Higgs Boson Detected?

Travis McGee writes "A scientist says one of the most sought after particles in physics - the Higgs boson - may have been found, but the evidence is still relatively weak. The Higgs boson explains why all other particles have mass and is fundamental to a complete understanding of matter. The report was published in Nature magazine and the BBC has an article." The last time the elusive particle was in the news was 2001.

Comments

The boson kludge

[Curunir_wolf]

So, the standard model defines 16 particles. But if there are only those 16, then none of them have mass, so there must be another one, that magically provides mass for the others. Weird. You can't make this stuff up, folks... err... oh, wait.

Reminds me of the "dark energy" idea: "Well, we can only find 1/3 of the matter that we know should exist, so the rest is.. well, it's just the dark energy that we can't detect!"

Re:The boson kludge

[RobertB-DC]

The funny thing is this article in the "related links" section: 'God particle may not exist'

In that December 2001 article, we have statements like this: "Their conclusion is that there was nothing in the data at all to suggest the Higgs is out there - certainly not at energy masses of up to 115 Gigaelectronvolts (GeV), way past the level of 80 GeV where the boson was expected to show itself."

Contrast with March 2004: "Dr Renton cites indirect evidence taken from observations of the behaviour of other particles in colliders that agrees with the figure of 115 gigaelectronvolts for the mass of the Higgs boson."

The great thing, though, is how science done right is self-correcting. As soon as this boson was declared unlikely, researchers apparently began to attempt to prove that it did exist. Now that there's a theory that it exists, more researchers will begin trying to prove them wrong. Eventually, with all the facts out in the open, science will discover something approaching the ideal theory, which will likely be something unexpected.

It's like Microsoft vs. open source... find a bug in Windows, and it takes 9 months to patch it. Find a bug in Linux, and someone will patch it the same day...

(Obligatory disclaimer: I'm no physicist, and talk of "energy masses" and "gigaelectronvolts" makes my head spin. May as well be talking about Vitamegavegamin.)

Re:The boson kludge

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like Microsoft vs. open source... find a bug in Windows, and it takes 9 months to patch it. Find a bug in Linux, and someone will patch it the same day...

Before anyone complains -- shameless karma whoring in support of an otherwise valid point is legitimate.

Re:The boson kludge

[thermopile]

It's like the 'hunt' for the neutrino, and scientists have been following that methodology ever since.

In 1930 or so, Wolfgang Pauli noticed that in all interactions, this strange combination of variables (what we now call spin) stayed constant through those interactions. But he couldn't fully explain beta-decay, or when the nucleus of an atom spits out an electron ... this 'spin' wasn't conserved.

So, Pauli invents an incredible particle: it has little or no mass, hardly ever interacts with anything, but carries spin. It helped his equations balance.

Naturally, most of the scientific world scoffed at his idea at the time: it implied that hundreds of trillions of these things would be flying through space every second. AND they were undetectable?!? Quite a stretch.

But history bore him out, and neutrinos exist. You can see a history of the neutrino here, for more info, including current discrepancies with our understanding of neutrinos.

Quantum mechanics kinda developed the same way ... crazy math with weird conclusions went AHEAD of experiments, and those experiments bore out the math 5 or 10 years later. I believe the same approach is being taken for the matter in the universe (WMAP predicitons), as well as the higgs boson.

Just my 0.02 euro.

Re:The boson kludge

[Bootsy Collins]

So, the standard model defines 16 particles. But if there are only those 16, then none of them have mass, so there must be another one, that magically provides mass for the others. Weird. You can't make this stuff up, folks... err... oh, wait.

Nice try. Apart from the fact that the article's description of the role of the Higgs in generating masses isn't quite correct, there's your implication that this is some what frivolous. Well, if you evaluate scientific theories by the accuracy of their predictions, an argument can be made that the standard model of elementary particle physics is the most successful scientific theory of all time -- ranging from making correct predictions of electrodynamic phenomena out to absolutely absurdly large numbers of significant digits, to making predictions about the numbers of certain types of particles that will exist ("there will be one more light neutrino species, but no more after that") -- subsequently confirmed.

