Talk:Higgs boson

‹See TfM›

The second coming of the God particle

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/16/second_higgs_spotted/ There appears to be not one Higgs boson “signal”, but two: one at 123.5 GeV (giga-electron volts), the other at 126.5 GeV. The first decays into pairs of Z particles, while the second shows the decay of a Higgs into two photons.

Is the 123.5 number solid enough to note? Hcobb (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Not really. It are preliminary results from one (of the two experiments), where there is still significant overlap of the 2 sigma uncertainty. So, unless CMS finds something similar, and both experiments feel confident enough to actually publish these results, I do not see any reason to remark on it here.TR 09:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The fun part isn't the barbell shape. It's that the two different decay modes point to two different masses. Hcobb (talk) 13:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

For reference, a number of sources say it's expected to be a measurement anomaly or artifact, rather than a verified double-Higgs. Minimum mention only, if any. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Patent nonsense

I see FT has restored his nonsense distription of the Higgs mechanism:

It is believed that the electroweak interaction (one of a few universal forces) usually "divides" into two very different forces which act on different particles (electromagnetism and the weak force). This is known as 'symmetry breaking'. Nobody knows for sure how it happens. Finding the answer would be monumental to human knowledge and physical science (see 'Significance' below).

The "Higgs mechanism" describes how physicists think this might happen in nature. If a specific kind of energy field happened to exist in nature, then any massless particles created when symmetry breaks "absorb" energy from the field to become massive. The two forces differ because particles responsible for the electromagnetic force (photons) remain massless, and can travel and act over immense distances, but particles responsible for the weak force gain mass, and can therefore only travel an extremely short distance before they break apart.

Lets pick this apart line for line:

• It is believed that the electroweak interaction (one of a few universal forces) usually "divides" into two very different forces which act on different particles (electromagnetism and the weak force).
  • "usually"? It sometimes doesn't? Very misleading.
  • Act on different particles? For the most part, the electromagnetic force and weak force act on the same particles, with just a few exceptions (like neutrino's). So, again a very misleading statement.
• This is known as 'symmetry breaking'.
  • No it is not. Symmetry breaking is not the converse of unification. Electromagnetism and the weak force and the weak force are different because part of the symmetry is broken and another is not. Symmetry breaking occurs in all sorts of situations, most of which have nothing to do with forces.
• The "Higgs mechanism" describes how physicists think this might happen in nature.
  • This is not the point of the Higgs mechanism. The point of the Higgs mechanism, is that spontaneous symmetry breaking of gauge symmetry leads to mass gauge bosons. i.e. the weak force being short ranged.
• If a specific kind of energy field happened to exist in nature,
  • There is no such thing as an "energy field". Well, you could make sense of the term as describing an energy density, such as the electomagnetic field energy. The Higgs field certainly is not such a field. It is not helpful too lay readers if we throw out esoteric sounding but totally meaningless terminology.
• then any massless particles created when symmetry breaks "absorb" energy from the field to become massive.
  • No. No. No. 1) Goldstone bosons are not created when a symmetry breaks. 2)In the Higgs mechanism, the Goldstone bosons do not become massive. First of all there are no Goldstone bosons in the Higgs mechanism. The would-be Goldstone bosons in the Higgs mechanism become the longitudinal parts of the W and Z bosons, changing them from massless/transverse spin 1 particles to massive spin 1 particles with three polarizations.

As you see, I had some very good reasons to rewrite this bit of gibberish. Lets just focus on basics that anyone can understand "The Higgs mechanism explains why the weak force has a short range." Instead of the esoterich bull crap that is currently there. (end of rant mode, sorry for the harsh language)TR 10:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The article needs to cover carefully its technical and background information. I added the "math" and a bunch of theoretical material so you know that we agree on that. But you need to appreciate that 90%+ of readers will not be able to understand even what you see as a simple explanation. This part needs to be much simpler than even you imagine, but yet it needs to explain the concept properly. You know physics, but I am worried that you don't yet fully appreciate the need to give simple (and simplistic) explanations for those who don't have that background, or you see it as so important to be precise that you ignore the 90% it would marginalize. Look at the feedback to see if I'm exaggerating. An unacceptable proportion say they find even the simple versions we've had, too complicated.

With that let's respond on your comments on mine, then my comments on yours, and see if we can find ways to bridge the gap.

