. Standard Model cannot be Falsified as it is incomplete and thus false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.3.162.119 (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Confusing tag

I'm not sure this article deserves the {{Confusing}} template. There are LOTS of articles in Wikipedia, especially in physics and math, that are more confusing than this one and are not tarred with that label. -DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 17:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's quantum mechanics... To quote Richard Feynman, "Anyone who says that they understand Quantum Mechanics does not understand Quantum Mechanics". In otherwords, most quantum mechanics is too advanced for even quantum physicists to understand. Asking to simplify it for lamens to read is near impossible. All you would be left with would be "A theoratical particle that may give things mass.". I move to remove the tag. Syxxness (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. It is difficult, or even impossible to understand without prior knowledge, and even lacking explanations, but it is not unclear. PhysicsGrad2013 (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I removed the {Confusing|date=March 2008} tag - Bevo (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Moved over from duplicate talk page... note that this has been discussed before. -- SCZenz (talk) 13:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Should be merged... there doesn't seem to be enough content in this article to warrant a separate page. Countless other articles have a pop culture section on the article's page, why shouldn't this article? -DMurphy 23:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Physicis editors have objected to this strenuously for a long time. The problem is that popular culture references to the "Higgs boson" usually have nothing in common with the actual concept except that the writer of the reference had heard the name somewhere. Thus the content of Higgs boson in popular culture has no meaningful relation to the content of Higgs boson, and it was pointlessly swamping the article. -- SCZenz (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The Higgs in Pop Culture article is a hodge-podge of useless trivia, which owes itself to the peculiar entertainment choices of random wiki hobbyists. If it must persist, at least keep it away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.160.40 (talk) 02:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I am against merger of the two articles. The main reason is that the "popular culture" bit is basically a trivia section. Bubba73 (talk), 00:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

God particle reference

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/jun/30/higgs.boson.cern has Peter Higgs's opinion on the term. -- SCZenz (talk) 12:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Explanation for laymen

The article is written for an audience with knowledge in physics. In times, this is appropriate, but with the LHC and HB becoming news in the mainstream media, isn't it appropriate to write an explanation of what it's all about in terms even a layman would understand? By laymen I mean common people, not idiots. 217.132.43.80 (talk) 08:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. I am not a physicist, and though I have some knowledge of particle physics, a large part of this article is incomprehensible to me. As a layman interested in understanding the Higgs boson, I would like to see the article presented in a more accessible fashion. Legianon (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I find the tag {Confusing|date=March 2008} in the =Theoretical overview= section of this article to be highly ironic, considering the way that the entire field of subatomic particle study is at nature "confusing" with uncertainly abounding. If someone could actually resolve the confusion in this Wikipedia article, I'd say they should be on their way to Sweden soon. - Bevo (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


The first couple of sentences are badly written for an encyclopedia, because the layperson hasn't heard of these statistics, and it is not necessary to mention them in the opening sentences.Johncmullen1960 (talk) 06:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and added in a "Confusing" tag on the article (not exactly the right tag but I don't know of one that is more accurate). I think it is reasonable to say that the article should be written so that at least the average college-educated person should be able to understand most of it (preferably a college degree should not be required). Most of this article is written so that one must have at least a scientific background if not explicitly a particle physics background. This is inappropriate for a general encyclopedia. This is not to say that the article cannot have portions that are so detailed that nobody but a physicist could understand it but those types of sections should be limited and should not be the main focus of the article.
--Mcorazao (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I removed the tag. There has been considerable discussion about the confusing tag, and a group of editors above agreed that the tag was not of any benefit. As a non-physicist, I believe that the topic of this article is certainly difficult to understand, but that the article itself is not actually confusing. Like the article on Hecke algebra, there is only so much simplification you can do, particularly when there are no meaningful real-world analogies to illustrate the key concepts. Manning (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Any chance to at least explain this sentence? "In empty space, the Higgs field has an amplitude different from zero, i.e., a non-zero vacuum expectation value." For a interested person, but not familiar with the jargon (or at least I cannot differentiate between jargon and real english) can you explain what is "vacuum expectation value"? Common English makes me want to translate this to a non-vacuum. But I suspect this is jargon which I cannot parse correctly. MambyPamby (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC) MambyPamby 20:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to get into an edit war. I submitted the tag in good faith and the issue has not been addressed to my satisfaction. It should not have been removed without at least discussing it.
In any event the suggestion that it is a complicated subject that cannot be simplified is a lazy argument. Any subject can be related to a layman if you try hard enough (consider "A Brief History of Time"). The following are some examples of articles that discuss the Higgs Boson in a way that is relatable to lay persons.
--Mcorazao (talk) 04:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the article on gauge theory is incomprehensible ;<} Just some feedback here. I think this is not a bad article. I understand about 1/2 of it, which I'd say is about right for my level. I would agree that an opening paragraph or perhaps a sidebar with something more like the "star entering the room" analogy in the CERN link (TYVM, BTW) wouldn't hurt for real lay people who saw something in the news. Many WP articles in science could use a "this topic is about fields that influence particles" statement before leaping into the math, IMO. This isn't bad, though, I think...Jjdon (talk) 23:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Spelling Correction

