Talk:Higgs boson/Archive 7 - Knowledge (XXG)

450:

Quantum Field Theory, some of them being already referenced in the Higgs boson article (Peskin and Schroeder ...). Regarding the list of sources, and more specifically to the ATLAS and CMS publication lists, these lists have the advantage of being updated from time to time, providing up to date information. And selecting the ones dealing specifically with the Higgs identification would restrict the lists to only a few publications, of order 10 at worst, which is reasonnable compared to the 200 references of the article. But please note that these references where removed in the second version of the section I have added, which is the version under consideration here, not the one copied above in this talk page! In the modified version are 5 external references plus many references to existing wikipedia articles. By comparison to other parts of the main article I think that the number of references in my section is not so ridiculous, even though I agree that more references would be better. In particular the mathematical section contains only 2 sources: chapter 20 of Peskin and Schroeder book, and the Particle Data Group website for the measure of the parameter named v in particle physics. But any reader opening chapter 20 of the Peskin and Schroeder book will have some difficulties to consider that it is a relevant and reliable source for this section since the presentation is completely different. Of course a specialist would recognize that the book explains the same thing as in the article, but I cannot consider the argument that some parts are not clear for a non specialist as a valid argument with respect to the wikipedia guidelines (otherwise lots of articles would have to be removed...).

637:

something you need once per x words", and I agree with his statement even though he does not estimate that the references I provided are sufficient or sufficiently relevant. But well, I have provided references that you have clearly not evaluated, like the others except Ptrslv72 and (possibly) mfb. May be because you somehow admitted not being a physicist or a specialist of the topic when you said "Now I don't doubt that it could be that all these claims are justified or even obvious to a scientist working in the field, but they're not obvious to me...". Therefore we are left in the situation where only Ptrslv72 provided specific arguments in the discussion, but from an outside view many contributors disagree with the addition of the section I wrote. Since there have not been any more comments since some weeks I think it is hopeless to obtain a positive support for my contribution, so I give up. Ptrslv72, regarding your personnal attacks, I often have doubts regarding my actions and thoughts, and I think it's just the main difference between you and me. Farewell! 22:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

992:

person claiming it is incoherent. assuming energy and mass are equal, if higgs bosons are the heaviest particles known and if light particles/photons are the 'lightest' particles, higgs bosons would be the opposite of light on the energy spectrum(every-thing is energy). assuming higgs bosons are the heaviest form of energy it also follows they would have the 'most' energy which allows them to stretch spacetime enough to force lighter particles to follow in their wake which we call gravity. lighter energy literally falls down the curved spacetime created by heavier energy, from an observers perspective eventually the spacetime can appear to tear resulting in black holes where energy is spatially moving faster than light and in the process appearing black. considering the well established fact that the universe is expanding faster than light, and the only objects causing light to appear black is the spatial folds created by mass, we might also consider black holes to play a fundamental role in the creation of new universes which has been proposed by

379:

upper mass limit is 200 GeV, is not obvious, and neither is the explanation provided clear. What is this quadratic divergence problem? Why is there no physically observable consequence if the mass is less than 200 GeV? Who claimed that the 100-200 GeV mass range is not a constraint given by theory? Now I don't doubt that it could be that all these claims are justified or even obvious to a scientist working in the field, but they're not obvious to me, nor I would think to most people. They therefore need to be sourced. The section does cite sources, but they're extremely wide. Citing the entire collection of ATLAS and CMS papers is rather like citing "scientific discussions over the past 100 years" for the statement "there are four fundamental forces". Such a citation isn't

544:

Banedon: you said that the mathematical section IS sourced! But how do you know that? It refers mainly to one reference, and only a specialist could make the mapping between the statements of the mathematical part and the corresponding source (just open this book and check if you don't believe me)...and you admitted not to be a specialist in the field (which is not a criticism of course), but I really don't understand your logic when you then say that the section I wanted to add is poorly sourced???? So far only one editor (Ptrslv72) gave specific arguments against the sources I provided (and I disagree with these arguments).

410:

reasoning, if any, are presented implicitly and require explicit clarification and justification. I have no problem with the text being included more or less as is, but as a reader I need to know which points are independent, where to find material on them (whether within WP or not, ie preferably with links that explain the material or citations where the points are not accessible in WP and the ideas are disputable). Less handwaving, and more substance please. As it stands even the alleged summary is neither encyclopaedic nor comprehensible to the non-specialist.