Comments on your dissection above, and why I disagree

Yes, the electroweak does "usually" divide. At sufficiently high energies (which can and do probably exist in the universe today) it is one undifferentiated interaction. So it is not "always" the case. "Usually" is a simple way to explain that there may be circumstances of sufficient temperature for this not to happen. (I'll intercede my comments on this here if you do not mind) Even if the symmetry is not broken the elektroweak interaction still breaks up into two forces. (Because the symmetry group is not simple.) Also see comment below.TR 15:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC) "Act on" - should have been "act through", typo. "This is known as symmetry breaking" - perhaps "this is an example of symmetry breaking" would be better. Basic idea is correct. They differentiate in manifestation, and that's because symmetries are broken. Simple version - Scientists believe that differentiation results from symmetry breaking. They want to confirm what makes EW symmetry break, and whether HF is responsible as suspected. There is some misconception in you thought on what symmetry breaking is. Symmetry breaking has nothing to do with the weak and EM forces being separate. This already contained in the fact that there are two symmetry groups before symmetry breaking (U(1) and SU(2)) each with its own coupling constant. Symmetry breaking simply explains why the effective Lagrangian of the broken theory can contain terms which are not symmetric under the full symmetry group. This misconception seems to be at the heart of your piece failing to be sensical.TR 15:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC) At a simple level statement is correct. The HM is how we think EWSB happens. Therefore HM is how we think the electroweak comes to have two different manifestations in the everyday world, and why some particles (gauge bosons, but we don't need to say that technical term here) have mass. No, the HM is not "how" we think EWSB happens. Its a description of "what" happens if EWSB happens.TR 15:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC) To call the Higgs field a "kind of energy field" is simplistic but at this level appropriate. It is a field; particles gain energy (in the form of mass) from interacting with it. So it's easy and understandable. A technical reader can find a more precise version below. No, it is never appropriate to use a technical sounding term, that has no technical meaning. This is basically blowing smoke up the readers ass. Note, that this is not simplistic, but simply meaningless. ("energy field" is not any simpler than "fundamental field"). TR 15:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Last point you raise is capable of improvement but basic description is appropriate. In the absence of HF, theory says that symmetry breaking would lead to massless particles. These particles do not arise as massless because they absorb components from the field. How do we explain that simply? The particles which arise acquire mass. That mass was originally potential energy. So at a simple level, we can explain that some bosons would otherwise arise as massless - hence the theoretical problem - but SM says that if HF happens to exist, they would instead arise as massive and not massless, and that is because they will absorb energy from HF (via 3 components and a process described later which we don't need to say here). What you say here is simply incorrect. 1)Theory does not say that symmetry breaking leads to massless particles in the absence of the HF. The goldstone theorem says that if a symmetry is broken that there must be a massless scalar for each broken symmetry. However, the Goldstone theorem does not apply to gauge symmetries. 2) Theory does say that if the gauge symmetry is not broken the gauge bosons must be massless. 3)The would be Goldstone bosons are the massless components of the Higgs field (not the massless gauge bosons!). You seem to get these mixed up.TR 15:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Time to pick the rewrite apart. Sorry for the tone, but it's important you get the need to greatly simplify at least in this section, and understand how lay readers will read your words.

1. "The Higgs mechanism explains why the particles transmitting a force become massive" - all of them do not. Misleads them to believe all force carriers are massive.
2. "if the symmetry governing the force is broken" - if symmetries are laws of nature, how can they be "broken"? (doubtful we should go into how they aren't "really" being broken, it just looks that way, at this level)
3. "[HF] does not obey all the symmetry laws of the model" - if symmetries are laws of nature, how can they not all be "obeyed"?
4. "causing it to differentiate between the electromagnetic and weak force" - I probably get nothing from this (as a lay reader), right idea, but too hard a wording for many lay readers.

5. Proposed HM description is a classic mistake of "does not answer the question". The question is "what is the Higgs mechanism?". The text proposed answers this by saying "HM explains why particles acquire mass when laws of nature are broken" (sorry but that is how it reads) and then recaps the effects of EWSB. It doesn't speak to the actual question. It doesn't explain what HM is. It palms the reader off by saying "it's the label for whatever does EWSB" and describing the effects of EWSB. Relevant but not speaking to the question.

   What is the Higgs mechanism? It is a mathematical proof that if you 1/ have a gauge field theory and 2/ you feel symmetry breaking is needed to explain one interaction manifesting as two and the existence of mass, but don't want the theory to predict new massless particles, THEN, 3/ if an extra field of a specific kind happened to also exist, it would in theory 4/ modify the "usual" symmetry breaking process, so that instead of new massless particles we get a kind of combo deal leading to expected massive ones.

   Put that in non-technical terms and we'll be answering the question.

Sorry to be harsh in tone, TR, it's not 'you' or 'me' as much as a difference in concerns. I feel strongly there is a great tendency to pitch this difficult topic at too high a level, and this one section must avoid that. We have synergized our approaches well generally, and we will here as well. We can provide more exacting explanations below for other readers. But a lay reader has to be able to get the basics and this section is their hope of it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Responses to your responses:

1. All force carriers that correspond to broken symmetries are massive, the ones that correspond unbroken symmetries are not. This exactly what the second part of the sentence that you omitted to quote says. We should be able to assume that readers are able to parse conditional sentences.
2. The same can be said if you just say "symmetry". (How can something be a symmetry if it is broken?) The concept that nature breaks its own laws is somewhat essential to what is going on. Put I am open to better descriptions of what a symmetry is in in laymans terms.
3. idem
4. I am not sure what is real hard about the wording here. But I agree that this can still be phrased better. (But at least it is not nonsense.)
5. It might be better to say that "the HM is the explanation why ..." (Also again note that symmetry breaking is not "one force manifesting as two", that has nothing to do with it.) If read in that way (in which it was intended) it does answer the question what is the Higgs mechanism. Note that the Goldstone theorem suggesting that there must be massless particle if a symmetry is broken, was an historical red herring resulting from physicists ignoring the mathematical fine print. The HM is simply a counter example to the theorem if not all of its conditions are met. There is no need to go into historical mistake at this level of discussion. (Mentioning a massless goldstone bosons just leads to confusion as your piece aptly demonstrated.)

I think that the thing that you do not realize, is that the description that you gave was not simple at all. It was needlessly being complicated by introducing vague terminology that did not quite mean anything (like "energy field"). It is not helpful to lay readers to present them with a text that sounds like they should be able to understand it, but in the end do not because it does not really say anything.

