Talk:Higgs boson/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

FERMI FOUND HIGGS

Go America!: http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/rumors_about_light_higgs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.56.190 (talk) 05:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It is a rumor but if it is true it will be an exciting day for all. http://www.physorg.com/news198202639.html 96.228.223.246 (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah?

Y'know, this article doesn't explain very much. rowley (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, this article has no useful information whatsoever for a casual reader who comes to learn what "Higgs boson" means. 131.107.0.80 (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, that's because modern particle physics is philosophically ... Randian (either Ayn or James/Amazing). I thought of something to make sharper the situation with a mandated paradigm shift if Higgs is negatively confirmed but this is a work in progress over the next year or two (i.e. the LHC experiments). The current text is pretty clear about upper and lower energy bounds, maybe that needs to be connected to the LHC ranges here. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Trite. That's what I was trying to think of where I put Randian. Wrt James Randi, it's just the relation to the need to constantly debunk rather than move on on a rational basis. For Ayn, well trite is trite, banal, vulgar but not in a good way. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 09:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Now there are five...

BBC News - US experiment hints at 'multiple God particles' -- megA (talk) 09:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't look for the HB - it's not there

But I tell you what is

Anti-Time

The difference between Time & Anti-Time is the reason we are here - it's the imbalance

Or maybe black magic by the sinister swarthy neighbor chanting all the night? BTW, please sign your posts with ~~~~. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 19:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

In Our Time broadcast

BBC Radio 4's In Our Time is a 45 minute discussion programme with three eminent academics in their field, hosted by Melvyn Bragg. Each edition deals with one subject from one of the following fields: philosophy, science, religion, culture and historical events. The entire archive going back to 1998 is now available online in perpetuity.

An edition about Higgs Boson was broadcast with Jim Al-Khalili, Senior Lecturer in Physics at the University of Surrey; David Wark, Professor of Experimental Physics at Imperial College London and the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory; Professor Roger Cashmore, former Research Director at CERN and now Principal of Brasenose College, Oxford.

You can listen to the programme on this link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p004y2b7. Request to an editor: would you be able to include this as an external link on the article page?--Herk1955 (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Early results from ATLAS

In the following paper, it is shown that ATLAS has excluded the SM Higgs boson with a 95% CL, for the mass range 135-188 GeV. Maybe the graphic should be updated. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1012.0694v1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.141.190 (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The paper cited is not an ATLAS publication but an ATLAS note. If I read it correctly, they claim that the 95% CL exclusion in this range can be obtained with one inverse femtobarn of data (of course only if no signal is seen). This amount of integrated lumi is not yet collected, but will hopefully be reached sometime during 2011. So this is a projection for the future, not an experimental result. If the actual exclusion bound is published, it will be in an actual ATLAS collaboration paper which you will recognize as it will have a zillion names on it. Aknochel (talk)

Do you mean "95% CL" or "95% CI" (Confidence Interval)? 90.205.123.105 (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

"The God particle"

Placing blame anywhere but on Leon Lederman is ridiculous, including blaming the media! Lederman not only named his book The god particle: if the universe is the answer, what is the question? but being at the time "The world's foremost experimental physicist and Nobel laureate" referred to the particle as the God Particle and even included a quote in the bible: Genesis 11:1-9, the Tower of Babel about mankind dispersing. Finding the "God Particle", he says, would be like undoing the the confusion that followed. Shameless promotion of his book by naming it or not he continued to refer to the Higgs Boson particle in explanation after explanation. i.e. "This boson is so central to the state of physics today, so crucial to our final understanding of the structure of matter, yet so elusive, that I have given it a nickname: the God Particle." There is no need to blame the media for using the name God Particle you should instead blame the physics community. They may claim to hate the term, but they refer to it as such repeatedly when ever they are also in the media. The media can certainly be blamed for many things but attempting to make them the scapegoat for this term is a bunch of B.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.215.115 (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

He preferred the "goddamn particle". Blame his editor. — LlywelynII 14:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's create an "Introduction to the Higgs Boson" article

It's clear from reading the talk page and the archived talk page that this article

a) attracts a lot of non-specialist visitors, and

b) is incomprehensible to the casual reader.

To be honest I'd be impressed if many got past the second sentence. I'm not saying that the article is bad, it's good to provide accurate and detailed information, but we need to provide something for the non-physicists. Given the work physics puts into outreach programs, it's a massive shame for people to hear about the Higgs in the media, come here for information, and then go away having understood nothing of the article.

Hence I suggest an "Introduction to the Higgs Boson" article aimed at non-physicists. Is anyone willing to work on one with me? I'm a physics undergraduate with some knowledge of particle physics, but not a full understanding of the Higgs mechanism: I could write some basics but would need an expert to check it wasn't inaccurate or misleading.--Hermajesty21 (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good and timely plan. I would be happy to check the technical correctness of your article and contribute some text. Aknochel (talk)

A higgs boson walks into a church, the priest says "your kind aren't welcome here". The higgs boson says, "but you can't have mass without me!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.161.251.228 (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree. I found the following really helpful - it contains several one-page explanations aimed at the layman. http://www.phy.uct.ac.za/courses/phy400w/particle/higgs.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.64.60.218 (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

new exclusion results from LHC in arxiv

I wouldnt want to write this in myself, I'm not able to read and make sense of the work, but there is a paper here from the CMS collaboration: http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.5429 which says "A measurement of WW production in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV and a search for the Higgs boson are reported. ...a Higgs boson with mass between 144 and 207 GeV is ruled out at 95% confidence level." Which is to say, initial analysis rules out the higgs boson almost through the entirety of the expected range. --— robbiemuffin ^{page talk} 13:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning in the article, and worth updating the image giving excluded regions, but bear in mind that 95% confidence level results are considered very preliminary (the standard for detection is at least 4 sigma, and for unambiguous detection about 6 sigma last I heard). I'm not sure what the standard is for exclusion, rather than detection, but I'd still consider both these results and the LEP and indirect results in File:HiggsGraph 07-26-2010 hr.svg to be likely, rather than certain, exclusion.

That said, I agree that it still does point to either a lighter Higgs (120-130 GeV) or no Higgs. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The paper says "In the presence of a sequential fourth family of fermions with very high masses, a Higgs boson with standard model couplings and a mass between 144 and 207 GeV/c2 has been excluded at 95% confidence level." This is still probably worth mentioning, but this is a declaration for specific types of higgs boson productions, rather than an universal declaration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.141.190 (talk) 09:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

status: hypothetical vs. theoretical

hello, first of all i am a layman. i hope someone takes the time to answer my innocent questions.

looking at those particle description boxes on the right side on the top of the pages for both the higgs boson and the graviton, i notice that the higgs status is "hypothetical", while for the graviton it's "theoretical".

could someone please explain why this difference in terminology? seems at first glance they should both be labled as "theoretical".

also, the graviton box includes many more characteristics than the higgs one, like group, symbol, antiparticle, interaction, mean lifetime, and electric charge. do those characteristics not exist for the higgs boson? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.203.224 (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The difference is that the higgs boson is predicted by the prevailing model, while the graviton isn't. The higgs boson can be detected, while the graviton cannot (at this point), if they exist. Hypothetical and theoretical effectively means that they have different degrees of being predicted, despite both not technically being observed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.141.190 (talk) 09:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Its neither hypothetical nor theoretical, its mathematical. There are many mathematical predictions that are just plain wrong. The Higgs Boson does not exist because the reason for mass is not within the scope of the Standard Model because the Standard Model is seriously flawed. Its as seriously flawed as the Big Bang Theory! Scientists have carved careers for themselves chasing ghosts. Some realism is badly needed. Out with the mathematicians and in with the engineers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.30.151 (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It's either hypothetical or theoretical, or both, but it's not mathematical, since it is within physics, tools' usages aside. Chaos might be on the border of mathematics, but not quantum mechanics. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

status: hypothetical vs. theoretical

hello, first of all i am a layman. i hope someone takes the time to answer my innocent questions.

looking at those particle description boxes on the right side on the top of the pages for both the higgs boson and the graviton, i notice that the higgs status is "hypothetical", while for the graviton it's "theoretical".

could someone please explain why this difference in terminology? seems at first glance they should both be labled as "theoretical".

also, the graviton box includes many more parameters than the higgs one, like group, symbol, antiparticle, interaction, mean lifetime, and electric charge. do those parameters not exist for the higgs boson?

79.182.205.253 (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

hello

who created CERN and why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.169.92 (talk) 21:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

That information is at the CERN article. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The ATLAS rumours

I made a change to the statement you attribute to me which more closely reflects the content of the Guardian piece you reference. Hope this is ok (I am quite new to editing wikipedia).

Jon Jonbutterworth (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The change looks good, thanks. Like several of the past claims, the whole event will probably be removed when it doesn't pan out, but for now it's making enough of a media splash that a couple of people had added text about it. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

What the experiments show really

For understand the results, the plots show the ratio between the measured to the theoretically calculated events, together with (green-yellow) the uncertainty, depending on the mass. A significant value below 1 would indicate the Higgs, and a significant value less 1 would exclude it, at that mass. The totality of measurements by ATLAS exhibited on July 23 shows between 100 and 160 GeV a general excess of the measurements over the model, however without any peak but with a deficience near 121 GeV. The correct interpretation is, that this is not a 'first indication of Higgs', but NONE at all. This is simply a model error over this whole range, by a factor of perhaps 2, what easily can happens. This is confirmed by that the observed deficience is not predicted by the model, what proofs that effects of that order are missing in the model. What could indicate a Higgs (although such model errors), would be a peak, however there is no (as there is one at 250 GeV, where however other experiments exclude Higgs, also prooving that the model don't include other effects of that magnitude). Thus, we have to interprete the exhibited results in the sense that probably there exists no Higgs.