1121:-if observation is the symmetry break of light(double slit), and everything is energy- observation is also the symmetry break of all energy which is why relativity is between the observer(uncertainty) and the observed(principle), spatially distant energy relative to the observer becomes black(devoid of light/color). if the observer is the symmetry break between all energy, the observer is the symmetry break between all concepts including quantum mechanics and general relativity, but the goal of science is to minimize these 'breaks' to the most efficient analogy. 1034:

abstract(black|white) information fusing with the real(observer|observed) energy, space-time is multi-verse(literally space+time=2 verses)|(figuratively observation is the symmetry break of light as in the double slit experiment- light(photons)+heavy(higgs mass)=energy spectrum=multiverse), nothing-uncertainty|something-principle (uncertainty|principle) creating everything inbetween(duality spectrum/binary logic), a perpetual motion feedback loop we experience as 'time'(and space) fusing with our awareness of it- loops and strings being the analogy used in

622:(as aptly put by SPACKlick). So far I count seven editors (Ruslik0, Mfb, Dailycare, Banedon, JonRichfield, SPACKlick and myself) who tried to explain to you, one way or another, that your section does not comply with Knowledge (XXG)'s guidelines on sourcing. Even the lone editor who opposed the deletion did not give a better reason than "you put a lot of work in it", and he/she also stressed the need for suitable references. Will you ever be touched by the doubt that maybe - just maybe - it is you who doesn't understand how Knowledge (XXG) works? 2184:

getting to the 10th occurrence? Perhaps a wikilink could be added sooner, so as to be more useful to the average (non-particle physicist) user? I certainly appreciate the article and am only looking to make it easier for someone reading wikipedia to understand and enjoy the article more easily. In any case, that is my opinion and experience today, as a medical scientist, and I will now leave it to you all (who have spent so much time making the article as excellent as it is) to decide what is the best presentation. Thanks -

859:(copied below) are terrible examples of further applications. They have nothing at all to do with the physical phenomena of the Higgs particle but instead are tangential scientific improvements due to having to deal with the data involved. Can someone come up with some better examples, such as something that grew out of our knowledge of electromagnetic fields? The semiconductor comes to mind but I don't know enough about the physics to be sure it is actually a reasonable example. 1110:"not even wrong" is another way of saying 'i dont know', "impossible to pin down what would be wrong" is a claim that it is unknowable- yet you have not provided evidence for the claim, you're saying my comments are unreasonable without providing a reason. aside from that, top quarks(left|right) actually fuse with higgs bosons via yukawa interaction(analogy): the Yukawa interaction is used in the Standard Model to describe the coupling between the Higgs field and 31: 372:

theoretical model itself, called the quadratic divergence problem. When the mass is less than around 200 GeV, the theoretical problem is still there, but has no physically observable consequence. To summarize, the mass range in which physicists expected to find the Higgs boson is not a constraint given by the theory, and finding a new particle in this mass range is not a sufficient evidence that is particle is a Higgs boson.

363:, the rejection was justified. I'll be the first to say that I know little about the Higgs boson compared to other editors here, and therefore if it comes to it I'd gladly retract this comment to let people with real expertise decide. Nonetheless I'll say that to my untrained eye the section is dangerously close to if not outright OR. Take this paragraph for example: 862:"The challenges in particle physics have furthered major technological progress of widespread importance. For example, the World Wide Web began as a project to improve CERN's communication system. CERN's requirement to process massive amounts of data produced by the Large Hadron Collider also led to contributions to the fields of distributed and cloud computing." 1118:, these fermions acquire(fuse with) a mass proportional to the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field. The Higgs boson has a Yukawa coupling to the left- and right-handed top quarks. After electroweak symmetry breaking (when the Higgs acquires a vacuum expectation value), the left- and right-handed components mix(analogy), becoming a mass term. 2300: 1937: 2270:, "evaporation" or lack of increased significance for previous hints of non-Standard Model findings, expected Standard Model interactions with W and Z bosons, absence of "significant new implications" for or against supersymmetry, and in general no significant deviations to date from the results expected of a Standard Model Higgs boson. 1252:

Supersymmetric Standard Model, that predicts the existence of a second Higgs field which has a weak hypercharge Y=-1 (or -1/2 if one uses the convention mentioned in the previous parenthesis). This last detail is not included in this article but it is mentioned in the section "MSSM fields" in the relevant theory which is described here:

2455:. Now, I do suspect that the article is long enough that it could be split (somehow). It is not so well understood that quantum mechanics always has a field to go along with any particle, and that the reason we call them particles is that they are quantized and always come in whole units. I wouldn't rename to 1564:

Ok, I've integrated the non-technical summary table info into the overview info to create a single non-technical summary. I've endeavoured not to change any info, however please check that I've not inadvertently introduced any errors. Similarly, the section is still poorly sourced, since the original