There are a lot of things you can fairly criticize particle physicists about; but suggesting that the standard model is removed from reality isn't one of them.

Reminds me of the "dark energy" idea: "Well, we can only find 1/3 of the matter that we know should exist, so the rest is.. well, it's just the dark energy that we can't detect!"

Like many people, you've got "dark matter" and "dark energy" confused (I personally hate the "dark energy" term, and wish Michael Turner (I think it was him) hadn't coined it; but we're stuck with it now). And while either of them may someday turn out to have been a wrong turn in the history of cosmology, neither is an unfounded concept.

Re:The boson kludge

[RobertB-DC]

Before anyone complains -- shameless karma whoring in support of an otherwise valid point is legitimate.

Yes, please, no Karma Whoring complaints! I swore off Karma Whoring after this unfortunate incident knocked my "Excellent" down past "Good" all the way to "Positive". Thanks, AC, for your support!

Re:The boson kludge

[mph]

Reminds me of the "dark energy" idea: "Well, we can only find 1/3 of the matter that we know should exist, so the rest is.. well, it's just the dark energy that we can't detect!"

This statement is wrong in several ways.

First of all, "dark energy" has nothing to do with the missing mass problem. You meant to say "dark matter." Dark energy is another term for the cosmological constant, a parameter tied to the observed acceleration of the universe. There are completely independent measurements that require this parameter, including supernova acceleration studies and incredibly precise cosmic microwave background measurements.

Regarding dark matter, you seriously trivialize the situation. It's not a case of astronomers being unable to find the matter, like it's a lost set of keys. We see that galaxies and clusters of galaxies experience more gravitation attraction than they should, based on the visible mass. Hence "dark matter." But it's not just that we can't see it; big bang nucleosynthesis tells us that only a small fraction of the matter in the universe is baryonic. Baryons are the normal particles that "stuff" is made of, like you, me, stars, dust, and gas. That means that the missing mass is not simply something we're not seeing (because it doesn't glow, for example), but is something utterly different.

We're not missing mass because we're not good at finding stars, or dust, or whatever. We're missing it because it's something completely, fundamentally different from all of that stuff.

Re:The boson kludge

[JAPrufrock]

Hm. Go learn some of the math involved, and come back when you understand that there really are some compelling reasons for Higgs to come into the picture. Or are you aware of something that's been overlooked? You have a good reason that photons are massless and W/Z bosons aren't? Can you tell me why electrons weigh less than taus? Can you tell me how "mass" comes about? That plus the fact that the possibilities include standard model Higgs and SUSY Higgs, light Higgs, heavy Higgs, MSSM doublet Higgs, all in different variations... We didn't ask for all these particles to show up. We're just trying to figure out what we're seeing in nature.

Re:The boson kludge

[momerath2003]

From what I can recall, the neutrino was hypothesized to explain the non-monoenergetic nature of the electrons emitted in beta-decay. If beta-decay produced only the resultant nucleus and the beta-particle, then the betas would be mono-energetic (conservation of linear momentum and energy dictate this). However, they discovered that that the beta-particles had a whole spectrum of energies.

The only way to explain that was to have a third particle, the neutrino, produced by the decay. It would take away varying amounts of energy, leaving the electrons with a full energy spectrum.

Re:The boson kludge

[Curunir_wolf]

No doubt you are correct. I DO understand that the (over my head) math involved in predicting particle behavior proves (or at least implicates) the existance of the Higgs boson variations you are talking about.

I suppose my post came across as a a rather flip criticism of particle physics, but in fact it was meant as a commentary on the article itself. I realize that it was intended to explain the concept for laymen (such as myself), but often these articles obscure more than they explain.

I hope no astrophysicists read my post, or I'll be dealing with their rebuke as well!