SYS-Linux (talk) 05:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If you have a source for this information, please don't be shy. Thanks. Ben MacDui 08:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/CONFNOTES/ATLAS-CONF-2011-112/ATLAS-CONF-2011-112.pdf inofficially published on 24/7 what was apresented officially on 25/7 . See plots 4b, 5b, 8b . In the whole range, the model is lower than the measurement, so that's just a model error (what's not surprising because that's newland). Neither the deficience at 121 nor the peak at 250 the model predicts, thus the model have uncertainties (not-considered interactions). What's missing is any significant peak in the whole 110 to 160 .. range -- that would be a first indication of Higgs there.

SYS-Linux (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yet the abstract concludes:In the low mass range (c 120−140 GeV) an excess of events with a significance of approximately 2.8sigma above the background expectation is observed. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 18:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

However, the background itself appearently was wrong modelled in the whole range 100 .. 160 GeV . Look there's nowhere any peak

SYS-Linux (talk)

I don't think anybody can conclude either way yet from those pictures with any certainty. Dauto (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

5 sigma is the benchmark. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 20:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Today other results here: https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PAPERS/HIGG-2011-02/HIGG-2011-02.pdf We conclude: nothing yet, with the tendence towards not existing SYS-Linux (talk) 09:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This is based on 2010 data. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 11:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

What matters is the precision of these experiments, and that is good 93.121.138.180 (talk) 06:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

A Hint of Higgs, update from LHC

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110815193631.htm --71.236.128.113 (talk) 03:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This are the same data presented at the meeting, only better interpreted. It's the same as before. Today still was published http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1375842/files/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-011.pdf . Its Fig. 8 represents the already notoric results of Tevatron, showing that from 158 to 182 Higgs is excluded more certain than 95% . Below 150 and over 180, we see (as explained above) that generally happened more events than in the model, however we have to understand this as a model error (general underestimate of events). Any indication of a Higgs would appear as a peak - on this plot, downwards to a lesser exclusion probability - even if perhaps not significant, but anyway registered more events at a certain value. We see such a peak at 155 (LHC excludes that area) - but nowhere below 150. Thus, it's correct to say: Currently, no indication of Higgs (at least w.r.t. the data by Tevatron, but with LHC it's the same). Beside of this, in Tab. 6 are resumed the ATLAS and CMS data (it's not clear, data obtained until when). Combined they mean that with 5% remaining probability or to 95% is excluded 133 to 200 . Thus, if we put together all data we have until today, we can say that only between appr. 125 to 130 Higgs remains excluded less sure than 95% , and even in this interval is no positive indication, only the exclusion probability is still lower there. 93.121.138.180 (talk) 00:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

These data are only computational exercises. Ruslik_Zero 16:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

No, some of them are simulations, but at the end always happens a comparison with the observations, or you think that until now CERN and Tevatron published only 'computational exercices' ??. And today we have https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/CONFNOTES/ATLAS-CONF-2011-135/ATLAS-CONF-2011-135.pdf and https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/CONFNOTES/ATLAS-CONF-2011-132/ATLAS-CONF-2011-132.pdf . As visible in -135 table 4, below 130 one see drift the events more and more to higher than the model, but this don't mean nor is called an indication of Higgs. On the other hand, other experiments searching for alternative Higgss, exclude more and more also the standard Higgs, -132 fig. 11 93.121.138.180 (talk) 08:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Latest press release. Cheers ^Khukri 09:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

..cannot believe an exclusion of the Higgs could be the truth after only 1/4 year of data taking under low lumi and low engergy conditions!?!? When I did PhD ten years ago for CMS my mentors/professors did always speak about something of a minimum of *four* years of data taking at CMS and ATLAS needed (two years under low lumi, two under high (25ns)) to be capable to get really profound, stable and realistic physical results. I am a bit irritated that everything should be "around the corner" now just after the first year of ramp up !! To give such a high exclusion statement of 95% CL for the Higgs may listen to me a bit to early and in hurry - lets discuss first more about the possible background not being carefully understood so far.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.210.50.90 (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Guardian article

Both Guardian articles about the renaming contest are coy and evasive about who the supposed "physicist" judges for their contest were, and the second is principally concerned with the author's drinking. The contest and proposed name barely meet notability; but given the non-zero probability that the "physicist" judges were manifestations of Mr. Simple's DTs or authorial license, references to the contest should best be made simply to the newspaper and/or named author. — LlywelynII 14:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually I don't think the similarity between the bottom of a champagne bottle and the shape of the Mexican hat potential is something a layman is likely to come up with, but still I'm OK with your rewording. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 17:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Higgs boson vs Englert-Brout-Higgs-Guralnik-Hagen-Kibble mechanism

The section Origin of the theory originally contained a paragraph that stressed the distinction between Higgs boson and Englert-Brout-Higgs-Guralnik-Hagen-Kibble mechanism, and read:

Out of the three seminal papers on the Higgs mechanism, only the paper by Peter Higgs mentioned the possible existence of the Higgs boson ("... an essential feature of the type of theory which has been described in this note is the prediction of incomplete multiplets of scalar and vector bosons."). Peter Higgs added this sentence when he was revising the paper after it was rejected by Physics Letters and before resubmitting it to Physical Review Letters.[1] The first detailed description of the Higgs boson properties was given in 1966, also by Peter Higgs. [2]

A while ago the editor "Mary at CERN" (also the main contributor to the article 1964_PRL_symmetry_breaking_papers) replaced that paragraph with another paragraph that closely reflects the point of view of Guralnik (see the talk page of the "PRL papers" article for more details):

The papers by Peter Higgs and Guralnik, Hagen, and Kibble each displayed the equation for the boson in the leading approximation for their equivalent models. Higgs, in a closing sentence, mentioned the possible existence of the Higgs boson. [3] Guralnik, Hagen and Kibble explicitly showed that the massless scalar particles required by the Goldstone theorem were unphysical and would not appear in any actual measurement.[4] The properties of the boson model were further discussed by Guralnik in 1965 and later by Higgs in 1966.[5] [6]

I see several problems in the new paragraph:

1) in the GHK paper, the field that - according to Guralnik's post facto reconstruction - corresponds to the Higgs boson is massless, and is somehow swept under the carpet as a nuisance (the sentence in the GHK article reads: "While one sees by inspection that there is a massless particle in the theory, it is easily seen that it is completely decoupled from the other (massive) excitations, and has nothing to do with the Goldstone theorem"). The first sentence glosses over these facts and appears to be aimed to putting the Higgs and GHK papers on the same footing.

2) the third sentence is the core of Guralnik's argument on why his paper should be considered "more complete" than the others, but it is not relevant to the subject of the paragraph (i.e., which article identified the Higgs particle as opposed to the Higgs mechanism). Also, I find it bizarre that the reference points to a "Data File Host" website where somebody uploaded a scanned version of a 1967 paper. Wouldn't it be possible to link directly the journal's website?

3) the fourth paragraph claims that the properties of the boson were "further discussed" by Guralnik in 1965 and later by Higgs in 1966. However, the reference for Guralnik is an arXiv preprint from July 2011, which is supposed to reproduce a contribution that is now difficult to find. In the foreword Guralnik writes: "I have attempted to make this article identical in content to the original complete with some potentially confusing notation, typographic errors and (minor) errors in language and physics. I am posting this here because I have been receiving requests for copies since the original proceedings are not readily available." Given the sensitivity of the issue, I'd be curious to check the original.

In summary, I think that 1) this paragraph should not suggest that the Higgs and the GHK papers are somewhat on an equal footing for what concerns the prediction of the Higgs boson (again: as opposed to the description of the Higgs mechanism). 2) the third sentence, i.e. the one on the Goldstone theorem, is irrelevant here and should be removed. 3) The references for the papers of Guralnik should be improved.

In general, I would invite again the other editors to check the talk page of the "PRL papers" article to understand what's going on. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. The changes stress the properties of the "boson" after the original 1964 papers - not any comparison of the three papers. The talk page of the "PRL papers" article has been updated to be neutral - so this is in fact complete. The above changes in the Higgs Boson article are fully sourced. I would encourage Ptrslv72 to 1) review the papers from 1964, 2) leverage actual physics journals as sources (it is assumed these journals do research and leverage referees), and 3) conduct more research on the physics as needed on the topic. All three of the papers should be represented on the merits - readers can determine the relative strangthsMary_at_CERN 18:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary at CERN (talk • contribs)

What is this supposed to mean? I am proposing changes on the text, so you should argue on the merits of the proposed changes instead of embarking in inappropriate (and incorrect, BTW) speculations on what sources I have read or how much research I have conducted on the topic. BTW may I remind you to sign your posts with four consecutive tildas? Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Another thing: as you can see at page 10, in Guralnik's 1965 paper the "Higgs boson" (i.e. the field phi_2) is still "massless and completely decoupled from the massive excitations". Therefore, a sentence like "The properties of the boson model were further discussed by Guralnik in 1965" is very misleading: the properties of the boson discussed by Guralnik in 1965 have little to do with the actual Higgs boson. One more sentence that should be changed... Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of specific replies on the points that I had listed above, I implemented the proposed changes. Please try to argue on this page before reverting. Cheers Ptrslv72 (talk) 13:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I can fix it and make more neutral for you later when I have some time. You are correct that the mass in the GHK paper of $phi_2$ is zero in the leading order, but clear to field theorists then and now, this would change order by order as the theory was iterated in a way very close to how it changes in unbroken scalar electromagnetism. The GHK paper is also the only one that kept track of the degrees of freedom of the scalar electrodynamics model - so that would need to be clarified with your changes and how that impacts the model. Additionally, since your focus is on the boson, why are you not fixated on Brout and Englert's PRL paper - which did not have the boson in any form (equation or mention). Why don't you remove them completely from this page? I would not, but it would be consistent with your recent edits. Again, will circle back when I get more time. Mary_at_CERN 00:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary at CERN (talk • contribs)