1392:

Sure, but the situation won't change. Every particle physicist called the discovered particle "Higgs boson" since 2012, but no one will ever say "we are absolutely sure that it behaves exactly as the SM Higgs boson", because infinite precision measurements are not possible. With the same argument, we

449:

Dear Banedon (and others): you say that the fact that the 100-200 Gev mass range is not given by the theory is not clear to a non specialist. I agree with that. The same comment applies to many parts of this wikipedia article, like the mathematical section. But both can be found in any textbook about

2522:

Just to be sure, I do believe that the article is big enough to split, but don't believe that particle vs. field is the right one. As well as I know it, particle vs. field are two different ways to look at the same thing. People find it confusing, but nature (that is, QM) doesn't care. Much of that

1355:

However, it now seems to be more or less accepted that the 125 GeV particle is indeed the Higgs Boson for all intents and purposes. The staunch skepticism of our article no longer seems to be in line with the preponderance of reliable sources. What would people think of relaxing the lead wording and

1028:

to convert for mechanical work similar to how the multiverse appears to create new universes, or if we could find a way to fissure/fuse a higgs boson theoretically it would release all forms of lighter energy/particles lighter than higgs bosons but that might already be what hawking radiation is(the

917:

if energy and mass are equal, higgs bosons would be the opposite of light(which is why the most massive objects: black holes, are black), this explains why all energy including light is attracted to higgs bosons via gravity. mass is the most compact form of energy and light is the least compact form

392:

In principle I think the section could be included (perhaps positioned immediately after the 'Confirmation of new particle as a Higgs boson, and current status' section however), but it should be better sourced, and there should be some indication that there is controversy over the identification of

378:

This sentence makes several claims. It claims that the lower mass limit 100 GeV arises because of previous experiments, which is reasonably obvious (at least to anyone with a very basic understanding of particle physics), so I can look past this being unsourced. The other main claim though, that the

807:

My feeling is that this is better than the previous wording, but it is vague and doesn't get across the crucial idea that the Higgs is the quantum or carrier particle of the Higgs field, the same way the photon is for the electromagnetic field. You editors have done an exceptional job of making an

636:

Dear Banedon, I think there is a contradiction between your requirement to add some sources for "many claims that require sourcing" (you don't specify which ones) and the almost single reference for the mathematical part of the article which seems to be ok for you. Even mfb said "References are not

409:

Delete or source and rationalise. I have no problem with the material, once the objections have been overcome, but as yet they have not. I support the previous deletes in substance. It not only needs sourcing for substance, no matter how obvious the claims might seem to physicists, but the lines of

116:

Fact: The first pioneering steps in grid computing were taken in the US. The term “grid computing” was first used in a book by Grid pioneers Ian Foster and Carl Kesselman, as a metaphor for making computing power accessible in the same way as electrical power. The LHC Computing Grid Project, led by

2654:

It feels silly to write a Talk page post about this, bc I'd normally just fix it, but the page is protected, so: there's an unneeded comma in the third paragraph of the intro, in the sentence in parentheses. The comma after "...gain mass at lower energies" shouldn't be there and should be deleted.

2565:

would be a good place for a simple explanation for nontechnical readers that all elementary particles have an associated field and all fields in physics interact with matter in quantized units as if they are particles. We could write an introductory section explaining this; the article desperately

1432:

The issue was that a bunch of discontent Indian editors, at the time of that notice, were unilaterally adding that the Higgs was supposedly named after Bose, an Indian scientist. When in fact it was named after Higgs. The boson, as a type of particle, was named for Bose, and not the Higgs. That is

558:

I'm frankly astonished by that because that's not how references work. References show where a particular claim can be verified. That it isn't obvious how the reference directly maps to the text for a non-specialist is not a big deal; the source is there and you agreed that it backs the claims up.

523:

Encyclopedias aren't written for specialists. A textbook source is OK, but it should still be cited. Also, the sources cited should back up what is said, not provide up-to-date information. Internal references to other Knowledge (XXG) articles are much less than ideal since Knowledge (XXG) isn't a

1449:

I agree that the edit notice is outdated, particularly given the fermion couplings measurements and no deviation in the cross section from the SM in 2015. In much of the recent scientific literature (both peer-reviewed and in press-releases written by CERN and other institutes) the Higgs boson is

1351:

CERN is never going to come out and say "We are now 100% certain this is the Higgs Boson" as there is always uncertainty: "I’m not sure one will ever say this is the Standard Model Higgs boson ... You can never prove something is right, you can only ever prove something is wrong. All we can do is