Re:The boson kludge

[Curunir_wolf]

Ok, I'm confused (which you already pointed out!). "Dark Energy" (or the cosmological constant) is thought to explain the accelleration of the expansion of the univers, as you pointed out, since measurements of the microwave background radition indicate that there is no curvature to space. Since space is flat, that is, light travels in a straight line, there must be this mysterious force ("Dark Matter") driving the expansion.

Why is this completely unrelated to dark matter, though? What are the observations of "more gravitational attraction" that you refer to?

I thought the dark matter was required because the total mass of the universe (total amount of baryonic matter) was too small by about 2/3?

Re:The boson kludge

[njchick]

Regarding dark matter, you seriously trivialize the situation. It's not a case of astronomers being unable to find the matter, like it's a lost set of keys. We see that galaxies and clusters of galaxies experience more gravitation attraction than they should, based on the visible mass. Hence "dark matter."

You are contradicting yourself. It is a case of astronomers being unable to find the matter.

But it's not just that we can't see it; big bang nucleosynthesis tells us that only a small fraction of the matter in the universe is baryonic.

We know too little about "big bang nucleosynthesis" to make any conclusions, especially those predicting undiscovered forms of matter. We don't even know why we have more matter than antimatter.

Re:The boson kludge

[mph]

You are contradicting yourself. It is a case of astronomers being unable to find the matter.

No, I'm not contradicting myself. I was indicating that it's not simply being able to find something "normal," like a lost set of keys. The stuff we can't find is fundamentally different from normal "stuff."

We know too little about "big bang nucleosynthesis" to make any conclusions

Not true. The theoretical predictions of BBN, from particle physics, are in good agreement with observations of deuterium abundance, and the CMB power spectrum. You might not say it's rock-solid, but BBN appears to be generally sound.

Re:The boson kludge

[mph]

Since space is flat, that is, light travels in a straight line, there must be this mysterious force ("Dark Matter") driving the expansion.

No, this is the so-called "dark energy" that's driving the expansion. "Dark matter" acts through the gravitational force, to help keep galaxies and clusters bound. You were on the right track, until you suddenly wrote "dark matter" instead of "dark energy."

Again, these are two completely separate concepts. One makes things fly apart, the other helps keep things together.

What are the observations of "more gravitational attraction" that you refer to?

Since the 1930's, it has been known that stars in galaxies orbit the center of the galaxy more quickly than they should, based on the visible matter. This requires extra "dark matter" to provide enough gravitational force to result in the observed rotational speed.

Re:The boson kludge

[barawn]

there's your implication that this is some what frivolous.

I'd love to agree with you, but the Standard Model's Higgs mechanism has absolutely no authority to avoid the term "frivolous." In a lot of ways, it is.

The Higgs mechanism is done in the simplest way possible to generate masses - it uses a scalar field, which is the simplest field you can use, and, curiously, of which there are no other examples in nature - leptons and quarks are spinors (fermions of spin-1/2), photons/gluons are vectors, and even gravitons, if they exist, would probably be tensors.

There's no reason to desparately cling to the Higgs mechanism, other than we have no other way of generating mass that theorists 'like'. And, to be perfectly honest, this 'detection' does raise eyebrows - it's at the edge of LEP's detection, and it's only a 3 sigma (or so) detection. Now, that's not saying that Nature can't have been cruel to us and put the Higgs right at the edge of LEP's detection range, sure - worse things have happened. But it's a little suspicious.

Also, the Higgs "boson" has predicted nothing - anything that does symmetry breaking in a similar way would predict exactly the same thing.

(Sorry - I hate the fervent adherence to the Higgs, especially when we've looked, looked, and keep having to shove the mass up 'just a little higher' to the next accelerator range. I also hate the fact that no one else thinks that maybe a fundamental scalar just isn't possible for some subtle reason we don't understand. This would allow much more complicated Higgs interactions which people have typically ignored based on simplicity arguments. People said "if LEP doesn't find the Higgs..." and now people are saying "if LHC doesn't find the Higgs..." - what's next?)