I did not ask you to "fix it and make more neutral", I asked you to discuss in the talk page whatever changes you want to make (as I did above, BTW) before implementing them. As to the content, the sentences on the boson mass that I quoted in the paragraph are straight from the two papers. What is clear or not clear "to field theorists then and now" is just your interpretation (and perhaps Guralnik's self-interested point of view). As to the rest of your comments, we are discussing a specific paragraph that aims to make the distinction between the Higgs mechanism (described in all three papers) and the Higgs boson (mentioned - in very different ways - only in Higgs' and GHK's papers). In the context of this specific paragraph, neither the Englert-Brout paper nor the other supposed merits of the GHK paper are relevant. This obviously does not mean that the Englert-Brout paper should not be mentioned at all in the article (and indeed it is mentioned a few lines above, where the Higgs mechanism is described). Finally, may I remind you for the Nth time to sign your comments with four tildas? Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 09:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It does need to be enhanced per the "degrees of freedom" piece and how the mass changes in the model and then it is pretty close. All my posts end with 4 tildas. Not sure why it does it again via the robot. Mary_at_CERN 10:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary at CERN (talk • contribs)

1) the "degrees of freedom" piece does not seem relevant to me in a paragraph about the Higgs boson, and 2) I am not sure I understand what you mean with "how the mass changes in the model". Anyway, that's what the talk page is for. Please propose (and discuss) your changes here before implementing them in the article. And let's not lose sight of the fact that all statements should backed by verifiable sources. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 11:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the signature issue is indeed bizarre. It might be related to the fact that your user page does not exist. Try to create it by clicking on the red Mary at CERN link and writing anything in it (e.g., "Hi I am Mary at CERN" as I did in my own user page). Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Mary, I reverted your recent edits. Let's try to come to an agreement here in the talk page before changing the article. Write down here the sentences you want to add and we will discuss them one by one. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the sentenace that needs to be changed, and will revert "In the GHK paper, the boson is massless in the lowest order approximation but not subject to any constraint and acquires mass in higher orders. Their tracking of the physical degrees of freedom shows that there is no massless Nambu-Goldstone boson." I will add back later or suggest edits to this. If you need help with the physics let me know.Mary_at_CERN 15:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary at CERN (talk • contribs)

ONCE AGAIN: please wait until we come to an agreement here in the talk page before modifying the article. We are not in a hurry, and it is the civilized way to proceed in Wikipedia when there is a disagreement between editors. The other approach (i.e., repeatedly changing the article) is called "edit war" and it usually ends up with both editors being blocked... Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough...what would you like to change in this sentence? "In the GHK paper, the boson is massless in the lowest order approximation but not subject to any constraint and acquires mass in higher orders. Their tracking of the physical degrees of freedom showed there is no massless Nambu-Goldstone boson." Open to hearing the issue here. Apologize for any rudeness or failure in process on my end. Thank you. Mary_at_CERN 15:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary at CERN (talk • contribs)

Hi Mary, let's split your proposed change in its two parts and discuss them independently:

1) In the GHK paper, the boson is massless in the lowest order approximation but not subject to any constraint and acquires mass in higher orders.

Unless I miss something, the only part of this sentence that is actually rooted in the GHK paper is "the boson is massless". And the paper also says that the boson is "completely decoupled from the other (massive) excitations".

I will try to explain this as simple as I can - and show what you "missed". It is indeed correct that the "Higgs boson" is massless in the GHK paper. The point is that this masslessness has nothing to do with the Goldstone theorem or any other constraint on the theory. Getting around the Goldstone theorem is the entire point of these 1964 PRL papers. If the constraints of the theorem were valid, there would be a required massless scalar particle which was not and is not observed in nature. In this model, GHK starts with a massless two degree of freedom vector particle and two massless (one degree of freedom) scalar particles.

GHK makes an approximation: The massless non-higgs scalar degree of freedom combines with the two degrees of freedom of the massless vector particle to make a vector particle with 3 degrees of freedom and which has mass. Nothing happens to the other scalar degree of freedom which remains massles and is the "Higgs Boson". This is clear in the GHK paper because it is stripped down to only physical degrees of freedom by its choice of gauge.

To repeat in more detail, GHK picked a model which initially has no interaction with the scalars amongst themselves and also picked a leading order approximation that is consistent with all the symmetries of the model. This approximation leaves the boson degree of freedom associated with the "Higgs Boson" massless. In this order, no interaction between this degree of freedom and the vector field is visible and hence it is decoupled. Similarly, in Dr. Higgs's model his boson is decoupled in his approximation. This is no surprise, either of these models and the approximation studied ends up looking like free fields. In particular a free massive vector field and free massless higgs boson for GHK.

However, that the Higgs boson is massless here carries no significance. Higher corrections to this approximation move this mass away from zero. Masses (not constrained by the Goldstone theorem are zero or by some special structure condition) must change order by order. The only issue was the Goldstone theorem and GHK showed that this did not apply in this case. Furthermore GHK showed this is true in general in all gauge theories unlike the other papers which only considered an explicit model in the leading approximation.

Dr. Higgs starts with a seemingly different model. It is in fact identical when iterated. This was and still is well known. It is a property of renormalization in electrodynamics models. While Peter Higgs gives a non-zero mass in leading order approximation, it is not relevant. It is changed in higher orders and in fact can not be determined from the theory which requires mass renormalization (because of infinities). This means the actual mass can only be determined by experiment. Note that even if this mass could be determined it has nothing to do with the physical "Higgs boson". The physical boson being looked for at the LHC comes from an identical mechanism but has the details of the interaction entirely different because the theory associated with the full Standard Model must be used. Arguments about Dr. Higgs having a Higgs particle because he writes his leading approximation with a mass are not correct. This has nothing to do with the actual mass in this simple model or the full Standard Model. Professional physicists should know better than to make such an argument (and I am not saying you are making this argument) and if they do, they are either incompetent or purposely lying to confuse non-experts. Mary_at_CERN 03:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Both of these statements are in contrast with the properties of the actual Higgs boson (which is massive and does couple to the massive gauge bosons),

Again Peter Higgs' paper does not have an actual Higgs boson as is being searched for at LHC and his approximation (which is the same as GHK in the end) does not have mixing. Mary_at_CERN 03:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

therefore they are relevant to the issue of which paper first described the Higgs boson (as opposed to the Higgs mechanism). The rest of your sentence, "... in the lowest order approximation but not subject to any constraint and acquires mass in higher orders" is not in the GHK paper (or at least I could not find it - where is it?)

Common knowledge - these PRL papers are not for arm-chair physicists or non-experts. If you read PRL you know what I mean Mary_at_CERN 03:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

You can find such statements in later papers by Guralnik & friends (e.g. the 2009 review), but - having appeared years later - they are not relevant in establishing the priority for the prediction of the Higgs boson.

2) Their tracking of the physical degrees of freedom showed there is no massless Nambu-Goldstone boson.

This may well be a true statement, but, as I already wrote in the thread above, it does not seem to be relevant either in establishing the priority for the prediction of the Higgs boson.

Again, it is the only thing truly relevant. The whole point is to negate the Goldstone theorem. If not there are zero mass particles and all fails - that was what the entire fuss was about way back when in 1964.Mary_at_CERN 03:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Higgs' PRL paper misses on this point. The PH equations, which do not contain only the physical degrees of freedom, have zero mass solutions (which he misses). He must include these. In order to complete the analysis, he must show that these massless solutions are pure gauge and do not appear in any physically measured quantities. The PH paper does not do this, but the fact remains his solutions are wrong and if he did it correctly he would have been in trouble unless he understood how to make the gauge argument. Again physical zero mass particle do not appear to exist except for the photon (light).Mary_at_CERN 03:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I have suggested the segment that follows which is 1) correct from a physics standpoint 2) keeps the PH quote about "an essential feature", 3) outlines the massless boson and degrees of freedom and the importance on the model, and 4) contains a neutral tone. Before I change in a couple days, if you would like to propose something different, that ideally aligns with the four points just lised, please do. The papers by Peter Higgs and Guralnik, Hagen, and Kibble both displayed equations for the field that would eventually become known as the Higgs boson. In the paper by Higgs the boson is massive, and a closing sentence denotes it as "an essential feature" of the theory under consideration. In the GHK paper, the boson is massless in the lowest order approximation but not subject to any constraint and acquires mass in higher orders. Their tracking of the physical degrees of freedom shows that there is no massless Nambu-Goldstone boson. The properties of the boson model were further discussed by Guralnik in 1965 and by Higgs in 1966.[10] [11] Mary_at_CERN 03:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Seriously, try writing something in your user page, this might solve the signature problem. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, will look at these after I get through some things. Testing sig as I put something in my user page Mary_at_CERN 16:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Mary, your paragraphs above reproduce the point of view of Guralnik on this contentious issue. It is of course in his (and his co-authors') interest to dismiss as irrelevant the fact that their original paper did not identify correctly the properties of the Higgs boson, and to emphasize as "the only thing truly relevant" what they did get right, i.e. showing the unphysical character of the massless degrees of freedom. I am pretty sure that Higgs' (or, for that matter, Englert's) account of this issue would be equally learned but rather different. The point that I unsuccessfully tried to make you understand several times is that it is not for us here to decide who is right or wrong on the issue. A Wikipedia article, especially on a contentious issue like this one, must contain only properly sourced and clearly attributed statements. The sentences on the Higgs boson mass and couplings that appear in the present version of the paragraph are taken straight from the original PRL papers. On the other hand, the sentences that you want to add are not in the original papers, they are later (self-serving) interpretations by Guralnik & friends. Statements such as "It was and is common knowledge", "This was and still is well known", "Common knowledge - these PRL papers are not for arm-chair physicists or non-experts. If you read PRL you know what I mean" cannot count as reliable sources in Wikipedia.

Sample sources for the above points (to get around your concern with my common knowledge answer) include but are not limited to Abdus Salam. "Renormalized S-Matrix for Scalar Electrodynamics". Phyical Review, 1951 and Coleman and Weinberg "Radiative Corrections as the Origin of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking". Physical Review D, 1973.

The paper by Salam dates from 1951 and is - to my knowledge - the first paper that deals with the properties of scalar electrodynamic in detail.