The text I pitched isn't really any more difficult to comprehend, but is a lot more too the point.TR 14:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we understand each other here and have a lot of common ground, we should be able to handle this like others in the past. But doing it by revert on the article page is unsightly. What I'd like to ask is, suppose we collaborate here on figuring out a single (jointly edited) bullet list of what we need to say and how to say it, and discuss points as needed. I was drafting what I thought, to start it, then I realized perhaps I se where the problem is. Try this:

We have a table of 3 explanatory boxes (HM, HF, HB). The HM is the context for HF, and HF the context for HB, so it's easy for a reader who's read one, to "get" the following, and easy for us to keep them short. I think we may have missed one box though. There is a zeroth box, briefly describing EWSB. That's the context for HM (i.e. should be EWSB -> HM -> HF -> HB). It's why my HM version has 2 paragraphs and yours one, and why the HM section is being difficult. The HM paragraph is trying to explain not only HM, but also the underlying context within which HM makes sense, as meaningful background, namely EWSB and symmetries. Because HM doesn't make sense without these, it's not able to skip them in explaining HM.

Can you have a go, maybe add a prior short EWSB paragraph, and see what that does. It only has to explain a little, in simple terms. Some key points might be these:

In the world around us, the fundamental EW force manifests as two very different forces (EM + W), In understanding why this is, we find it has both massive and massless force carriers, making the different force carriers and the interactions they mediate behave very differently. Theory suggests that (if gauge invariance is kept) something else must be causing some of the EW force carriers but not others to acquire mass, because if not then we would find other massless particles, and we don't. It's believed the massive particles result from a process called "symmetry breaking". But nobody knows how symmetry breaking is triggered or exactly what happens. It's potentially very significant if we find out.

HM then picks up from there, which makes it much simpler.

HM is a theory (or model, or a proof that an idea is possible) which shows if a field exists of a specific kind, it would have this exact effect. The field would both break symmetry because of its unusual 'shape', and then interact further with the breaking symmetry, causing the expected massive particles (carrying the weak force) to correctly arise, but leaving others (specifically the photon carrying the EM force) massless, and not giving rise to any unexpected massless particles.

We can keep the HM paragraph short, because we've explained EWSB and other more basic principles and context in the prior paragraph, keeping it simple. (I had used the term "divides", as a simple term that conveys "manifesting as two distinct forces" to most lay readers. I think the above is easier, if accurate. Of course it's correct to say "has its symmetry broken", but we need to remember this can be quite intimidating "jargon" to many users)

Hope I got the technical details roughly right, if not please excuse and correct. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This is at least somewhat better, although it is still a bit confused about what the HM is. This is manifested by the sentence "It's believed the massive particles result from a process called "symmetry breaking"." The HM simply is the statement (or maybe its mathematical explanation) that symmetry breaking (of a gauge symmetry) leads to massive gauge bosons. In this sense, the split you make doesn't quite make as much sense.TR 07:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I read the discussion above very quickly because I am currently busy with my own work, but in general I sympathize with TR's point of view: we should not make incorrect statements just because they sound simpler to grasp in one non-expert editor's head. They will still sound abstruse to most other non-expert readers, and on top of that we will be left with a nonsensical article. Formulating statements that are at the same time correct and accessible to the lay readers is of course quite difficult even for the experts, but it becomes almost impossible without a solid understanding of the topic. I am sorry to say this, but somtimes I have the impression that FT2 - well-meaning as he/she may be - lacks that necessary understanding. For example, in the discussion above FT2 keeps repeating things such as 'It is believed that the electroweak interaction (...) divides into two very different forces (...) This is known as symmetry breaking". TR has tried several times to explain that symmetry breaking has nothing to do with the fact that the EW interaction divides in two forces. In fact, there are two fundamental forces to start with, i.e. those associated with the SU(2) and U(1) gauge groups, respectively. The effect of symmetry breaking is that a combination of those two forces, i.e. the weak force, becomes short-range (while the rest, i.e. the electromagnetic force, remains long-range because the breaking of the symmetry is only partial). However, this explanation appears to go over FT2's head, and he/she keeps repeating his/her own flawed interpretation until the very end (see "the fundamental EW force manifests as two very different forces (EM + W)"). It would really be a pity if, as a result, TR became discouraged and gave up improving the article... This said, I apologize for not participating more constructively in the discussion, but as I mentioned above I really don't have time now. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

P.S. this example may help dispel FT2's confusion: consider a hypothetical situation in which the ground state breaks U(1)_EM too. In this case, the "weak" and "electromagnetic" forces would not look so different (both would be short-range, mediated by massive bosons), but the EW symmetry would be more completely broken than in the Standard Model. It should then be clear that "symmetry breaking" does not correspond to the fact that the weak and EM forces look very different from each other. To suggest that this is the case (as the lead still does) is a disservice to the readers. We offer them a picture that seems easier to digest, but in fact is incorrect. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

No apologies needed. I've made no bones of it, I'm not a particle physicist, but I do have what's needed to understand enough, and I can help it end up in terms that others can as well. But I'#m not a mathematician or physicist so yes, I am reliant on you both (and others) for technical hawk-eyes and catching my own misunderstandings. Hence why I might at times have said I disagree, but have listened and tried to find where differences arise and reconcile them, learning as the article improves.

I echo Ptrslv72's comment - and TR, in no way at all be discouraged. It is a complex topic, but the whole of Wikipedia develops by people of different skills together, and if you look at the article - for which I've had to educate myself on everything from "what is a symmetry" to "how did we get to Yang-Mills, Nambu, Anderson and PRL and from there to Weinberg, 1972 and eventual acceptance", missing sections, and the search and naming of the topic... I think anyone would agree I've acquitted myself well. But I'm no physicist and will never be, hence my urging to "excuse and correct" any technical misunderstanding and do it here on the talk page which is more relaxed.

An acid test. I'm above average competence for a non-physicist. To the extent I don't understand a point, the article is too high level for any but technical readers, and that's evidence not for discouragement, but for figuring what's confusing and how to improve it. I need to learn physics "enough". Physicists need to learn "lay person level explanations". Together we have done it, and if it's taken a while for me to learn enough, all I can say is thanks, it has done wonders for the article jointly, and above all do be encouraged that it is getting good :) But it has to be done some way or another, or the article can't do its job.