("there will be one more light neutrino species, but no more after that")

To nitpick, the "N=3" discovery is only valid in the energy range of interest. You have to generate the lepton partner as well, so while the neutrino species could still be light, the lepton partner could be ungodly heavy, and thus outside of the detection field.

It would have to have odd mixing angles, sure, but a fourth family isn't out of the question.

Re:The boson kludge

[jeblucas]

Bootsy, are you unwilling to consider that the SM has some flaws? Like the magnitude of observed CP-Violation? Like the fact that there's gravity (not accounted for by SM)? The SM as orginally conceived didn't produce a number of the results you quote as incredibly accurate. Only after it had some extra "refinements" bolted on did it turn out the results we now say show its excellence. There's a small but growing minority that the next Kuhnian paradigm shift is coming soon and the Standard Model will fall before it.

Re:The boson kludge

[krlynch]

...the Standard Model's Higgs mechanism has absolutely no authority to avoid the term "frivolous."

That's not quite fair ... as a low energy effective theory, the SM is spectacularly successful, and is not in demonstrable conflict with any experiment to date. This success is underpinned by a reliance on a Higgs-like mechanism. The SM one-doublet model may be economical and incomplete, but because the rest of the model holds up so well to tests, it is hard to see how the correct model wouldn't necessarily have a SM Higgs-like excitation in the low energy limit. Which isn't to say that it will be exactly like the SM Higgs, just that it won't look too different at low energy, or we already would have seen its impact in precision eletroweak measurements, for instance.

it uses a scalar field ... of which there are no other examples in nature

That isn't quite a fair argument, of course ... we have no experimentally confirmed examples of fundamental tensor fields, either, but most of us think gravitons exist :-)

And there isn't a compelling reason to expect light scalar fields, in fact quite the opposite. You are no doubt aware of the quadratic renormalization of scalar masses, whereby their masses are "pulled up" by any interactions they have. So you probably wouldn't expect massless or even light scalars, unless they don't have any interactions (in which case we wouldn't know about them). In SUSY, for instance, you would generically expect scalars to end up with masses near the SUSY breaking scale, something like a few hundred GeV ... well, except for the lightest Higgs, which has to have a mass somewhere in the neighborhood of 100-200 GeV to stabilize the electroweak symmetry breaking transition.

This would allow much more complicated Higgs interactions...

There are plenty of examples of non-fundamental scalar Higgs mechanisms, and even mechanisms that employ fundamental scalars that must be heavier than we've seen. SUSY, dynamical symmetry breaking, extra-dimensions, deconstruction, etc. But they all have their own challenges, usually conflict with existing data. That, of course, is the cardinal sin in physics. No matter how lovely your theory, Nature is always right, and if you don't agree with Her, you lose. :-)

To nitpick, the "N=3" discovery is only valid in the energy range of interest.

To pick nits with your nitpick (how's that for a turn of phrase?), N=3 is the statement that there are no more SM like light neutrinoes, and hence there are only three generations of SM fermions. The precision Z boson line shapes from the four LEP experiments provide exceedingly severe constraints on weakly interacting fermions, and those line shapes are inconsistent with the presence of fermions that we haven't yet seen which are lighter than half the Z mass. In particular, the invisible line shape is consistent with more than 2.something and fewer than 3.somethingelse neutrinos, and since we already know that there are at least three, we conclude that there are only three.

It would have to have odd mixing angles, sure, but a fourth family isn't out of the question.

It would have to have VERY odd interactions with the SM gauge fields, to the point where it wouldn't look much at all like the rest of the SM families. There just isn't room in the precision electroweak data for much else that looks anything like the known SM fermions. In this sense, you probably wouldn't call this "fourth family" a family at all. Additionally, SM like interactions with heavy neutrinos are probably ruled out by cosmological over-closure arguments and astrophysical stellar models, although those arguments are somewhat more tentative.