In the Coleman and Weinberg paper note the very explicit equation 2.9a telling how the meson (boson) mass is determined and then the discussion in section 4 which is explicitly the model under consideration. Going on to page 7 (1895 in the journal) note equation 4.9 and 4.10 these essentially say that the results do not depend on the value of the quartic interaction entirely consistent with the above statement. They go on to note that the ratio of the masses of the scalar (higgs) boson to the vector particle mass changes order by order which again is consistent above statements. Mary_at_CERN 16:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

So, it seems to me that one way out of this standoff would be to alter the text in such a way that:

1) we make it clear that the issue is contentious because a Nobel prize hangs in the balance (e.g. by referring to this article in nature news);

2) while we are at it, we specify in more detail the chronology of the three papers (first EB, then H which cites EB, then GHK which cites both EB and H);

3) for what concerns the paragraph on the properties of the Higgs boson, we make clear what was in the original papers and what is later interpretation (with proper attribution).

A proposal addressing point 3 (but not yet points 1 and 2) could be:

The papers by Peter Higgs and Guralnik, Hagen, and Kibble both displayed equations for the field that would eventually become known as the Higgs boson. In the paper by Higgs the boson is massive, and a closing sentence denotes it as "an essential feature" of the theory under consideration. On the other hand, in the paper by Guralnik et al. the boson is massless and completely decoupled from the massive states. The properties of the model were further discussed by Guralnik in 1965 and by Higgs in 1966.[10] [11] In a recent review of the topic (cite here the 2009 review), Guralnik argues that in his original paper the boson is massless only in a lowest-order approximation, but it is not subject to any constraint and it acquires mass at higher orders. He also argues that his paper was the only one to show that there are no massless Nambu-Goldstone bosons in the model.

It seems to me that this kind of sourced statements - differently from the ones you propose - would not violate the Wikipedia policies on original research and point-of-view pushing. It would also be useful to hear the opinion of other editors who might be less versed in the subtleties of the 1964 PRL papers but are more familiar with how Wikipedia works. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 11:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Will review and circle back - I think this can get us near a solution. Removing phrases such as "On the other hand" and "argues" probably gets us very close on this. Quoting Guralnik opens up a "can or worms" in my opinion because then you find many outdside or journalist quotes that can be included also (for example see Ian Sample in "Massive" p.70) to support almost anything. The details are important as my post highlights...and most punt and move on after they realize this and go looking for "magazine explanations". Also, there is "physics" in the 2009 paper by Guralnik - it is not just historical account. I will review that 2009 paper again (it was not used in the post from last night, I know this topic) but what physics aspects of that 2009 paper do you not agree with (not tone, author, or point of view but the "physics")? As a side, you bring up the importance of this for Nobel Prizes tend to focus on Guralnik but it was three people on that paper (all very accomplished, as are the others) and the most accomplished of the six is likely Kibble (at last check Kibble has the highest h-indiex, Higgs is lowest h-index by quite a margin) due to this contribution and cosmology. Not important for this conversation but a curious point. Thanks and will be back - hopefully with a version that pushes this towards resolution. Have a good Saturday. Mary_at_CERN 12:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Mary, what I think of the physics aspects of Guralnik's 2009 paper, and who is "the most accomplished" physicist of the six, is completely irrelevant for this talk page. What we need to discuss here is how to present information in this article in a way that is compatible with the Wikpedia policies on verifiability and neutrality. Quoting Guralnik is not the same as quoting a random outside journalist, his point of view is relevant because he is one of the actors in the story. And it's definitely better to quote Guralnik explicitly than to sneak his point of view into the article as if it was "common knowledge". As to your comments on the text, I don't see anything wrong with "On the other hand" since it links two sentences that contain opposite statements on the Higgs boson mass. I would also stick to the first "argues" (since it marks an opposition with what is written in the previous sentence), but the second "argues" can probably be replaced by "points out". We could also qualify "show" in the last sentence as "show explicitly". For the rest, let's not forget points 1 and 2 of my proposal above. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 13:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The clarity and wiki policy is important – as is the actual physics (which is what I thought we were focusing on). What part of the "physics" do you want more detail on? You tend to drift away from the physics once you go into the papers.

Order is fine and clearly confirmed but what also needs to be presented fairly is the quality of the papers (back to this physics detail) - otherwise order would be the only thing and the BE paper would be all that the physics world need to know about.

The fact remains that BE did not have boson and PH was incomplete - the GHK paper was not perfect but was the most complete of the three. The reason why the GHK paper is relevant is the completeness. If it were not considered by many to be the most complete it would not be relevant - because it was published last in PRL. That is the point of getting the physics right on this topic.

Now we are moving to the page that was reduced on the 1964 PRL symmetry breaking papers because you said it was not neutral - this was to focus on the detailed physics and papers so will have to be revisited to bring out that detail.

As for the three papers, BE was first out (but no boson and messy with poles), PH, was second (mentioned the boson and Goldstone could be solved but did not demonstrate it), GHK was third (had boson, and demonstrated the solving of the Goldstone issue and how the particle got mass). Reverse order for quality (if this were not the case there would only be the first paper and I would be watching football right now). The GHK paper cites both the earlier ones, which I think Guralnik describes in 2009, and more importantly points out early in the 1964 paper that BE and PH "partially solved" the issue. So the more you dig into the details of the papers - the more the quality and the details of the physics need to emerge. So while I think we are close on the wiki text and we can note order and references we are getting into what really should be another wiki page. Please try to stay "on topic" and focus on this detail of physics (not Guralnik's quotes, papers, Nobels, etc). Thank you. Mary_at_CERN 15:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary at CERN (talk • contribs)

Do you have secondary (third party) sources that confirm what you say? If not, what you are doing is impermissible synthesis. Ruslik_Zero 18:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, this needs to be based on physics facts. See Ian Sample and "Massive" as one example (p. 70). Again, this needs to be grouded in the physics facts (which are clear to note from a contribution standpoint) not broad sweeping comments - which is what you are saying (and I agree with). Here are the 1964 PRL Papers to review and bone up on the physics piece of it. Note above point inserted on two articles by "Salam and Coleman and Weinberg to adress commmon knowlege issues" Mary_at_CERN 15:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Mary, it looks like you still don't get how Wikipedia works. The article must not "be based on physics facts". It must be based on reliable secondary sources that report the physics facts. Please read carefully the various Wikipedia policies that have been pointed to you in the course of this discussion (starting with the one linked above by Ruslik_Zero), and perhaps you will understand why a sentence like "Guralnik's paper is the only one that shows explicitly that the massless degrees of freedom are unphysical" is not acceptable, while a sentence like "In a recent review [7] Guralnik states that his paper is the only one that shows explicitly that the massless degrees of freedom are unphysical" is acceptable. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 07:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, I had a look at the "Massive" book you repeatedly referred to above. Sentences such as "Some think that the GHK paper is the most complete of the three" are a perfect example of the kind of weasel language that will never be acceptable in a Wikipedia article. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree, Massive should not be quoted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary at CERN (talk • contribs) 10:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I see that Guralnik just posted on the arxiv a new contribution on the history of the GHK paper. In the last page there are a few paragraphs about the comparison among the three PRL papers and the issue of the Higgs boson mass in GHK. This could be quoted together with the 2009 review, as long as any statement is clearly attributed to Guralnik.

BTW, I noticed an amusing coincidence. A few days ago, and a few paragraphs above, Mary_at_CERN wrote:

"You are correct that the mass in the GHK paper of $phi_2$ is zero in the leading order, but clear to field theorists then and now, this would change order by order as the theory was iterated in a way very close to how it changes in unbroken scalar electromagnetism."

While the closing of Guralnik's new paper reads:

"The mass of $phi_2$ happens to be zero in leading order, but as was obvious to us and every other experienced field theorist of that time, this would change order by order as the theory was iterated in a manner closely related to how it changes in unbroken scalar electromagnetism."

Mary, I suggest that you write to Guralnik and tell him to stop stealing your sentences... ;-) Ptrslv72 (talk) 10:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Will do - will also contact Coleman, Salam, and Weinberg.

Are you trying to be funny? I think that you owe me a serious explanation here, because the "coincidence" that I pointed out above calls into question your impartiality in this discussion. How did you know a few days in advance the exact sentence that Guralnik would later publish in his preprint? Do I really have to believe that he steals sentences from a talk page of Wikipedia? Ptrslv72 (talk) 17:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Below are suggested changes per prior dialogues using clarity on what is Guralnicks's POV. Please provide comments before mods go on page.

OK, Here are my comments:

1) is the sentence "Both papers use a similar linear approximation to equivalent Lagrangian densities for scalar electrodynamics" really necessary? It sounds quite technical for a Wikipedia article, and it is not entirely clear to me why you think it is relevant to the rest of the paragraph. But perhaps you can elaborate on this.

2) after "In the GHK paper, the boson is massless" I would add the sentence (taken word-by-word from the GHK paper) "and completely decoupled from the massive states". It is a feature on which GHK themselves appeared to insist at the time (Guralnik repeated the sentence in his Feldafing paper).

3) In the sentences attributed to Guralnik, the loaded "stresses" and "explains" must be replaced with the neutral "states" (see the relevant Wikipedia policy: in retrospect, I agree that my "argues" was not good either).