Thanks for this Ptrslv72. I hope this is ok in your eyes and TR's both - and anyone elses! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Lead section

I propose the lead section should be shortened and should adhere to WP:ss , the article feedback generaly indicates that the lead is too long for most people and that they would like a summary as lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hybirdd (talk • contribs) 23:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

This was discussed recently (see #Length of the lead) and is worth thinking about. But it is a substantial and high profile article. The article's overall length was discussed somewhat above - comment by TR was

"As a whole this article does not have a real length problem. (Most high quality, high profile physics articles have a similar length.) It still has some issues with unnecessary duplication, which need tightening up, and should not grow much further, but the length in itself is fine.".

The lead was also discussed. The issue is, it does have to cover a lot, and it cannot do it in a style that loses the lay reader. That section summarizes what it has to cover. Now we have figured how to say it more simply, if there is room to trim then go for it, but I suspect the intro length is in fact appropriate to the article contents and difficulty. To me, the feedback says we used to get a lot of issues with "too complicated". Now we're not really getting that so much, and there isn't much recent comment on lead length (these changes were a couple of weeks ago). $0.02 thoughts on it, but if the lead has "puff" then that's something to address. Do you see much? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

To help I'd suggest cutting the paragraph dealing with its name to just "The Higgs boson is named after Peter Higgs, who—along with Brout and Englert, and with Guralnik, Hagen, and Kibble ("GHK")—proposed the mechanism that suggested such a particle in 1964.[11][12][13] Higgs was the only one who emphasised the existence of the particle and calculated some of its properties." And then move the rest (God particle, why it's disliked etc) to either a "Name" section or other area. Coinmanj (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Expanding the Media and Popular Coverage Section

In the popular media, it is being reported as fact that the Higgs boson has been discovered and its existence confirmed. Consider this NPR story, with its caption saying "Scientists at the Large Hadron Collider announced the discovery of the Higgs boson on July 4, the long-sought building block of the universe." Should such statements go unchallenged or unreported in this article? BecurSansnow (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The only way we could include a discussion of these statements, if we can find proper secondary sources discussing the statements in the popular media. Without those, we should stick to statements which can be sourced to reliable sources, and for this subject (and science in general) the popular media certainly do not qualify as reliable. But if somebody can drum up a reliable secondary source that discusses the inaccuracy of the media coverage of the Higgs boson, then we should certainly have a (small) section on this.TR 10:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Something like this, as a subsection to "non technical overview" maybe?

=== Higgs misconceptions ===

A number of misconceptions about the Higgs boson have entered popular myth. Examples include:

Myth	Reality
The Higgs boson (or particle) has been discovered.	A previously unknown particle has been proven to exist. It is not confirmed in any way whether or not it is actually a Higgs boson, or some other kind of new particle (although many people believe the former).
There is only a 1 in (some number) million chance the Higgs boson does not exist	The 1 in millions figure (which changes over time) relates to the discovery of a particle. It does not say how likely that particle is to be a Higgs boson at all. (Technically it represents the chance that random background processes made it look like this particle exists, when it does not.)
The Higgs boson creates the Higgs field	This is the wrong way around - if the boson exists, then the Higgs field would be the reason the boson exists.
The Higgs boson is responsible for all mass.	The Higgs field (and not the boson) would be responsible for the mass of a number of fundamental particles. Even so, that would still only be a small part of all the mass we see around us.
The Higgs field is kind of space-filling medium, a bit like the aether.	The Higgs field - if it exists - would be a quantum field that exists throughout space and pervades space, but it is not a substance, and cannot in any sense "fill" space. (A naive and simple analogy is that of gravity or the earth's magnetic field, which pervade but do not "fill", and can be detected by their effect on other particles).

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Such things are generally considered unencyclopedic.TR 15:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

On a quick check this is quite common:

• Light-emitting diode#Common misconceptions
• Primary motor cortex#Common misconceptions
• Arminianism#Common misconceptions
• NP-complete#Common misconceptions
• Mitochondrial Eve#Common misconceptions
• Correlation and dependence#Common misconceptions
• Hearsay in United States law#Common misconceptions

I'd say rather, it's encyclopedic, but (as you said) is there enough coverage of these kinds of issues, to support a section noting them? If not then the material is still useful in an educational sense, can we check these points are sufficiently clear and sure, for a reader? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that none of those articles is GA or FA class. Also note that almost all those sections are poorly sourced.TR 07:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

GA's (with good sourcing) too, where applicable to the topic:

• Polish Righteous among the Nations#Misconception
• Greed (film)#Myths and misconceptions
• First Council of Nicaea#Misconceptions
• Nepenthes rajah#Common misconceptions
• Punctuated equilibrium#Common misconceptions

It's hard to create a search for these, as there isn't a "search within GA/FA" function. Those FAs I could find, had fewer to cover and perhaps for this reason tend to state them inline ("It is a common misconception that..."). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTTEXTBOOK applies here. A list of common misconceptions in effect is a mixture of points 5 and 6 mentioned there. The purpose of Wikipedia is to inform rather than to teach. Clearing up misconceptions is not WP's purpose. Rather we should present the information in such away that it does not repeat any misconceptions.TR 13:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Range vs. Mass

The article contained a bogus explanation of why forces with massive gauge bosons have a short range. (I think I may have made the mistake first.) Unlike what was stated in the article this has nothing to do with the gauge bosons decaying. (It is fairly easy to construct a model with massive gauge bosons which are stable.) Instead it has to do with the fact that, massless boson can have any wavelength, while the wavelength of a massive boson is limited by its rest mass. For an detailed explanation see [1].TR 10:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