There might, of course, be non-standard model like heav

Re:The boson kludge

[Alsee]

Vitamegavegamin

The correct spelling is Vitameatavegemin.

Vitameatavegemin contains vitamins, meat, vegetables and minerals. That's Vita-Meata-Vegemin.

Drumroll please, as we find out how old the moderators are.

-

Re:The boson kludge

[barawn]

Which isn't to say that it will be exactly like the SM Higgs, just that it won't look too different at low energy, or we already would have seen its impact in precision eletroweak measurements, for instance.

Is that true? I didn't think the precision electroweak stuff depended too much on the pure Higgs interactions, but just on the symmetry-broken 'residual interactions' - i.e. the ones that gave the particles mass. I always find it hard to tell, though, as most books completely gloss over the Higgs physics sections because it hasn't been seen.

we have no experimentally confirmed examples of fundamental tensor fields, either, but most of us think gravitons exist :-)

Well, we do have an experimentally confirmed example of a tensor field - gravity. That's what linearized gravity says - if you did have a spin-2 field, it'd generate gravity in the linearized limit. The important part is that the argument is reversible - you can say "what spin particle would cause these effects?" So we don't have experimental evidence of the particle, but we do have experimental evidence of the field.

The same isn't true for the Higgs field - you can't "reverse course" like you can with gravity, and take the interactions and work backwards to the dynamics of the particle. The easiest counterexample is technicolor, which would just as easily explain the Higgs interaction (ignore for the moment it also suggests other junk which is unobserved - it's unimportant to the argument). The point is that the scalar Higgs interaction does not uniquely predict anything. (As far as I know, no one's worked backwards from the fact that particles have mass and we see the interactions we do and said "only a fundamental scalar can cause this")

those line shapes are inconsistent with the presence of fermions that we haven't yet seen which are lighter than half the Z mass.

Yah, but I thought that restricted the heavier of the lepton family only (i.e. the electron-type) and not the lighter. Hrm, should go off and read the PDB section on that again.

But they all have their own challenges, usually conflict with existing data.

Ah, but doesn't a purely scalar Higgs conflict with existing data as well? We don't see one, after all. The excuse of saying "we haven't looked at high enough energies" seems to be exactly that - an excuse. I'll give the Higgs mechanism credit for being a "well-constructed theory" - a theory with enough flexibility in its parameters to avoid being disproven for quite some time. Like SUSY, for example (which I also don't believe is real).

The main reason that a simple scalar Higgs theory dominates now is because of the simplicity argument (and because it was first...), but I don't agree that having one fundamental scalar, and then everything else being more complex, is simple. :)

By the way, the link on your homepage to your research appears broken....

It is - that isn't my homepage anymore (I don't have a current one...), though my current research is here, if that web server's running. :) I really need to create a new webpage...

Anyway, the funny thing is that I know all of the complications about the Higgs's existence - I mean, I've done the toy problem as to why it has to have the isospin that it does, etc. - but I still just don't believe that any particle that conveniently avoids discovery, and is the only one of its kind, has to be real. Note that I don't necessarily believe in a fundamental graviton, either. :) And also, it's not like I have a better idea - I'm just skeptical. Lots of people can give me good reasons why a proton needs to decay, after all - and I'll still point to the >10^33 years measurement and say "Prove it."

Re:The boson kludge

[RedCard]

Is anybody else here a little disturbed by the implication here that math is doing the directing, given that according to Godel, mathematics is by its very nature incomplete?

That is, there are some things that are true that cannot be proven (or here predicted) by math.

And so I am left to wonder whether this mathematical prediction approach can ever give us the whole picture...

Re:The boson kludge

[Lord Crc]

Is anybody else here a little disturbed by the implication here that math is doing the directing, given that according to Godel, mathematics is by its very nature incomplete?

I'm by far no math guru, but the way I've understood it, Godel's proof showed that within an axiomatic system there are true statements that you cannot prove. That doesn't change the fact that they may be true.

http://www.sm.luth.se/~torkel/eget/godel.html looks like a nice place to review some Godel.