I hope you accept that "mods go on page" only after we achieve consensus in this talk page. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your polite response will address. Was forwarded a pre-print by someone who got it from Guralnick. Mary_at_CERN 18:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary at CERN (talk • contribs)

See Mods below in new section Mary_at_CERN 19:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

warning

Please be aware you are both coming close to WP:3RR I will block you for a short term and/or fully protect the article until you achieve concensus on these talk pages. I will leave templated message on both your talk pages. Please do not revert again and read WP:BRD. Regards ^Khukri 15:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

If I'm counting right, I asked Mary to discuss the changes in the talk page before implementing them a total of eight times: three times in my edit summaries on the article page and five times in this thread (my last edit overlapped with the warning, but I decided to post it nevertheless). I'm perfectly happy to keep discussing in this talk page until we achieve consensus. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I fully appreciate and understand editors frustrations, and unfortunately I wasn't watching the article at the time, and only just saw all the reversions so sorry if you think the warnings are misdirected. It would be re-miss of me to issue blocks without having issued warning, especially as Mary at CERN may not be completely au fait with Wikipedia policies, so I assumed good faith. Best regards and if I can be of any assistance please don't hesitate to ask. Regards ^Khukri 15:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Working Version of BEHGHK Paragraph

The 1964 PRL papers by Higgs and Guralnik, Hagen, and Kibble (GHK) both displayed equations for the field that would eventually become known as the Higgs boson. In the paper by Higgs, the boson is massive and in a closing sentence he writes "an essential feature" of the theory "is the prediction of incomplete multiplets of scalar and vector bosons". In the model described in the GHK paper, the boson is massless and decoupled from the massive states. In recent reviews of the topic, Guralnik states that in the GHK model, the boson is massless only in a lowest-order approximation, but it is not subject to any constraint and it acquires mass at higher orders. Additionally, he states that the GHK paper was the only one to show that there are no massless Nambu-Goldstone bosons in the model and give a complete analysis of the general Higgs mechanism. Following the publication of the 1964 PRL papers, the properties of the model were further discussed by Guralnik in 1965 and by Higgs in 1966.

Mary_at_CERN 15:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the correct quote by Higgs is "the prediction of incomplete multiplets of scalar and vector bosons" (otherwise it doesn't make sense). I think it will be very difficult for the lay reader to understand that the sentence refers to the prediction of the Higgs boson, but, given the situation, sticking to literal quotations from the PRL papers might be the best way forward. For the rest I have only a couple of comments on the language: "in the 1964 paper and model" might just become "in the 1964 paper", and "Additionally, he also states" should become either "Additionally, he states" or "He also states". Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for these edits above and note on my talk page. I agree with the edits (one typo and the other language improvements) and are reflected above. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks again. Mary_at_CERN 12:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

A few comments on your modified sentence "The GHK paper contains a model and equations for a massless boson decoupled from the massive states." The fact that the GHK article contains equations for the Higgs boson is already mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph; repeating it here makes the sentence heavier without adding information. Also, it occurs to me that from the present formulation of the sentence (I mean, "a boson") it might not be immediately clear to the lay reader that the boson in question is the same as in the previous sentences. If you want to retain "model" in the sentence, what would you think of something like: "In the model described in the GHK paper, the boson is massless and decoupled from the massive states"? Finally, "In recent reviews of the topic, Guralnik states that in the...." Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I like the suggestion on first sentence. Not sure you really need a "that" but included in the above version along with first suggestion. Also included year and "PRL" link in opening sentence above.Mary_at_CERN 15:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The current version is fine for me, I'll transfer it to the article. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC) (P.S. while transferring the paragraph to the article, I replaced "he -> Higgs", added a "by", a "that" and a "to", and moved two commas. Check if you like it. Ptrslv72 (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC))

Yes, looks good. Thank you. Mary_at_CERN 01:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

minor cleanup of lead

The rumour mills don't seem to read the most obvious source of high energy physics research articles. In any case, i don't see that 5 BBC rumours are relevant enough for the lead when they are not even present in the main content. Someone can create December 2011 excitement about the LHC Higgs boson announcements if s/he thinks that it will survive speedy deletion ;). Anyway, ATLAS' announcement is public: there's no need to wait until this (GMT+1) afternoon. I didn't find a CMS paper. Boud (talk) 10:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

What is a lead?

Copied from User_talk:Boud:

Higgs boson

I don't understand this edit. At this point the fact that there have been reports of considerable interest in the 125 GeV range have been completely removed from the article. While not yet confirmed, it is significant in the topic, so it should be in there somewhere, I think, although perhaps also sourced to a CERN release. Would you reconsider? FT2 (Talk | email) 11:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

My response:

Please see WP:LEAD. I did not remove reports about the media fuss from the main body, i removed them from the lead. Please also see Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia about the world, but preferably about topics that are "notable" and non-ephemeral. While internet and media rumours are part of the real world, they tend to be ephemeral. If you look at Contrail#Head-on_contrails and if you happened to read mainstream media news 13 months ago, then you would have heard about the apparent firing of a very-slow-moving (anti-gravity-motor?) North Korean missile just a few dozen km off the California coast, with a dramatic condensation trail photographed by a news person on a helicopter. This became major world news in many reliable sources (although the N Korean interpretation was a minority point of view) and took several days for the contrail interpretation to make it fade away. The present media stuff is the fault of people who cannot understand "significant progress" literally: scientific progress may mean either detecting or failing to detect evidence for or claiming a refutation of a hypothesis. It does not necessarily mean evidence in favour of X. We don't have the CMS paper yet, but the ATLAS paper is public.

The media excitement is a different issue to the Higgs boson itself. If you think that the media excitement itself is important, please first add that content to the main article. Then a brief summary would be reasonable in the lead. Just because the BBC is a WP:RS doesn't mean we should take it seriously when it's obviously just rumour-mongering. As i said above (a little sarcastically, sorry), if you really think that the media attention is more important than the Higgs boson itself, then you could try starting an article on it. Personally, i wouldn't expect the article to survive speedy deletion for more than a few minutes. Boud (talk) 12:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, i don't quite follow the logic of your comment. Are you talking about media rumours or about an announcement by one of the CERN scientific teams? An unconfirmed rumour is no more than that: an unconfirmed rumour. i think you could find a sourced comment from some weeks ago from a leader at CERN about "significant progress" that will be announced today. As long as that is correctly quoted, that could be used. But IMHO it doesn't have much information content as far as this article goes. Boud (talk) 12:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

An unconfirmed rumor wouldn't be significant. A reliable source stating there is a specific possible identification of the article's subject, at a specific energy level, and which reports "huge" or "enormous" excitement in the scientific community to the effect that the article's subject might be identified, probably merits a brief mention in the introduction to that topic. The actual quotation was:

"Rumours suggest that two experiments at the LHC see hints of the Higgs at the same mass, fuelling huge excitement. But the LHC does not yet have enough data to claim a discovery..."

" The rumours suggest that both Atlas and CMS see a data "spike" at the mass of 125 GeV... the results have generated enormous excitement among particle physicists."

It specifically says this is physicist excitement, not media excitement, and due to two independent experiments producing interesting and matching results. This was the edit I think needs reverting. The problem seems to be it was cited to a different, less uninformative, source by another user, causing confusion. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

i think the point has been made too subtly, sorry. Please read the scientific article that the ATLAS team made public early this morning at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.2577 . The ATLAS team state in their abstract: "The observations exclude the presence of a Standard Model Higgs boson with a mass 145<mH<206 GeV at 95% confidence level." The media claims about physicist excitement are a minor issue compared to the scientific results themselves. The scientific article 1112.2577 (not yet peer reviewed, but scientifically more relevant than a seminar or press conference) is cited in this edit. Boud (talk) 13:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Your logic seems to be that there is both a formal paper and also reports of particle physicist excitement, and since one is more formal than the other, the other should not be mentioned. I think that's poor logic. If it were just media "puff" then that would be one thing. A statement that there is significant interest within the physicist community (and not the media) -- variously described as "huge" interest, "enormous" interest, or expectation of a "2.5 - 2.5 sigma" observation -- is also worthy of noting in the article.

Even if it panned out to nothing, it would still be worth a note in the future section "History of the search for the Higgs Boson" (For a while, a spike at 125 GeV was noticed). At 13 December 2011, it is clear that there is widespread discussion by particle physicists, and that discussion is fueled by 2 separate experiments giving similar observations. That a paper was released on a different GeV range doesn't change that this is worth a mention. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

i didn't mean that physicist excitement should not be mentioned, but it should first go in the main section, and then if there's nothing more solid (formal), a brief mention with a repeat reference makes sense in the lead.

Now it seems that the seminar + press conference may give something in addition to 1112.2577. I would also expect that in this case, new papers should come out on arxiv.org tomorrow morning. Boud (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense. So in the main section, briefest mention only in the lead, and make sure it isn't implied to be confirmed in any way yet? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's what i meant.

But at least given what's on the Guardian blog, i suspect that this is now going to viralise out of control. If the two CERN groups choose to give details in a seminar + press conference before submitting and putting a proper scientific paper on ArXiv on the "126 GeV" bump, which seems to be the case, then that's their responsibility and Wikipedians will have to deal with the need to get into a "he says she says" media said that CERN rep said that ... citation situation. i'll leave that editing to others. :) Boud (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I've reorganized the lead to make it flow better, by describing the particle and its theoretical role, including higgsless models, then experiments, then results to date. There's almost no textual change here, just reorganization of sentences. I think I changed a 2nd repetition of "tevatron" to "it" and wikilinked elementary particle, not much more. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Done for now, I think. Someone else added the point we discussed above. An ordinary reader would now understand the topic more easily from its introduction. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Dec. 13, 2011 Press Conference Results

In the lead the results from the press conferences are mentioned. The global significance in terms of sigmas of deviation from the higgsless standard model are quoted for the existence of the higgs boson in the energy range ~115--~130 GeV/c^2. However, it seems like it would be better (also less confusing to lay readers) to quote this range as the 95% confidence range.--134.107.13.170 (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, for the mass values, which of the following statements are correct?

Nature News - "ATLAS has excluded all masses outside the range of 115–130 GeV, and the CMS team has revised the range to 117–127 GeV".

CERN CMS - "We do not exclude a SM Higgs boson with a mass between 115 GeV and 127 GeV at 95% confidence level".

CERN ATLAS - "We have restricted the most likely mass region for the Higgs boson to 115-130 GeV".