That's brilliantly helpful and clear, and a good source/explanation too, thank you. One thing, I think we do need to reinstate the short sentence that symmetries can be broken by natural processes, because it's too big a jump otherwise from "symmetries are laws of nature" to "symmetries when broken can cause XYZ". We don't need to say much here, it was 10 words only - just that they can be broken by natural processes. Also the .com link seems to work where the .nl doesnt? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

One of my intentions was to avoid phrases referring to "symmetry breaking". "Symmetry breaking" is a type of jargon that does not mean much to the general reader. Instead I opted for just stating what is meant by a symmetry breaking directly, i.e. there exists a field that does not obey the symmetry rule. (Of course, strictly speaking it should be "whose ground state does not obey the symmetry rule", but that would be a bit too technical I think.)TR 15:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense, and that clarification might be useful.... work here, I'll give it a bit of thought later. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Technical question on symmetries

We state at the moment that it is possible for symmetries not to be followed (or "obeyed"). I've never been too happy with that phrasing, though "not followed" is at least bearable. I'm a bit hazy on this but would it more accurately describe the situation, to say instead that other processes can cause symmetrical laws to produce asymmetrical outcomes? (this was the description in one paper on HM and seems to match most descriptions of what HM actually involves) If not, in what sense is it "not obeyed" rather than something else? And is it just one symmetry that HM breaks in SM, or 3? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

In general, a symmetry is broken if there is some element of the theory that does not comply with/obey (follow seems a very strange term to me in this context) the symmetry rules. For example, the CKM matrix is not invariant under CP symmetry and consequently the CP symmetry is said to be broken. Similarly, the fact that the electroweak interaction couples differently to left- and right-handed particles breaks parity (P) symmetry (but not CP).

More specifically, a symmetry is spontaneously broken if all the equations of motion comply with/obey the symmetry rules, but the lowest energy solution does not comply with those same rules. The classic example of this is a ferromagnet. If you ignore any effects of the atomic structure, the equations of motion for the magnetic field in an infinite ferromagnet are invariant under rotations. However, in the ground state of the system all magnetic domains point in the same direction, a state which clearly is not invariant under rotation. (Although rotation will produce another ground state, which is also typical for spontaneously broken symmetries.) This is also what happens in the Higgs mechanism. The equations of motion obey the electroweak symmetry, but the ground state of the field breaking the gauge symmetry does not.

Do we want to be more precise, than the current phrasing. I'm not sure. Trying to be more precise seems to lead to an uncanny valley of vagueness. The phrase you suggest for example, is trying to make a rather precise statement using very vague terms (process, outcome) making it rather useless to most readers. (For lay readers it is trying say something to complicated, for more technically schooled readers it is too vague to make sense of.)

I think for the majority of readers it does not make much difference whether a symmetry is broken explicitly of spontaneously. Since there is no conceptual understanding of the difference between equations of motion and their solutions. At this level of exposition this difference is not that important either. (We become a lot more explicit later in the article)

To your last question. That is a matter of how you count. There is one symmetry group that is broken, however that group had three generators. This is one of these things that becomes ambiguous once you become less precise. (It is the same question as asking how many symmetries are broken by the ground state of a ferromagnet.)TR 10:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. One follow-up - you used EW chiral coupling as an example that breaks parity symmetry. It's a good example to clarify with. How would one describe parity symmetry accurately as a "law of nature", in the sense of a definition that also makes clear its limits or domain as a law and therefore also makes clear where the potential lies for its non-applicability or overriding in some circumstances?

(Sorry for the cumbersome wording, I'm trying to avoid using the term "law of nature" as it seems parity and EW symmetry are laws of nature only to the extent that one is careful to include in the definition sufficient information to make clear where they are not absolute. Not saying that this detail should be in the article but it could be helpful to have a more rigorous statement of this law of symmetry in mind for editing) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why you would avoid the term "law of nature". Symmetries are laws of nature in the same way that conservation laws are laws of nature. (In fact, there is a close relation between the two through Noether's theorem.) Broken symmetry laws correspond to conservation laws that might not always hold. For example, conservation of mass holds for chemical processes, but not for nuclear processes. (Note that this is not a good example for this article, because on of the features of spontaneous symmetry breaking is that it breaks the symmetry but not the corresponding conservation law).TR 15:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I think I did not completely answer your question. Lets be specific in the case of CP symmetry. The CP symmetry states that all equations of motion should be the same if we exchange left and right and the sign of all charges. Essentially, this symmetry exchanges all particles with their anti-particles. As a consequence, the ratio between matter and anti-matter cannot change in any process that obeys CP-symmetry. Violation of CP-symmetry is therefore essential to explain why there is more matter than anti-matter in the universe. CP-symmetry is in fact violated in the standard model by strong interactions involving all three generations. (But not enough to explain the observed asymmetry between matter and anti-matter.TR 15:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I think I can state the question a little more clearly now. Suppose one is told there is a "law" about conservation of mass, which "almost always" holds but can be violated in nuclear processes. That's about the level of understanding my question is coming from. One would conclude that the reason for the apparent violation is probably not that nature decides laws whimsically, but that the statement "mass is conserved" is an incomplete description (or special case) of some more fundamental law which does not have known exceptions.

A fuller description is that energy is conserved (a law we have found no exceptions to and which seems to be a universal law of nature in the truest sense), and that provided we remember that matter can be converted to and from energy, then 1/ in cases where mass-energy conversion does not occur, mass will be conserved too, and 2/ if we found a situation where mass appeared not to be conserved in some process, we would suspect initially either human error or some covert conversion of mass to/from energy, to find neither of those would be very significant indeed.

