Talk:Higgs boson

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)

The media is not wrong there is no way that this is not a Higgs Boson, the part about media misrepresentation should be eliminated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.230.201.194 (talk) 19:54, 31 March 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)

Ambiguous wording / wording questions

  The phrase

one component of the four component Higgs field

has syntax that remains ambiguous until one reaches the singular "field", and thereby invites a pause to puzzle over whether

1. the Higgs field has four component fields,
2. the clause is about one component field of those four, and
3. the last word "field" is a typo for "fields".

I thus presume that our colleague either

1. doesn't know that a hyphen is mandatory when the adj/noun/noun-phrase construction is ambiguous, or
2. doesn't see the logic of similarly eliminating the temporary ambiguity, or
3. knew what they were trying to say before they started writing it, and thus didn't notice the temporary ambiguity.

(And IMO the temporary ambiguity is exacerbated by the hyphen-ish-looking unspaced em-dash separating the four-word noun phrase, that immediately follows "is", from the 22-word appositive phrase that ends the sentence.) And thus presume as well that they will agree, on reflection, with my addition of the useful (if arguably not mandatory) hyphen in

one component of the four-component Higgs field

and with my replacement of the em-dash with first two words of a phrase beginning

that constitutes a scalar field with ....

  Or, BTW, perhaps someone will suggest a more precise word than my ideas, "constitutes", "embodies", or just "is".
  (Well, in the offing, i encountered other complications, and, hopefully, resolved differently the same wording problems; i shall let my last wording speak for itself as a more workable solution to the issues i raised above.)
--Jerzy•t 01:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Additional wording queries edited recently that I have issues with (DIFF):

1. "The Higgs boson or Higgs particle is an elementary particle whose existence is predicted by the Standard Model" - that middle bit grates. It is accurate but so is the shorter and simpler phrase "within" (within theory X, it's an elementary particle").
2. "A Higgs-type boson". What exactly distinguishes a "Higgs type boson" and a "Higgs boson"? It does not mean "similar to but not in the Standard Model", since non-SM models have particles called a "Higgs boson" not a "HIggs type boson". Have they confirmed a Higgs-type boson, or a Higgs boson of unknown exact type? I think the latter sounds more accurate per CERN's own announcement ("...strongly indicates that it is a Higgs boson"). If CERN say that, so should we.
3. "since it would finally prove the existence of the HF" - in view of the duration of the question over HF, "finally prove" seems to convey that this is a long awaited answer which for one word's addition is highly relevant to the topic.
4. The phrase: "Definitive confirmation of its existence was described during the search as monumental" was changed to "Definitive confirmation of a Standard Model Higgs boson would be...". Surely incorrect, the point is a confirmation of any kind of HB would be, because by definition any HB confirmation proves some type of HF exists and explains/verifies the rest. (Are there some kinds of HB whose definitive confirmation would not be monumental?!)
5. Is Peter Higgs' nationality sufficiently relevant for the intro? No objection, more a question.
6. "no spin and positive parity [two fundamental criteria of a Higgs boson consistent with the Standard Model]" - again, are there non-SM HB's which have non-zero spin or non-positive parity? Reports and physicist discussions seem to say this would be the case for at least some HB's in both SM and non-SM. So it would be consistent with HB generally, not just HB in the SM.
7. Citation keeps being removed for http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2012/07/16/spinning-out-of-control, unclear why.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Edits made of these

1. CERN state this is a Higgs boson (albeit tentatively and uncertain which theory is best supported) ("... strongly indicates that it is a Higgs boson..."). So we should be that plain-spoken too. This means that we should not call it a "Higgs-type boson" which sounds like hedging bets and which may easily mislead non-experts. (Higgs-like? Higgs-type? sound very similar as if they mean the same, so avoid the contraction "Higgs-type" in favor of the more easily understood "HB of some kind").
2. As it's now tentatively confirmed (or strongly believed so) we can reword the 1st sentence to match the style used to introduce other elementary particles. We don't say that "a muon is a particle whose existence is predicted by the SM of particle physics". Nor should we now, of HB.
3. The term "monumental" was used during the search to describe the impact of a (then-future) finding. Reword to capture this sense.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Recentism

I edited and moved around some stuff, per WP:RECENTISM. The primary focus of the first few sentences was the discovery, rather than the known/posited attributes of the particle...which seemed out of place. My knowledge of this subject is limited though, and I think there's still some excessive recentism in the intro that needs to be edited out. (Basically, to properly state what we know of the Higgs first, and then note the timeline of the discovery only following that.) I don't know enough to write a proper intro sentence, and I agree that various previous intros (with vague stuff like "Higgs-like") are just confusing and not correct for obvious reasons of SM vs non-SM, but I'm not sure how to address that. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 05:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

This article was not clearly written

It is important in the writing of a dissertation that the construction and syntax of each sentence be done with care. Long run-on sentences tend to obscure meaning. Another problem is the excessive use of obscure terms that are unknown to the targeted reading audience. Proper use of the language is important if the text is to be effective in the communication of ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.123.101.145 (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Some of the sentences in this article are a little long, but could you provide examples of sentences with multiple independent clauses joined without proper punctuation/conjunction?
This is a technical subject. "Obscure terms" are unavoidable. That is why they are wikilinked.
Wikipedia endeavours to record the sum of human knowledge. Simplifying descriptions of technical subjects at the expense of information for an undefined target audience is not necessarily conducive to that goal. If the reading level of the article's text is your only concern, you may be interested in the version of this article at Simple English Wikipedia.  —Sowlos  11:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

A lot of people have tried to work on this. We do get comments at times about complexity, but it is a complex topic, and people we ask "can you suggest how to improve it" don't seem to have actual ideas, when actually asked how it can be done. So this is where it's at right now. Obviously, if ways exist to do so, without sacrificing quality of information, it would be good.

Do you have suggestions of sentences that you can suggest how to reword, or reorganized? It helps if you can find any specific edits to propose/discuss rather than a blanket comment that some parts are run-on, or excessive obscure terms, neither specific nor with suggestions how to improve any issues. Perhaps you could add below, a bullet point list of exact sentences you'd rework, and how you might want to rework them, and let's see if we can improve it that way. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Relationship of Higgs Field and Rotating Superconductor in electromagnetic field

Dr Eugene Podkletnov in his experiment showed apparent mass of an object can be changed when placed over a field created by bi layered superconductive and non-superconductive plate when superconductive layered is superconducting and Meisner effect is shown while rotation is produced in oscilating electromagnetic field. The electron move to the superconducting plate from non-super conducting plate increasing cooper pair electron in the superconducting plate. The cooper pair electron as they are fermions and Superconductor state allows the Quantum effect to become apparent in Macroscopic scale by mechanism of Bose–Einstein condensate (BEC). Cooper Pair Electron interferes with Higgs Field making the particle mass in its field to shift.

Ref 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Podkletnov

Ref 2: Scientific Paper: Weak gravitation shielding properties of composite bulk Y Ba2Cu3O7−x superconductor below 70 K under e.m. field, by E.E. Podkletnov, Moscow Chemical Scientific Research Center.

Ref 3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooper_pair

Ref 4: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_condensate

Ashkanimanzahrai (talk) 02:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Ashkan Imanzahrai

As Eugene Podkletnov wikipage says "He is best known for his controversial work on a so-called 'gravity shielding' device" (my highlighting.) This information might be more suitable for his page rather than this page that is supposed to describe the mainstream scientific view.85.230.137.182 (talk) 13:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)