CERN PR - "The main conclusion is that the Standard Model Higgs boson, if it exists, is most likely to have a mass constrained to the range 116-130 GeV by the ATLAS experiment, and 115-127 GeV by CMS". Thanks, ^visuall 23:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

CMS did not set a lower limit on the allowed range, so the 115 is from the older LEP limits (actually at 114.4, I think). They excluded everything from 127-600 ([[8]]). ATLAS were able to exclude a small range 112.7-115.5, then 131-237, and 251-453 (so ATLAS have an additional gap in their exclusion from 237-251 that CMS have excluded) ([[9]]). So, the "most likely mass region" (to quote Fabiola Gianotti) not excluded at 95% is 114.4-127 GeV (CMS) and 115.5-131 GeV (ATLAS). I think the differences are just people rounding up or down. TimAdye (talk) 03:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Significant

I believe there should be a section on the practical applications that the discovery of the particle will possibly lead to, is there any conclusive information of the potential practical applications that can be directly and indirectly attributed because of the particle itself? Sheodred (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Most of the talk is on the area described. The significance of any confirmed discovery or non-discovery would be that physicists have a clearer understanding of the world we live in. Historically there are outcomes from that, but they may be indirect. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok but I was specifically referring to practical applications that would benefit humanity, technology and innovation. Sheodred (talk) 13:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Unpredictable. What is sure, is that uncertainty in this area hampers any "practical applications" that could result from better knowledge. But as to what those might be - a good example is prime number theory which must have appeared completely academic and without real-world "practical" application at the time but now underpins huge areas of the economy and information sharing and human rights, because prime number theory and its subsequent developments turned out a few hundred years later to be pivotal to encryption theory, which underpins secure web commerce, encrypted communications, projects like Tor that underpin some aspects of human rights, satellite communication, data security, etc.

It's really hard to tell where a new discovery leads. The telephone, the semiconductor, radar, microwave ovens, protein folding and individualized or genetic based medicines, GPS, the solar cell, all can be traced back to a reliance upon the world of fundamental physics and a time when the consequences of research were completely unpredictable. A similar chain of causation happens in computing where every time someone has said "why is more computing power needed" (which goes back beyond 640KB IBM compatibles) the answer looking back has been that when it's available, uses develop. Fundamental particle physics discoveries can find direct application in developing new theories which end up supporting as simple examples, nano- and pico-technology, scanning technology, and all of their dependencies. This is about understanding the structure of our world, rather than "discovering" a particle, and therefore has massive implications that are hard to foresee.

The lesson of history is that even the most obscure and seemingly-distanced discoveries can and do have profound real-world impact in the end. We just don't know what they will be until they happen. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It is worth noting that practical applications of experimental physics have always happened (without exception in history, so far as I know-- feel free to give me a counterexample) at the same energy scales in which the initial physics was carried out-- that includes radio, X-rays, quantum stuff, electronics, and even nuclear power and medical radiation applications. I know of no results from high energy particle physics that have ever proven to have any practical application at energies orders of magnitude lower than th experiments. Inductively therefore, whatever we find at 20 TeV is going to have to be used in a TeV device, and the size of THAT is going to be about the size of the Tevatron or the Large Hadron Collider. Which means, it's not likely to be very useful.

Now, that doesn't mean I am against high energy physics. I'd like to know how the universe got here and where we came from and how things work, too! But let us eschew use false arguments for the sake of persuading the practical man; that is dishonest.

When Robert Wilson, lobbying for the Tevatron at Batavia was asked if it would contribute to national defense, he said "No." But then he said something to the effect that what the device would do, is contribute to the sort of country [culture] that was worth defending in the first place. Taken to a generality, there's something to be said for that type of view. SBHarris 20:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, thank you. That's probably true for direct uses of a discovery. But it leaves a few openings. First, there's an opening related to indirect uses resulting from other research that doesn't derive directly from the Higgs Boson, but instead from confirmation or refutation of ideas in particle physics, which allow other discoveries to take place or be confirmed, refuted, or proposed? Second, and much more important, at the moment there are no known practical applications for TeV energies. If technological humanity is around in 200 - 300 years, I would willingly suggest that's a changeable status quo. A huge number of matters were of no obvious practicality for decades or even centuries, then suddenly became pivotal to some practical matter. I know it's a loose analogy but in 1800 could prime numbers with 1000 digits have been foreseen as having practical use? In 1950 could a computer on every desk and home be seen as having practical use? In 1980 32 GB memory modules and 4 TB hard drives, or tens of petaflops, would have be seen as ideas with no practical use, who would need such power? Rather than list myriad examples, let's just say, practical applications of envelope-breaking innovations often follow a long time after the discovery, sometimes centuries after. In 100 - 300 years and provided we're still here, TeV energies may be where technology is at in 2050 - 2300, every bit as much as how TB and GB are - 30 years after 1980 - where computers are at. If so todays work will directly support that being possible. In other words even if applications did only exist at TeV levels, that's not an unlikely possibility for us to reach as a society over time. Sometimes things move much faster than might be expected, decades not centuries. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistent statements on the Higgs Mechanism

The introduction has historically stated, and currently states:

"[The Higgs boson] is an integral part of the theoretical Higgs mechanism"

"If shown to exist, the Higgs mechanism would also explain why the W and Z bosons...."

The section "Origin of the theory" contradicts this:

"The Higgs mechanism not only explains how the electroweak vector bosons get a mass... Many of these predictions have been verified by precise measurements... thus confirming that the Higgs mechanism takes place in nature."

"The Higgs boson's existence is not a strictly necessary consequence of the Higgs mechanism: the Higgs boson exists in some but not all theories which use the Higgs mechanism..."

So we have stated that the Boson is both integral to (ie inherent in), and not strictly necessary for the Higgs mechanism, and we have stated that the Higgs mechanism is both awaiting confirmation ("if shown to exist") and already proven.

Is the Higgs mechanism settled as proven or still awaiting experimental confirmation? Is the Higgs Boson an "integral part" of the Higgs mechanism or just one possible way a Higgs Mechanism might work? Can someone clean up this area? Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

There is strong but indirect evidence that the Higgs mechanism is correct. The direct evidence—Higgs boson—is still absent. I am less sure about possibility of a higgsless Higgs mechanism. Can all components of the Higgs field be consumed by vector mesons? Ruslik_Zero 19:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

No idea, not being a physicist. This needs to be fixed but I don't have the knowledge to do it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Update - I have asked for help at WikiProject Physics. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The subtlety here is that for the Higgs mechanism the "Higgs particle" does not need to be a fundamental particle. In principle it could be a composite boson like a heavy meson. In fact, the Higgs mechanism would occur in the Standard model even if there wasn't a Higgs, due to spontaneous symmetry breaking caused by top mesons. However, the vector mesons would lighter than observed. This effect also would not explain the fermion masses. Technicolor try to correct these flaws (but introduces new problems). The correct statement would therefore be that "the Higgs mechanism does not need strictly need a fundamental Higgs particle".TR 22:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. As I'm not a physicist, do these look like appropriate corrections:

OLD: "[The Higgs boson] is an integral part of the theoretical Higgs mechanism"

NEW: "[The Higgs boson] is a candidate for a quantum (ie, carrier) of the theoretical Higgs mechanism"

OLD: "If shown to exist, the Higgs mechanism would also explain why the W and Z bosons...."

NEW: "If shown to exist, the Higgs boson would allow confirmation of the process by which why the W and Z bosons are massive...."

OLD: "Many of these predictions have been verified by precise measurements... thus confirming that the Higgs mechanism takes place in nature."

NEW: "Many of these predictions have been verified by precise measurements... thus it is considered strongly evidenced that the Higgs mechanism takes place in nature. However this by itself does not explain how it works as the mechanism could be realized in a number of different ways. Similarly until the process behind the mechanism is proven, it is possible that any mediating Higgs particle need not be fundamental. For example it could be mediated by a composite boson such as a heavy meson."

OLD: "The Higgs boson's existence is not a strictly necessary consequence of the Higgs mechanism: the Higgs boson exists in some but not all theories which use the Higgs mechanism..."

NEW: same

I will take no offense if these are incorrect for subtle reasons, let's collaborate and try to find a good reword for them. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

High importance article - can someone look at this issue? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

“God particle” in lead?

Seriously? I think that's undue weight, considering that most physicists hate that name. (Even the author who introduced it did so just because his editor wouldn't let him use “goddamn particle”.) The hatnote already makes clear that the reader did get to the right article, and if one looked at the ToC one would see a link to Section 5 which explains the nickname. ― A. di M.​  17:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree; it's not clear this should be in the lead.. not to mention the opening sentence. It seems like we shouldn't be encouraging the use of that name.. especially since using the word "God" could be misleading to some people. Mlm42 (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I hate that. Even though journalists would probably be able to concoct just as much nonsense no matter how they called it. ― A. di M.​  18:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed it Bhny (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. Physicists are not the only audience here, nor the only ones with a perspective on the topic. Given the nickname has been widely used in the media, in books, and is routinely mentioned in real-world media articles (including technology and popular science articles) where the Higgs Boson is discussed, it should be mentioned. Even if some physicists would like to say it's an exaggerated or unhelpful or plain idiotic name, and should be removed as "hated" or embarrassing, that is not the only significant view on the matter. I have reinstated.

This isn't a matter about incorrect science or misleading or fringy information, but about referencing accurate information. For example, a person writing about or researching the Higgs Boson (eg to write a book or non-academic paper or article on it) should be made aware by the article of its nickname due to the pervasiveness it has acquired. If physicists hate it that's simply a citeable view as well. I think NPOV is an issue on this point. If you still disagree, can we discuss and seek more views. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a science article and that isn't a name scientists use for this particle. There's a redirect from "god particle" right above the name and a whole section below, which is already way too much Bhny (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

"Its a science article" isn't really a good rationale. "Physicists hate something" doesn't make it undue weight (as the first post very wrongly asserts). Science is not the only perspective even in science articles. NPOV again. Popular culture has attached (strongly and in very wide sources) a nickname to the particle, by which it is very widely known to non-scientists. That is what makes it worth a mention in the lead. Text for that mention - 5 words. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

FT2, just because the media does something, does not mean we have to follow. It seems to me the reason the media has latched onto this name is because it makes for a flashier headline. Consider: The Higgs boson and the search for God. It sells papers!