Re:The boson kludge

[alienmole]

We didn't ask for all these particles to show up. We're just trying to figure out what we're seeing in nature.

It's worth bearing in mind that one might have said the same sort of thing back when epicycles were the state of the art way to describe planetary orbits: "we didn't ask for all these epicycles to show up. We're just trying to figure out what we're seeing in nature."

Re:The boson kludge

[backdoorstudent]

The value of a theory involves much more than just the ability to predict the results of experiments; it should help you understand the experiments. A child can predict results by asking someone that understands and then regurgitate the answers, but that doesn't mean that they know anything about which they speak.

For example, ancient astronomers impressed people for centuries with their ability to predict eclipses using the ptolemeic model. Everytime they got an unexpected result they just added a patch. But Ptolemy's theory was wrong. The heavens do not revolve around the earth in epicycles.

Re:The boson kludge

[Ckwop]

No.. it's falls naturally out of the electron-weak theory.

The electroweak theory unifies the electromagentic field and the weak theory. The original theory implied a massless W, Z and photon. This theory however is clearly incorrect as the mass of the W and Z particles are over 80 times larger that of the proton.

This break down of the symmetry between the electromagnetic and weak forces below energies of 100GeV coupled with the fact that W and Z are so heavy implies there is some mechanism beyond the standard model that endows these particles with mass.

A simple explanation is given by the Higgs field. Higgs postulated the existance of a particle with only mass and nothing else (actually, it's kind of required since it'd muck-up a whole host of conservation laws if it wasn't). When this particle is near another particle, say a proton, there is a force between the two as a result of the Higgs field.

Higgs' key insight was that if you write an equation to describe the Higgs field and find the lowest energy solution for empty space then you get a non-zero value.

The direct, but not obvious, result of this is that any particle that interacts with the Higgs field is given mass. This is ingenious because now you can divide particles into two clumps. Particles that don't interact with the Higgs field and particles that do. The one's that don't are massless, like the photon, the one's that do have a mass..

So we now have a clear explanation why the W and Z have mass and photons don't. Vector Bosons , like the photon, don't interact with the Higgs field. The W and Z particles are not vector Bosons and therefore interact with the Higgs field.

If the Higgs field exists then it's particle must exist too. This is a result of quantum mechanics, every field has it's particle. Photons are the electromagnetisms cheerleaders and the W and Z complete the picture to give us the electroweak. Then there are the Gluons which are the stuff of the strong nuclear force and just like we get particles for these forces, we get a particle for the Higgs field.

So, far from being a fudge, it nicely completes the theory but it lacks specifics. Why are the W and Z so heavy? Why do some particles interact more than ohters? There is a lot of interesting physics out there to be discovered! What a fantastic time to be alive!

Simon

Re:The boson kludge

[Short Circuit]

The excuse of saying "we haven't looked at high enough energies" seems to be exactly that - an excuse.

I hate to get involved in a debate which is clearly out of my league, but here I can relate.

You're taking the approach that any anti-science person can make: "Since you haven't found it yet, it doesn't exist. Stop playing with bugs, and come over here to peel potatos."

Not that I'm accusing you of being anti-science. (Far from it! You seem to have ideas worth exploring.) ... I'm just pointing out that it's a similar argument.

Re:The boson kludge

[barawn]

Since you haven't found it yet, it doesn't exist.

Any theory that can arbitrarily fit data based on an adjustable parameter at some point has to be discarded simply on simplicity grounds. There are many examples like this - Brans-Dicke theory is a good example - it's characterized by basically one parameter, which in the limit of it going to infinity becomes general relativity. The problem with this is that if we say "well, maybe the parameter's just a bit higher..." we'd be here till the end of time trying to disprove it.

This isn't exactly the case for the Higgs, because there's an energy range that it can't exceed, so if it isn't found below that level, then fundamentally, there's something very screwed up.