recognized is spelled incorrectly in the second paragraph. Also, could someone please add the word 'and' to the second sentence of the second paragraph? It should read "... and in October of the same year..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Top5a (talk • contribs) 21:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Bold-alt-title "BEH Mechanism"

Should "BEH Mechanism" appear here as an alternative title? Currently there's no page of that title, and surely if there were, it would instead redirect to Higgs mechanism? Apologies in advance if this is based on some crude misunderstanding on my part... Alai (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, why is it call "Higgs boson", if Englert and Brout have found it one month before him ? //ol 22:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC))
If anyone is still wondeing, this is pulled off of the link in an above comment: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/jun/30/higgs.boson.cern
"[Higgs] is careful to acknowledge two other theoreticians whose names, along with Higgs and God, ought also to be attached to the boson. Robert Brout and Franois Englert, at the Free University in Brussels, hit on the same idea at around the same time, but initially Higgs received more credit."
Drax89 (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

First Sighting

The Higgs Boson can be seen on the shoulders of Marc McVie and is commonly found in Alan's Bar in Larkhall, or more often in the Hamilton Palace. The Higgs Boson enjoys listening to 80's cheesy pop music and some have been known to question it's the sexual orientation . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luvs2spwg (talk • contribs) 16:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Under the "Theoretical overview" section, the second sentence contains a link to the "Vacuum" Wikipedia article, whereas it may be more appropriate to link to the "Vacuum expectation value" article. Unsourced (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

removed "BEH mechanism" alternate name

I removed the alternate name "BEH mechanism" from the lead, since that seems to be an (abbreviated) full name of the mechanism that involves the boson (or some composite particle), not a name for the boson itself. If it's in fact a name for both—the article is not clear on that—nevermind and revert. --an odd name 19:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Question about the Feynman diagram

If I understand the Feynman diagram correctly, it is believed that a top, anti-top pair may decay forming a Higgs boson. So, why no Higgs bosons could be detected at Tevatron? --84.59.142.129 (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It can be but as we're dealing with Quantum Mechanics it's all about probabilities. The probability of seeing the Higgs at the LHC's energy levels is relatively high; much higher than the Tevatron at Fermilab. So, the probability exists that the Higgs could be observed at Fermilab it's just that the probability is incredibly, incredibly low. 134.50.14.44 (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Incredibly low? 50-96% is incredibly low? J M Rice (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
In the BBC article that is the source for that range of numbers, it is pointed out that other physicists (not associated with the Tevatron) are very skeptical of even the 50% figure. So I wouldn't be surprised if the 50% is overly optimistic. --C S (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ratio to proton mass

Does the ratio between the proton mass and the Higgs boson mass have anything to do with the fine structure constant? Wnt (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency between LHC wiki and Higgs wiki

LHC wiki states "It is theorized that the collider will produce the elusive Higgs boson, the last unobserved particle among those predicted by the Standard Model." While the Higgs wiki says "The Higgs boson is one of the two Standard Model particles that have not yet been observed." I really don't know much on the matter, just seemed to be an inconsistency to me. Coretron (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering about that myself, especially since the [Standard Model] page says that the Higgs boson is the last particle whose existence has been predicted by that model but has not yet been conclusively observed. Martin Blank (talk) 04:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
You are right. I fixed it. Dauto (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Supersymmetry?

It might be nice to have some further discussion of the role of and predictions about the Higgs boson in standard model extensions (such as supersymmetry). Maybe someone who is knowledgable about SUSY can make some additions?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodhitha (talk • contribs) 23:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Higgs excitation?