Some respected sources, such as this BBC article, avoid the term "God particle". Here is an article explicitly addressing the naming issue: The Higgs boson: Why scientists hate that you call it the ‘God particle’. I think Wikipedia should be careful here, because a lot of people will be coming to this article for information. I think including the "God particle" name in the lead is unnecessarily encouraging the use of the "nickname". The hatnote saying that "God particle" redirects here, is sufficient for those in doubt. Mlm42 (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, if it was just "the media does it" then it's much more open to "is it the right way for us to do it". But in this case two reasons why it is, first it's not just attention seeking papers, it's also widely used across popular science, books, etc as well. So it's not just "famous because of media dramatics", it has genuinely become a popular recognized reference term. Second, our primary job is to decide based on NPOV, not to decide based on what we think the real-world data should be. On-site, significant alternative names or nicknames are almost always in the lead and next to the main name, so the same applies here. (And off-site when not editing, I agree it's not to be encouraged.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the rationale of User:FT2. Because Higgs boson is commonly referred to as the God particle by the media and the mainstream population, it must be included in the lede. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 23:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay; I moved it to the bottom of the lead, and noted that scientists dislike the name. Mlm42 (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

And I've strengthened it, hopefully accurately and with your approval. It's probably better to cover it and explain why it's an issue, than break NPOV by wrongly ignoring it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Yup; I changed the word "abhorred", though, which is probably a word to watch. Mlm42 (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Try "deplored" which is stronger and conveys the sense from the source of "strong dislike and condemnation" not just "personal dislike", without being overdone to the point of WP:W2W? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you're trying to overstate it. A handful of scientists I'm sure hate the nickname, but there's no need to use loaded words like "deplored" or "abhorred" or "hate".. it's editorializing. If we are going to use stronger phrases like "strongly dislike", then we need to change "scientists" to "some scientists". In the National Post article, for example, notes that a spokesperson for CERN says he understands why people use that nickname - because the particle is so important. Mlm42 (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It is much better now than when it just said “nicknamed the God particle” without even saying by whom or how often: that was seriously misleading IMO. (And the fact that some name is widely used is not by itself a good reason to mention it – the lead of Sexual intercourse doesn't include “also known as fucking”, if ya know what I mean. :-)) ― A. di M.​  08:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

That comment's got to win some kind of prize! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

"God particle"

"The particle is sometimes called the God particle, a title deplored by some scientists as a media hyperbole that misleads."

Virtually every popular-science piece ever written about this particle refers to "God particle" using some variation of this "sometimes called..." wording ("known as...", "nicknamed...", "so-called...", "christened...", etc.). It seems to be a kind of self-perpetuating myth: everyone claims that other people call it that, but nobody actually does call it that. 86.181.205.215 (talk) 13:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS - a wide range of reliable sources state (as you say) that it is "known as" or "nicknamed" that. Do we have any reliable sources that say it isn't known as, or nicknamed that? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the question is more how many sources use the name, as opposed to referring to it. 109.151.56.165 (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Like it or not (and I don't particularly like it), "God particle" as a nickname has stuck, and the article should reflect it. Howard Hughes hated it that his mighty H-4 Hercules was being called the Spruce Goose, but that's how the aircraft has gone down in history, and the article does justice to that fact, with a redirect and a prominent mention in the article lead. To me the mention of God Particle in bold is more relevant – in the article lead – than all the fine details of mass ranges and sigmas from the latest experiments. --Giuliopp (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not terribly surprising. My theory is that journalists like the nickname but they realize that lots of people don't, so they mention it without technically using it. (A couple of years ago, I heard quite a few people saying “I've heard quite a few people saying that it was the neutrino beam from Geneva that caused the earthquake in L'Aquila, but I don't believe that myself”, but only one or two actually saying “it was the neutrino beam from Geneva that caused the earthquake in L'Aquila”.) ― A. di M.​  16:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Theory section refactored, further inconsistency in "alternatives"

I've reorganized the section on the theoretical overview of the Higgs mechanism; it now reads with much better flow, and a bit more information. I've tagged two points as "needing verification" because they are subtle issues, they relate to questions about the actual outcome of the Higgs mechanism/boson theory: - for example, when "mass" is referrred to, does it mean rest mass or inertial mass, and what aspects of mass are not covered.

I also reorganized the sections themselves so that we now have a theory section covering the Higgs mechanism/PRL, then the Higgs boson (a proposed particle) and then alternatives. Logical.

But then I noticed another inconsistency - we state that the Higgs Mechanism is "confirmed" or "overwhelmingly evidenced" and describe alternatives to a Higgs boson as a means for that mechanism. But then right at the end (Alternatives for electroweak symmetry breaking) the article states there are "alternatives to the Higgs mechanism".

Is the Higgs mechanism confirmed, or not? I can't resolve this. Can someone else fix it, and also fix the other crucial inconsistencies noted above? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Think this is now ok, can someone check? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

God Particle stuff

Why should the loony disambig The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question? be so prominent at the top of the article? It seems like some undue marketing maneuver to me, although I'm pretty sure that it was never the intention of the editors fixing that "God particle" nonsens. I propose that the people looking up God Particle are properly punished (bouahahaaa!) by being redirected to that long-titled book, rather than to this article. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 09:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

This is standard for the situation where it's likely a reader might enter a search term looking for one thing and find another. It's not due to "pushing" by any marketeers. I'm equally comfortable seeing it removed and a link to the book under "see also" or "popular culture", but it is valid where it is. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this better? (For some reason I'm not 100% comfortable with having a redirect in a hatnote, but this time this might be the lesser of two evils.) ― A. di M.​  12:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

That's better. I'm also going to embolden an important part of God particle section, but I'm not sure of the right way to do it. Input gladly accepted. Jamsta (talk) 14:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Bolding/italicizing bits that are very important and scientists want people to notice isn't really how we do it. I've undone this. But instead I have reorganized the section so that scientist views aren't buried in the middle of a block of dense text. Hopefully a decent compromise? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Perfect. Many thanks, Jamsta (talk) 23:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Origins of "boson" in article (collated threads)

(Ir)relevance of the etymology of the term boson.

Somebody keeps readding a sentence about the etymology of the term boson to the lead. This information is completely irrelevant to this article since it is not about bosons in general. The boson article quite adequately deals with this etymology, and there is no need to repeat it here. I cannot remove it again, due to the WP:3RR rule. Somebodyelse please do.TR 16:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd noticed this too and refactored it to keep it more appropriately short before seeing your note. Happy with the one sentence brief mention we have now, but it can go if others think that's best. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done - rv - per discussion - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Reverted twice too. Not sure how we can keep it out. Maybe a hidden comment? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

{{help}} Suggestions Welcome On How Best To Proceed - Seems Our Edits Per This Discussion Are Being Overly Reverted By Anonymous? Editors (User:Nickni28), (User:Jason7898) and others -> Thanks In Advance - And - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

See procedure at WP:3RR. I am not gonna bother.TR 18:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I Agree - I'm Not Bothering w/ This Issue Any More Either - Hopefully Others w/ The OK Wherewithal Will Help Sort This Out - In Any Case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

How can the etymology of the term boson be irrelevant as the particle is termed Higgs Boson named after the surname of two scientist. I came across an article in guardian please take a look. guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/03/higgs-boson-western-science. I sense some Racism in his (Drbogdan) actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason7898 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Drbogdan and TR's actions. The etymology of the word 'boson' does not belong in this article, anymore than the etymology of sodium belongs in the article sodium chloride. The Higgs boson was not named after Bose, it was named after Higgs. The boson was named after Bose, which is correctly mentioned on the boson article. Please stop edit warring. CodeCat (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The class of particles was named after Bose. This particular particle was named after Higgs. And please refrain from unwarranted charges of racism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification NeilN. I am not accusing anyone of being racist its just that he couldn't provide any sort of credible explanation. I was unaware that "The class of particles was named after Bose" but that is what wikipedia is for right?. So does the higgs boson particle belong to class boson?. If so then I believe its important to add this piece of information. NeilN please do provide Your views _Jason — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason7898 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It's in the current second sentence: "It belongs to a class of particles known as bosons." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Added again with two "sources". Both sources, when discussing naming, refer to bosons. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Re. Help request, I will sort the issue out. Mdann52 (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

TOO MUCH VANDALISM. THIS ARTICLE NEEDS PROTECTION ASAP

There is a lot of crap being added by Indians about Bose. This article is about Higgs, not Bose!!! Zcech (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I Agree - Article Protection May Be Helpful - TIA - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not crap. The boson part is named after Indian scientist Satyendra Nath Bose. The Higgs part comes from the British scientist Higgs. Just type into google 'higgs boson named after' and you can easily find several reliable sources. Examples http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/et-cetera/god-particle-indians-leave-a-footprint-on-cern/articleshow/14673587.cms http://ibnlive.in.com/news/god-particle-or-higgs-boson-named-after-an-indian/269307-11.html http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/report_the-indian-scientist-after-whom-god-particle-is-named_1710553 http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/article3602468.ece

Also please don't assume this is added by an Indian. That would be slightly prejudiced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.38.50 (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the 'boson' is named after Satyendra Bose. This is explained on the article about bosons. There is no reason to repeat it here in this article as it is not relevant to the Higgs boson (or to any other kinds of boson). CodeCat (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of who is doing vandalism, I navigated to this page to find some unfunny reddit meme as the image for the Higgs Boson and do think protection wouldn't hurt. Mizusajt (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Higgs Boson is named after two scientists Satyendra Bose and Peter Higgs

Could somebody provide a source other than personal justification that says Satyendra Bose has nothing to do with the name Higgs Boson? For these reasons I am reverting the changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.69.136 (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not the way it works. You need to find a reliable source saying the Higgs boson was named after Higgs and Bose. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think even that will work. The Times of India and other Indian outlets have focused exclusively on "India's contribution" to this discovery. I think that's just sloppy journalism. As far as this article is concerned, follow the discussion above regarding etymology of "Boson" v. "Higgs Boson". SPat ^talk 21:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not going to cover every detail of every subtopic. This article is on the Higgs boson. An article on the Englebert car is quite likely to explain where the specific name (Englebert) comes from, but much less likely to dive into the etymology of its taxonomic group - in other words it probably won't explain in depth why a "car" is called that. While it's valid information, it's optional, and for optional matters editorial consensus (not mere numbers, but a "sense of the view of the community") is key. In simple terms we have a complicated enough article to explain anyway. Anyone who wants to know why bosons are called bosons can look at the article on bosons. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 July 2012

there has been no mention of SN Bose , Albert Einsteinor and their contributions in higgs boson theory in this article which make HIGGS BOSON history distorted as per this article..