Hopefully that is an example that illustrates what I'm asking. (Fundamental laws probably don't have exceptions; to the extent they do they tend to highlight the incompleteness of the statement on what the "law" in question really is.) Mass-energy was a very good one to raise in the context and illustrates it very nicely. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

There are many examples in nature of "almost" conservation laws that are not incomplete descriptions of a more fundamental law. Typically, these can be explained by the existence of broken symmetries. For example, in the theory of strong interactions all the quark fields are invariant under phase rotations. Consequently, the number of quarks with a particular flavor (i.e. quantum numbers like strangeness or charmness) are conserved by the dynamics of the strong interaction. However, the interactions of the (much rarer) weak interaction are not invariant under phase rotations of the quark fields, allowing the number of quarks of a certain flavor to change. (allowing the heavier quarks to decay to up and down quarks.)

In this sense the mass-energy example is rather unfortunate.TR 09:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

And that last example was rather helpful. Thanks. Unlikely to get much clearer at this point (and this might be about enough to reassure me a bit on the lay-reader aspect of it - we'll see); it's a good example to have in mind. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

(In lay terms what I take away here is that "laws" such as these may be called laws, but they should not be understood as absolutes or absolute conservation laws (in the sense that we believe conservation of energy or speed of light may be). It isn't that they are "laws of nature" in the lay sense of "fundamental and with no known exceptions". Rather they are statements that under certain conditions, or subject to certain boundary criteria or limitations, these symmetries are believed to dependably hold as far as we know at present. This is probably a "given" in the scientific world, but if so, it's an implicit "everyone knows that" of science - it might not be understood as a "given" to that effect in the public community and could lead to confusion. So it's been a valuable conversation, thank you!) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

(unindent) I have now edited the wording since I think this gives a better way to say it. The problem you raise about the technical term "broken symmetry" (ie a field may cause a broken symmetry) is its jargon. But the concept can be expressed nicely in terms of broken conditions per above - symmetries hold under certain conditions, and a field exists which 'breaks' those conditions. That's very ordinary English, not jargon. So I've used it as it's both simpler and (per above, I gather?) maybe also a bit more exact. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Ground vs. vacuum state?

In three places we refer to the "vacuum state" and eight places we refer to the "ground state". Are these synonyms, and should we make them consistent?

Also if they are synonyms, then are the articles vacuum state and ground state essentially the same or extremely similar topics?

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

They are not synonyms.--85.230.137.182 (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

As the ground state article says: "The ground state of a quantum field theory is usually called the vacuum state or the vacuum"...--85.230.137.182 (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Additions to the article?

I think that it may be important to note within this section that the discovery has also changed the way physicists are looking at the universe, and it's eventual end.

http://news.yahoo.com/higgs-boson-particle-may-spell-doom-universe-152236961.html

I have found this article explaining what I'm talking about. I couldn't find a way to explain it in a way that makes sense. -Poodle of Doom (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I too found this yahoo article left me with more questions than answers. Any better news reports on this that explain it better? Wbm1058 (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

See "Scientific significance" - it's been added a few days ago. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

---

This entire article needs to be completely re-written by someone who is a writer first and may or may not be physicist. The current writing style is lacks clarity of thought despite all the information being present. As a simple example look at the Encyclopedia Britannica's first sentence on this same topic. The difference in clarity is striking. Articles need to be written not to satisfy ego by demonstrating knowledge that others do not have, but with an eye of conveying the information clearly. This article is atrocious and if submitted to me by a student I would hand it back and offer the opportunity to re-write it or take a failing grade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.17.56.5 (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree, a great deal of effort has gone in to making the article as accessible as possible for non-experts. It is naturally difficult to explain what the Higgs boson is without any basic knowledge of physics. If you want to be constructive in your criticism you need to be more specific than "this article is atrocious".85.230.137.182 (talk) 04:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

If ever there was a good topic for a Simple English Wikipedia article, this is it. Read simple:Higgs Boson. I found that much easier to understand. Now, if someone could explain there what this business is about the eventual end of the universe. A giant implosion, like the opposite of the big bang? Perhaps followed by another big bang which creates a brand new universe? Wbm1058 (talk) 11:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It's difficult to explain it well and briefly; those pages elsewhere that do it briefly generally manage it by missing out or skimming over a lot of core material, leaving a lay reader with some general (limited, not very accurate) ideas, and comparatively little for the person looking up encyclopedic information. The content isn't there for "ego" or to puff up the word count. A lot of work has gone in to cutting down superfluous material.... but..... it's a substantial and largely monolithic topic. It is a difficult topic but a reader who wants to learn should be able to, from it. If you can suggest material that has no place here, or sub-articles that should be created within Wikipedia's style, that might help. It's been suggested before but nobody when asked seems to end up with substantial chunks to remove. That's probably telling. But yes, if it can be improved please do so.