The page Higgs excitation redirects here, but there is no mention of excitation, excited particles, or anything similar on this page. A user searching for "Higgs excitation" is left without an explanation of that term. Jason (talk) 04:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The only unobserved Standard Model particle

The second paragraph states that the Higgs boson is the only particle predicted by the standard model that has not been observed. What about the graviton? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.121.200 (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I asked a similar question on the Standard Model talk page, and received this response by Dauto, which works for me: "Gravitons are not part of the standard model. The standard model does not include gravity. It is a theory of matter, electromagnetic interaction, weak interaction, and strong interaction, period." Col. Sweeto (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Fundamental Scalar Particle

The first paragraph mentions "scalar elementary particle" with a link, and in the next sentence mentions "fundamental scalar particles" without a link. What is a fundamental scalar particle? Is is the same as a scalar elementary particle, a fundamental type of scalar elementary particle, or something else? Without this, I can't even figure out the relationship between the first and the second sentences of the article. I'd appreciate if someone could edit the article to make this clear. Thanks. Renato (talk) 06:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Odds

"The American team says the odds of its Tevatron accelerator detecting the famed particle first are now 50-50 at worst, and up to 96% at best."

How come this scientific team specified two odds (or a range of odds); it does not make sense. If they mean they estimate the odds as, say, the arithmetic mean, then they should just give that value. (I suppose they mean what sloppy laymen would mean: they have not made up their minds what they think the odds are, but expect to settle somewhere in that range before they stop looking or are beaten to the post! In which case, 96% seems a bit over-precise. Or one guy in the team says one thing and another guy says the other - it is not a team view at all.)

John Newbury (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is you're trying to interpret this the way you might a bookmaker's odds. There are many variables here on the Higgs boson, and that will affect the probability that the Tevatron can detect it. In particular,as explained in the reference, there is a range of mass allowed by theory. The smaller the mass the harder it will be to detect it. But even on the low end, they expect even odds, while they actually think it should be on the higher end. As scientists, it is customary to make such statements. From a bookmaker, yes it would sound weird if they gave a range instead of just something like "3-1". --C S (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I clarified the sentence to explicitly note it depends on the mass. In fact, it seems from the BBC article that even the range of expected mass is something those not on the Tevatron team may disagree with. --C S (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed God Particle nickname in heading

"God Particle" is used only by one person as the title of his book. It is not a nickname in general currency. Also, the book is cited as aimed at the "lay reader". Just because a book is is aimed for the general reader does not make it part of "pop culture," suggesting that it's unreliable as a source, like Wikipedia. In fact, the entire God Particle reference sounds a bit POV. Not sure it doesn't belong in the References section with an annotation. J M Rice (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me for undoing your edits without first leaving a comment here, but I didn't notice this comment until right now. However, I believe your removal of the term "god particle" from the first sentence is a mistake. It's not true that "god particle" is "used only by one person". A simple NY Times search (or through any other major newspaper) shows that "god particle" is frequently used, even in the headlines, for articles relating to the Higgs boson. See articles like this one or ones that are, by the way, already linked in this Wikipedia article. This is in fact how educated laymen often hear and talk about the Higgs boson. I don't know what you're saying about POV and reliability or the relevance of those issues here. --C S (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

A new theory removed

Up to day, the Higgs Theory is only a theory, nothing more. This is not the only theory to explain mass and gravity. In particular, the WebSite URL "www.higgs-boson.org" provides an alternative theory to the Higgs Boson. This website has been visited more than 70 000 physisicts since its initial release. These 70 000 physicists, in majority, agree the main ideas described in this website.

This new theory is much more credible that the Higgs Theory and is a serious competitor to the Higgs Theory. So, we are in front of a clash of interests because billions dollar machines have been built to track the Higgs Boson, a particle that probably doesn't exist.