However, the idea is pretty much the same, because even if you don't see a signal in a given energy range, you can keep trying, keep trying, and keep trying. While I might be a little bit "eagerly skeptical" - too happy to have the Higgs die, it's not totally crazy, as there have been many models which put the Higgs clearly in the LEP range. Then they didn't see it, so they changed the models, and it put the Higgs clearly in the LHC's proposed range. Given that, and the particle type (no other known scalar fields, and the scalar field is the easiest toy-model you study in QFT), a healthy amount of skepticism is definitely warranted.

Anyway, it's somewhat akin to me saying that I turn purple when you're not looking, then after you set up a camera, me saying when you're not looking and not filming me - etc, etc. At some point the null results have to be interpreted as a possible result of null, especially if there's fundamentally no other way to prove the null.

Different Name

[falzer]

They should have called it the bogon.

Re:Different Name

[SlowMovingTarget]

Actually I prefer weak grin bozon.

Well, OK, this particle is already named in the "Theory of Extra Special Relativity":

We start from the foundation of the dopeler effect: Stupid ideas that come at you rapidly seem smarter than they actually are.

Through our observations of individuals exposed to prolonged dopeler-shifted emanations, we can see that emission of dumb ideas tends to attract other dumb ideas, which in turn leads to a chain reaction of idiocy. All minds in the vicinity of high energy dolt fields are warped, consequently all conversations seem to take an infinitely long time.

Experimental evidence suggests that there is a limit to the density of weak grin bozon sources that any given region of space may sustain. Once this limit is passed, all thought in the region collapses in on itself to become a Quantum Imbecilic Singularity, from which no good idea may escape. QIS formations may be detected by searching for accretion disks of broken dreams, and massive jets of anticluons coming from a vector perpendicular to the back end of the accretion disk.

Nothing new here....

[menscher]

"May have been seen" and "evidence for" is a long shot from "discovered". Here's how it goes:

• less than 3 sigma deviation from background: ignored
• 3-5 sigma deviation: evidence for
• 5+ sigma deviation: discovery

At 9% chance he's wrong, it sounds like he's at around 2 sigma. Which is pretty much ignored by the scientific community. Which is why the LEP was shut down to make way for the LHC.

Re:Nothing new here....

[olman]

To quote a well known author, anytime you guys got phone number of god, wake me up..

Seriously, I'd be very, very suprised everything rounded out neatly into existing textbook formulas. Witness the new D-vitamin interaction they recently discovered that upset the neat tables in textbooks like that.

Re:Nothing new here....

[Anonymous Coward]

What?

The Lexx prediction

[wildzeke]

Once we determine the wieght of the Higgs Boson particle, is the world going to implode?

Not News

[Nynaeve]

According to this March 10 story at the Above Top Secret News Network, it is not actually news:

Posted by: Throwaway
On: Wed March, 10 2004 @ 20:33 GMT
This is old news, folks. Just signed up to tell you that BBC is recycling news stories to fill column-inches. I'm sitting on site a few hundred yards from the beamline. LEP shut down a couple of years ago, and there's been no real news since then.

My group works exclusively on Higgs searches and more or less leads the effort here on experimental analysis in that direction. Sorry.

9% is nowhere near close enough. And the BBC story is wrong - Higgs doesn't really explain where the mass of all particles comes from. And "the God particle" is a stupid marketing ploy for funding agencies. There's a lot more to go. Higgs has been the fundamental theory hole, not pivot. If we get one, it'll round things off nicely.

Stay tuned for 2007-2008 (9?)

but the evidence is still relatively weak.

[dpilot]

Groan!

Was the pun intentional?

Re:but the evidence is still relatively weak.

[Imperator]

I don't know, but if this is substantiated it will be a massive discovery. I just hope their server can carry the load. If not, they will have some weighty problems to consider.

Re:but the evidence is still relatively weak.

[menscher]

Considering they invented the web, I would expect them to be fairly well prepared for a slashdotting.