(As noted above, "end of the universe" got covered under "Scientific significance" a few days ago.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I see. Not surprised at all to read that media reports were "misguided." Wbm1058 (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I, for one, wonder why one doesn't bother to put up a better comparison with fx. the fact that the Higgs' Boson is shown to be about 125 GeV/c2, about 133 proton masses, and how this compares to fx. Hadrons, that are indeed a "fusion product" of particles smashed together under high-energy experiments. The article is insufficient, I think, in showing how this great mass at appx. "weight" of the Cesium (Cs) atom from the Table of Elements match up with the other particles of the Standard Model as these data for it are given, i.e., the properties of the Higgs' Boson datacard, on par with the datacards, as explanation, to these other particles, "even though the Higgs' Boson is unique", of course. 46.9.42.58 (talk) 07:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Particle Fixed Standard Model

To "Gauge invariance is an important property of modern particle theories such as the Standard Model, partly due to its success in other areas of fundamental physics such as electromagnetism and the strong interaction (quantum chromodynamics)." one may choose something like this instead:
Standard Model is important as much as the Table of Elements is important because it fixes the single types of particles into system. This helps us to build a firm set of scientific beliefs as these particles are classified. As they are classified, they enter a puzzle where they are supposed to add description to one another. This has been successful with building the Table of Elements and continues with the Standard Model as well, in keeping us stuck to what is actually in nature and how this deepest level of particles can/do represent nature.
As with Table of Elements, I've thought that one would use a reliable confirmation method of these particles, but to varying degrees this must now be otherwise. Contrary to the best-standing particles that are now more or less absolute, description associated with the Standard Model has gone from particle description to theory description mixed with particle description and this has lead to a more unreliable Standard Model.
However, choosing your own scientifically steady particles can help to reduce the blur and bring forward a more steady work in physics, overall, I think. Good luck to you! 62.16.242.218 (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Vacuum stability

FT2's recent addition on the issue of vacuum stability misses a key point. In particular, the sentence "if ... the Standard Model is correct" should be replaced with "if ... the Standard Model provides a correct description of particle physics up to the Planck scale", which is a quite different concept. Indeed, the SM might well be "correct" as an effective theory at the energy scales accessible to present-day experiments, but it might be embedded in an extended theory at an intermediate energy scale well below the Planck scale (where it must anyway be extended to describe gravity). In that case, the arguments on vacuum stability based on the evolution of the SM Higgs quartic coupling up to the Planck scale would not apply.

Another issue is that a big chunk of the new section is taken by the summary of the findings of a single recent scholarly paper. This is definitely frowned upon in Wikipedia, we should rather find a secondary source or wait until such a source becomes available. Moreover, the choice of scholarly paper looks somewhat arbitrary: it might be argued that other recent papers on the subject, e.g. arXiv:1205.6497, were much more influential than arXiv:1207.0980. The latter mainly addressed a technical point on how the top mass used as input in the calculation should be defined. Finally, the sentence "The authors conclude that ..." comes a bit out of nowhere, it is not clear which authors it is referring to. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

All good points, can you do the edits? The basic material's there I think.

Also I agree, it is more precisely "if the relevant SM calculations are correct/valid up to Plank scale". But it's not "just one paper", this topic has - when one digs - received a lot of study over decades, and within that, the Higgs mass relationship to vacuum stability has received coverage in a considerable number of papers. There are many other papers though, but that was the only one I saw on a brief look that set out the implications of current understandings that clearly. Overall I agree with you, can you make the edits you think will improve it? Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I know that the topic has received attention during the years. What I am objecting to is 1) using a scholarly paper directly as a source, 2) using that particular paper out of the many that have been published even recently and 3) the level of detail to which you summarize the findings of that paper. Concerning the Planck scale, the "SM calculations" are correct, nobody is suggesting that they contain mistakes. The question is whether the SM itself is the theory that describes particle physics up to the Planck scale. Is the difference between these two concepts not clear to you? Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It's clear (of course) - sorry if you wondered. Hence I suggested either "correct" or "valid" as possible words - i.e., are they the "correct" calculations at that energy level (which we don't know yet as we don't have a firm theory for Planck scale)? Equivalently, are they "valid" calculations for that energy level (which we don't know yet)? I think you must heave understood me to mean "is the SM math done correctly", sorry if so. We're saying the same thing (thanks to your comment earlier) and your edit makes the article clear. I too misunderstood you, to be saying it was a fringe issue rather than a fair issue but over relying on a single paper, I understand you now. The quote you removed was borderline for me too ("is this repetitious?"). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Discovery

The Higgs Boson was found in late 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.102.214 (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The article is correct and the media are incorrect - the papers and new releases from the discoverers (CERN) and other experts worldwide, make that very clear.

A boson was discovered - in July 2012 not "late 2012". Scientists think it is the Higgs boson, but it is not proven yet. If it is - eventually - proven to be a Higgs boson, then the Higgs boson will have been discovered in July 2012, and proven in 2013 (or whenever it happens). But it will still be incorrect to say it was "discovered" in "late 2012".

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Spin 2

The box on the tests to validate the SM-Higgs hypothesis contains the sentence "Spin-2, also considered, would be ruled out if decay to two tau leptons (τ τ) is proven", with a reference to a blog. Even without doing the math, this seems suspicious to me, for several simple reasons: 1) Kaluza-Klein gravitons are well-studied examples of (hypothetical) spin-2 particles, and they do decay into two leptons - see e.g. papers for the corresponding searches by ATLAS and CMS; 2) there is now a strong indication that the 125-GeV particle does decay into taus (see e.g. today's talk in Moriond) and nobody seems to be drawing implications on its spin; 3) in the comment section of the cited blog, none less than Frank Close (Oxford) convincingly criticizes the author's argument as incorrect. I guess that the moral of the story is that blog posts shouldn't be used as sources, I am going to remove the statement until somebody provides a more solid reference. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

add this info

add info from this article http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23241-shy-higgs-boson-continues-to-vex-particle-hunters.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.165.98 (talk) 02:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

also

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23245-rumour-points-to-completely-boring-higgs-boson.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.165.98 (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Higgs mass generation

I have a suggestion: One could say that the constant Higgs field of the vacuum changes the mass of particles just like an external position-dependent electric field changes the momentum of an electron. I think it makes the explanation less vague.¨¨¨¨ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarafa66 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Feedback from a user

A user left this as feedback:

"A physical explanation of how the higgs gives mass to elementary particles, i. e. without looking at lagrangians etc. What does a constant vacuum expectation value do to the elementary particles which make them acquire mass."