Wikipedia must be over this clash of interests concerning the Higgs Boson and must deliver true and impartial information. In that sense, it is useful that the new theory described in the website www.higgs-boson.org be present on the Higgs Boson Wiki Page. It is to the reader to make choice between the two theories, remembering that the Higgs Boson itself is not proven and is an alternative theory too. Readers must also note that many physicists agree the Higgs Boson theory for only one reason : the large machines like the LHC give work to physicists... --J J (talk) 22:17, 17 july 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.29.253.124 (talk)

Sorry, Wikipedia can't link to your website. See WP:NOR and WP:EL#ADV. -- BenRG (talk) 09:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Come up with an experiment that will prove or disprove your theory, and provide the math to back it up. Get the "new theory" into a peer reviewed, major scientific publication, and then come back with that reference. Then, and ONLY then, should it go on Wikipedia.
The "it's just a theory" argument is garbage; it's the same argument used by creationists to discredit evolution. The Higgs Boson is a prediction of a mathematical model. If we find that it exists, then it is a scientific breakthrough. If we find that it doesn't exist, then the mathematical model will need to be changed, which is a scientific breakthrough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.130.230 (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Future Influence

I added a note about the recent work by Holger Bech Nielsen and Masao Ninomiya suggesting the the future is influencing the research on the higgs boson. It seems to be rather significant.Aardvark23 (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't significant. It really isn't. It's about as groundless as any other theory on why the LHC has had issues. I think this section should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.68.150 (talk) 03:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Has the question ever been asked if the Higgs Boson is actually a super large object, something like a liquid or gas, that a single one makes up the entire universe?

Higgs, graviton?

Ok, I'm completely confused now. I've been reading theoretical physics articles on Wikipedia for weeks, and I thought I was making progress towards keeping the categorization(s) straight. Then it all became as clear as mud when I realized that I thought the Higgs boson and the graviton were the same thing. Apparently, they are not, because each has a separate page, and the graviton has spin 2, but the Higgs has spin 0. I was led to believe that both were the gauge boson for the gravitational force, and yet that can't be. Can someone please put this in perspective?

Neither of these articles seems to clarify this situation with respect to the other, so either I'm missing something important (likely), or these pages could do a better job separating/clarifying concepts.

192.35.35.35 (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

What led you to believe these were the same particles in the first place? Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not certain, but even now the only way I can tell them apart (as a layman) is by spin. They have several things in common: both bosons, neither has been observed, and both are associated with gravity. Maybe that's not the right approach, but as a layman, it's what I easily get a handle on. 192.91.171.42 (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on the Higgs boson, but from what I gather, it's essentially the reason why things have mass. More specifically, it is responsible for the Higgs mechanism.
The graviton is the force carrier of gravity, much like the photon is the force carrier of electromagnetic interaction ("electromagnetic force"), and the W and Z bosons are the force carrier of the weak interaction (weak force), and gluons are the force carriers of the strong interaction (strong force).
So to break it down in simple terms, the Higgs boson is the (hypothetical) reason for mass, while the graviton is the (hypothetical) reason for why massive things attract each other. Does that explain? Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Ultimately, what I'm getting at is that the article doesn't help make the distinction you are making. So, if I understand correctly, the article could explain that unlike other bosons, the Higgs doesn't carry force, but is behind the Higgs mechanism. Is it the only (known) boson like this, or is there a general category for non-force carrying bosons? 70.247.160.102 (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Impact on "Elementary" Particles

If the Higgs Boson is the particle that imbues mass, then all of the mass-possesing "elementary" particles (i.e. electrons, W bosons) are not elementary at all, but rather "composite" particles; only the massless particles and the Higgs boson [itself] would be elementary particles. This should be mentioned in the page somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cransona (talk • contribs) 02:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No, because it's not true. --Michael C. Price talk 00:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The issue above is that this section's comment has a logical fallacy because a premise is false according to the underlying theory and I think warrants more than a "No, because it's not true" response (which imo does little to improve this content to other readers).
The Higgs boson, if it exists, though interaction with other particles imparts mass to those other particles. It is not the case, according to the underlying theory, that elementary particles have mass independent of the Higgs Boson. From another angle, if we follow the logic of the comment, then interactions with "field" type particles suchs as gluons or gravitons, would imply that only strong-force-less or gravity-less particles are elementary particles, which is not the case in this theory, QCD (for gluons), or Quantum Field Theory (for gravitons). Taken together, the evidence is overwhelmingly against elementary particles being self-mass-possessing.Davidl9999 (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Higgs boson/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article is almost incomprehensible to non physicists.

Aren't there four forces in nature, each with their own field?

This Higgs field, is it a combination ofthe four forces?

Last edited at 23:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC). Substituted at 20:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Higgs_boson/Archive_1&oldid=1136794247"