And yes, they really did invent it. Honest. See, for example, this link if you don't believe me.

The particle explains nothing.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Higgs boson explains why all other particles have mass

More correctly, the existence of the Higgs boson validates an assumption in a theory and theory is what claims to explain why all other particles have mass. The important thing to remember is that these are theories that are explaining things; real world particles explain nothing.

Re:The particle explains nothing.

[alienmole]

More correctly, the existence of the Higgs boson validates an assumption in a theory and theory is what claims to explain why all other particles have mass. The important thing to remember is that these are theories that are explaining things; real world particles explain nothing.

I would be careful of pissing off the Higgs boson if I were you. If it decides to stop explaining your mass, you're in trouble!

It's true!

[TheGatekeeper]

There -is- a God Particle!

The real stuff

[JAPrufrock]

Here's a recent overview article on the status of Higgs in the LEP data (refinement and rehashing of stuff that's not really new anymore). Go to http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0402/0402231. pdf The total LEP experiment sigma comes out as less than two for a 115 GeV SM Higgs. That's not compelling. However, some VERY nice "gold-plated" 4-jet events were seen in the ALEPH detector, and it seems like there's a good chance that 115 GeV will be a good place to look in LHC. Speaking of LHC, here's a webcam that lets you look at the ATLAS detector being built. :) http://atlaseye-webpub.web.cern.ch/atlaseye-webpub /web-sites/pages/UX15_webcams.htm

Re:The real stuff

[barakn]

Your links didn't work until I removed the extra spaces. Higgs Atlas

MOD PARENT UP

[menscher]

The above comment is intelligent and makes sense, and should not be moderated as a troll. I'd guess that, like me, the author is a particle physicist. (Not too many other slashdotters know about the MSSM doublet Higgs.)

Useful resource

[omarius]

If anyone (like me) needs a refresher on what the Higgs Boson entails from the perspective of physics, there's a nice collection of one-page explanations at http://www.phy.uct.ac.za/courses/phy400w/particle/ higgs.htm.

spaces

[barakn]

To avoid spaces messing up your links, either format them in html or set your Comment Box width wider in your Comments Preferences.

Weighty matter

[Muhammar]

it took many attempts and both hands of many bright young people - but Ms. Higgs bosom was found at the end.

Armchair physics.

[Thinkit4]

Interest without the background can lead to uninformed comments.

Vitameatavegemin

[Anonymous Coward]

This term also doubles as a common Indian last name.

That's all well and good, but

[Durindana]

Where do the 1.6 Gigawatts come in?

Speaking of dark energy

[Maimun]

Speaking of dark energy, I wonder whether [suppose it exists indeed] dark energy does not break the law of conservation of energy. Once I attended a public talk by someont from Fermi Lab [sorry, cannot recall the name] who said that dark energy is a constant quantity [a very small number in standard units] per volume of space. So, given that the Universe is expanding and is being pushed more and more this way by the dark energy, the quantity of dark energy goes up and up, right? So, if it has indeed the meaning of energy, there is more and more energy in the Universe, contrary to the law of conservation...

Sadly, after the mention public talk only very few questions were allowed and I missed the opportunity to ask the expert in person.

MOD PARENT UP!

[Curunir_wolf]

Great explanation! This is the best summary of the issues I have seen regarding Higgs bosons, that didn't involve actual equations (which I probably wouldn't be able to follow). I am very much a layman in particle physics, but this explanation was very clear to me.

Very insiteful!

A certain old sitcom :)

[Mark of THE CITY]

Drumroll please, as we find out how old the moderators are

Unlikely, given (a) the near-constant re-run of "I Love Lucy;" and (b) the presence of a banner on the side of an office building in Hollywood, which is essentially a photorealistic rendition of the Vitameatavegemin episode.

Re:Physics is frivolous

[Anonymous Coward]

And gravity has been thrown out of court for that reason. Therefore the Higgs Bozo can not exist.