This strikes me as pertinent feedback, does he have a fair point and can we do better? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't sell the fur before shooting the bear

The first section of the article states that the Higgs particle is not yet discovered. Another section says how and to whom the Nobel ought to be awarded for its discovery. Something is very, very weird in this story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.151.186.11 (talk) 12:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, could you be more specific? The award section begins with "There has been considerable discussion of how to allocate the credit for a proven Higgs boson" (my higlighting), i.e. it will only be given to someone if the Higgs boson is proven to exist.--85.230.137.182 (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

How do you prove it is the Higgs instead of some odd excited state or combination of previously known particles? Hcobb (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

IT'S ALIIIIIVE!

...sorry, a little excited there, but look at this! http://www.space.com/20226-newfound-particle-is-higgs.html Draconiator (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

CERN confirmed the Higgs boson this morning (3/14/2013) on KTVU/FOX News, COMCAST Channel 2, Oakland, CA, USA! Please update Higgs boson article accodingly.

To whom it may concern:

CERN confirmed the Higgs boson this morning (3/14/2013) on KTVU/FOX News, COMCAST Channel 2, Oakland, CA, USA! Please update Higgs boson article accordingly.

JPD 17:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPD.Enterprises (talk • contribs)

Agreed. At this point, we need a more definitive statement beginning this article that doesn't include "predicted." The Higgs boson now, according to consensus and review, actually exists. It is not "predicted" to exist at this point--and it's no more appropriate to equivocate on the nature of its existence then it is to do so on the existence of the electron or the quark. We may not know the complete nature of this Higgs, but we do know, according to what we're being told, that the Higgs--dramatic pause--is real. 2602:306:32C5:98C0:21E:C2FF:FEAB:F7AD (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The precise point at which we will eliminate the word "theoretical" from the first sentence

Scientists are now confident to 7 sigma certainty that this particle exists. For the record, that is 99.999999999% sure. They have, however, only sigma three certainty for the spin and the parity. That is still, however, 99.7% certainty. Now I'm of the camp that we should stop referring to the particle as "theoretical" or "tentatively confirmed" based upon what I'm reading across the board from every article wherein I am trying with absolutely no luck to find some personal justification not to move beyond considering the Higgs confirmed. I'm of the mind that if the scientists themselves are referring to the new boson as "the Higgs boson" (or even "a Higgs boson"), then we're being excessively conservative with this article by not saying the same thing that they are, i.e., that the Higgs boson is real. And that is what the scientists are saying.

But it does seem that, since the article is totally unrestricted and any hero can come along and once again deny the reality of the damn thing with a simple edit, we need to establish some "red line" past which it's not acceptable (and would constitute personal bias against overwhelming scientific consensus) to NOT say that the Higgs boson exists. So I propose that once the spin and the parity have both been established as matching the SMHB predictions to a 5 sigma certainty, then we can no longer describe it as theoretical or "tentatively confirmed."

Until that point, I'm fine with leaving it as a theoretical particle--if by "fine" I mean "gratingly annoyed at." But after that point, even if we're seeing different species of Higgs, the SMHB is confirmed as much as you can possibly ask us to confirm it. After all, if the Higgs ends up being stranger or more multifarious than expected, it's the Standard Model that's doomed, not the Higgs. Gravity survived Newton, etc. Does anyone have a legitimate gripe against that proposal? (Obviously, if news reports come out that it's a graviton or the spilled seed of God Himself, then I won't suggest calling it the Higgs boson. I'm just saying: we're being a tad ridiculous with our expectations here.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:32C5:98C0:21E:C2FF:FEAB:F7AD (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

<redacted>68.69.166.126 (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:PA, WP:OUTING (completely off-target, BTW), delusions, paranoia... Will anybody do something about this clown? Ptrslv72 (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Missing an introduction ?

Just skimming through this page but it appears that the first few lines cover recent developments but don't go into a concise explanation of what the Higgs Boson actually is. What do you think about having a first section that plays the role of introduction to the concept ? --JamesPoulson (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

As a given example, the French version of the article is a bit more elaborate. --JamesPoulson (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a great idea. Why don't you take a stab at wrting a great introduction in plain english. Would help a lot of readers. My edits just keep getting reverted. Some help here would be great. 68.69.166.126 (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

How about the following as a start ? Excuse the formatting and any apparent lack of knowledge on the subject :) . I'm a great believer in vulgarisation so knowledge is accessible to the greater number.

"The Higgs boson is a subparticle predicted by the Standard Model of particle physics. Also nicknamed the "god particle", it's discovery could explain why certain elementary particles have a mass. This explanation was advanced by the Peter Higgs (Britain) as well as Robert Brout et François Englert (Belgium). As the particle is extremely unstable, it is difficult to detect on it's own and attempts have been made for a decade to confirm it's existence by examining data of collisions carried out in a particle accelerator. It is hoped that this is the same particle which was detected by physicists at CERN in Summer of 2012."

"Real world" impact

This section seems to be rationalizing the incredible investment that was made to discover the Higgs boson. It would be nice if there was a little more than just saying, "well we didn't think radio waves would be useful when we first discovered them, but they are now!". According to Proton decay, the Higgs boson should catalyze proton decay. Can this ever be useful in generating energy or is the lifetime too short? ScienceApe (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can really give a meaningful answer to that. You have really answered your own question. Some decades ago, someone would have thought it completely infeasible for people to have computers in their homes. Yet here we are today. So asking "can this ever be useful" is asking us to predict whether our state of technology can ever advance far enough. And that falls squarely within WP:FUTURE. CodeCat (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)