The name Higgs boson came from a British scientist Peter Higgs and S.N Bose.The work done by Bose and Albert Einstein, later added by Higgs, lead to this pioneering day. What is a Boson? The universe is made up of two classes of particles: bosons and fermions. Bosons obey Bose-Einstein statistics - a collection of them can condense together into a state where the particles are indistinguishable.

This theory was developed by SN Bose and expanded by Einstein. The special state of matter, called Bose-Einstein condensate, was created in 1995. All bosons can condense into this state at very low temperatures. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyendra_Nath_Bose Satyendra Nath Boseis best known for his work on quantum mechanics in the early 1920s, providing the foundation for Bose–Einstein statistics and the theory of the Bose–Einstein condensate. He is honoured as the namesake of the boson.

As per http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/boson bo·son

is any particle that obeys Bose-Einstein statistics: bosons have integral spins: 0, 1, 2, … 

As per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyendra_Nath_Bose Satyendra Nath Boseis best known for his work on quantum mechanics in the early 1920s, providing the foundation for Bose–Einstein statistics and the theory of the Bose–Einstein condensate. He is honoured as the namesake of the boson Rmukherjee2012 (talk) 04:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

 Not done What specific sentences do you want to add and where? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

what happened to the mention of Satyaendra Bose in this article

The Higgs-Boson is named after 2 scientists,NOT 1...Peter Higgs and Satyendra Bose..This article mentions only Higgs,which is biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.49.77.99 (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

BOSON

The particle Boson in Higgs Boson Theory is named after a bengali scientist. Satyendra Nath Bose who was also carrying out the research along with Higgs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.132.214.156 (talk) 07:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Bosons are a class of particles. The Higgs boson is not the only one. The etymology of boson is covered in the boson article. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 07:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

RACISM IN HIGGS BOSON

NAME OF SN BOSE HAS BEEN REMOVED BY PEOPLE HAVING RACIST ATTITUDE TOWARDS INDIANS..........THE INITIAL HISTORY OF Bose-Einstein HAS NOT BEEN MENTIONED PROPERLY.....THE NAME HIGGS-BOSON COMES FROM NAMES OF PETER HIGGS AND S.N BOSE........FORCEFULLY HISTORY CANNOT BE CHANGED AND WE WONT ALLOW SUCH ACTS OF DEVIL IN WIKIPEDIA............RESTORE THE THRUTH IMMEDIATELY...................NO TO RACISM...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmukherjee2012 (talk • contribs) 07:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

As I have warned on your talk page, do not make unfounded accusations of racism. That can result in you being blocked from en.Wikipedia entirely. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 July 2012

Ref. Satyendra Nath Bose should be added to article.Only the name of Peter Higgs is there. Check Satyendra Nath Bose on Wikipedia08:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)Saptarshi Bhattacharjee (talk) Saptarshi Bhattacharjee (talk) 08:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Saptarshi Bhattacharjee (talk) 08:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

 Not done The etymology is irrelevant as it is already covered in the boson article. The individual articles on different bosons do not contain the etymology for the same reason. The Higgs boson is named after Higgs because he theorised the existence of this specific boson, Bose had nothing to do with it. James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 6:29pm • 08:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 July 2012

Please change following : The Higgs boson is named after Peter Higgs, who was one of six authors in the 1960s who wrote the ground-breaking papers covering what is now known as the Higgs mechanism and described the related Higgs Field and boson.

To following : The Higgs boson is named after Peter Higgs and Satyendra Nath Bose. Peter Higgs was one of six authors in the 1960s who wrote the ground-breaking papers covering what is now known as the Higgs mechanism and described the related Higgs Field and boson. In particle physics, Boson is a subatomic particle with integer spin (i.e., angular momentum in quantum-mechanical units of 0, 1, etc.) that is governed by Bose-Einstein statistics, named after Indian physicist Satyendra Nath Bose , who described the class of particles with integer values of spin [citation a].

a : Leon M. Lederman and Dick Teresi (1993). The God Particle: If the Universe is the Answer, What is the Question. Houghton Mifflin Company.

Because: In simple explanation, the term ‘Higgs boson’ contains two words ‘Higgs’ and ‘Boson’. The current version of Wikipedia gives information about first term ‘Higgs’ but omits the explanation about ‘Boson’. The term ‘Boson’ is named after renowned Indian physicist Satyendra Nath Bose. This is fact is also acknowledged in book The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question? (page number 338, line 13) and thus Dr. Nath should be credited for it.

Nileshanand (talk) 08:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

That's already in the Boson article, and almost none of the other articles about individual types of bosons mention that. Likewise, few of the articles about individual types of fermions mention Enrico Fermi, but I don't go around implying that there's anti-Italian racism (not that I think there isn't, but that's not an instance of it). A. di M. (talk) 09:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 July 2012

HIGGS BOSON is named after two persons i) Peter Higgs, the British physicist who predicted the existence of such a particle in the early 1960s and ii) Satyendra Nath Bose, who worked with Albert Einstein to bring out the Bose-Einstein statistics and the theory of Bose-Einstein condensate in the 1920s

210.212.195.146 (talk) 09:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Bose did not postulate this particle, it's not fitting for this particle's page. Bose is responsible for the definition of Boson, you will find him there, I'm sure. Darryl from Mars (talk) 10:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Bose had nothing to do with the Higgs boson except that the word 'boson' came from his name. But that is noted at the boson article like Darryl said, and it's not relevant for a page about the Higgs boson. That is, unless you somehow think we should add the origin of sodium to sodium chloride as well, or the origin of large, hadron and collider to Large Hadron Collider. CodeCat (talk) 10:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Please stop using the edit request template to push your POV. The etymology of the term "Boson" is explained in our article Boson. Polyamorph (talk) 11:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

SN BOSE

sn bose name is there in every encyclopedia on topic of higgs boson......how are you guys forgeting the whole name HIGGS AND BOSON...........IN ALL LEADING NEWSPAPERS OF AUSTRALIA UK USA INDIA CHINA NAME OF SN BOSE HAS BEEN CORRECTLY PRINTED.IT IS A SORRY STATE IN WIKIPEDIA THAT A FEW ARE TAMPERING WITH HISTORY OF SN BOSE EINSTEIN AND PETER HIGGS MAKING WIKIPEDIA WEEK AND INCOMPLETE.

DEFINATION OF BOSON HAS TO BE PROPERLY WRITTEN IN HIGGS BOSON THEORY......BOSON CAME FIRST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmukherjee2012 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

We're not tampering with history. The origin of the word 'boson' is correctly noted at the Boson article. Please explain why you think Bose was so significant to the theory and discovery of the Higgs boson that he should be mentioned in this article as well. Because as far as I know, Bose had nothing to do with it at all. CodeCat (talk) 10:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Ask yourself this: would it be appropriate to mention John Montagu in the BLT article? Rivertorch (talk) 11:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It is interesting to see how the idiocy on an article talkpage peaks as soon as something makes the news. This is probably a good sign, as it would suggest that the intelligence of regular editors is above that of the average internet user.

This was a perfectly solid physics article until a few days ago. Now the talkpage is about the definition of the word "new", about Christoph Columbus and about Indian nationalism. And the article itself is tagged as "too technical" and at the same time has a "non-technical" overview section complete with a link to an "Introduction". People should remember that Wikipedia is not journalism. If you want fluffy nonsense, go and read a newspaper. If you want technical information, consult an encyclopedia. Don't tag an encyclopedia for being technical as long as you don't go around writing complains that journalism is non-technical. Different genre. --178.196.10.2 (talk) 13:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It is difficult as we are aiming to write for a wide range of levels. The non-technical section and easier introduction was my addition - I also added a lot of the technical material too so it goes both ways. It happens that I read the talk page comments and agreed that a non-physicist would find it hard to understand, and the topic was high enough profile and widely enough read to be worth trying to make it more understandable to less technical readers. A technical reader will find the technical material intact and none lost, however. trying to write an article on a technical topic, that can be understand and used as a stepping stone by non-technical readers, while being sufficiently accurate for a technical reader who wants to check the detail, is not easy. Articles like this are where Wikipedia can publicly shine, if people try to make it happen. The rest is a minor edit war on a fact, and normal activity for a high profile article on a "breaking news" current event. I expect it to settle down in a little while, as before. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The unfortunate issue is also that people, having heard and read 'easily digestable' journalistic views of the findings, come here expecting that it is something they can easily grasp. When they realise that particle physics and the Higgs boson's place within it are anything but simple to understand without a good amount of background knowledge, they blame Wikipedia for making it too complicated. CodeCat (talk) 14:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 July 2012

Note: The IP removed their own request. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

24.211.10.7 (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not being ignored. It is discussed extensively above. In short, boson is the name of a class of particles and this article is about a specific particle in that happens to be in that class. It is not accurate to say that the particle is named after Bose. The class is named after Bose, as discussed in boson. Maybe an example from a different field will help you understand? The Bugatti Veyron is named after Pierre Veyron. It is in a class of cars Bugatti. The class of cars is named after Ettore Bugatti. Hope this helps. Woz2 (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's put this argument to rest

Read Majorana fermion. In the article, it explains this particle was postulated by Ettore Majorana. It does 'not explain that fermions get their name from Enrico Fermi, because that is explained in the article about fermions.

The article on bosons explains the name is derived from Satyendra Nath Bose. That is the correct place, not here. This article conforms to Wikipedia's standards. Unfounded accusations of racism are not welcome here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)