991:

due to the uncertainty principle, analogy is fundamentally how all information is transmitted- energy is no different. while i agree associations in the realm of science should be narrowed down to the most efficient analogy, the burden of improving the coherency of my original statement is on the

718:

I understand that the article wants to make the point that the Higgs field is more important to scientists than the Higgs particle, but is this the way to say it? The 2nd sentence neglects to specify that the Higgs particle is actually the transmitter of the field, implying that it is trivial or

213:

I agree that the lead is a bit long and could be trimmed. However, moving all its paragraphs after the first one to a section named "History" does not look like a good idea. There is already a detailed section devoted to the history further down in the article. Moreover, the last paragraph of the

2183:

Thank you and I see that now, in the 5th paragraph and 10th occurrence of the term (not counting the title). But might I suggest, as had been my experience today, that many people unfamiliar with or curious for more details of the term will have already googled it or searched WP for it prior to

1299:

Our article says that the Higgs boson is "unverified" and the page edit notice says "Do not say the Higgs boson has been definitively discovered or confirmed." Yet our article has a section titled "Preliminary confirmation of existence and current status" which lists five different ways that the

838:

It seems to me that, instead of the content in the "Non-technical summary" in the "Overview" sections, and we could reasonably just have the "Overview" section". There is quite a bit of redundancy between the two sections. I'm willing to do this, moving cited sources into the Overview. Thoughts?

2674:

I'm a physicist with a background in experimental low-energy nuclear physics. Although I'm able to follow most of the lede, parts of it are heavy going for me, and there are parts I don't understand. WP articles are supposed to be understandable to a general audience. The writing in the lede is

1272:

If we work in unitary gauge, Higgs field is a SU(2) doublet (0, phi0), and boson is the excitation on top of phi0. Thus, like other SU(2) doublets ((u,d) (ve,e)) lower components, Higgs boson has weak isospin T3=-1/2. Since it is electrically neutral, from Q=T3+Y/2 we get weak hypercharge Y=+1.

371:

Its mass, "expected" to be roughly between 100 and 200 GeV. The lower limit is the result of previous experiments that have excluded that the Higgs boson can have a mass lower than 100 GeV (otherwise one would have already seen it). The upper limit is a "trick" to avoid a bad consequence of the

858:

Sorry if this ends up not looking right, I'm new to editing wikipedia. As a person with a strong science background outside of physics, I just wanted to point out that the further applications are something that I think should definitely be in this article. However, the cases sited in the text

104:

mentions that although popular press (incorrectly) wrote about how "the internet could soon be made obsolete" by the advances of the computing grid, to correct those perceptions CERN put out its own "fact and fiction" articles to clarify the nature of its more humble advances in that area. One

1251:

For the Standard Model Higgs field, the weak hypercharge is normally taken to be +1 (or +1/2 if one uses the formula Q=T_3+Y_W. This is the value stated in this specific article if you read the section "Technical aspects and mathematical formulation"). There is however a theory called Minimal

543:

mfb, I'd rather say that the references I gave are not considered suitable by you or Ptrslv72. But anyone looking at our discussions from the beginning would notice that you did not comment on any specific reference I gave. Just saying "there is no suitable reference" is a bit short. Also for

2348:

I've made minor edits to improve readability, and shaved away (some) parts that don't address the section heading. I'm hoping a content expert can build up a better introduction to what symmetry breaking is, the steps through which it was discovered (at least 2 Nobel Prizes awarded for its

1033:

fusing with a black hole releasing hawking radiation), ultimately it reflects the axiomatic fractal(frack|fraction) symmetry(axiom)|break(frack) nature of existence(which im attempting to show by stacking opposing concepts/contradiction loops): heaviest energy fusing with lightest energy,

2349:

elucidation) and the role it has had in keeping the Higgs boson "hidden", despite considerable progress in elementary particle research. Naturally, these are just suggestions and represent nothing more than what I, as a reader, would like to take away after reading this (sub)section.

563:- at least, not any relevant ones (again citing the entire collection of ATLAS and CMS papers is just plain not useful, to the point one might as well treat it as not a source). I haven't seen the 'modified section' you referred to, but it's not the section under dispute in this RfC. 1024:-building on the cake-fuel/truck-machine analogy(you went there, not me), you might also say the higgs boson could potentially be the most abundant energy source in the universe IF we could find a way to exploit it, perhaps by creating and sustaining a black hole then harvesting the 1227:

In Leon Lederman's new book "Beyond the God Particle", pg 139, it is mentioned that Higgs boson has weak charge -1. It seems to me that this is a fairly important property prescribed to the Higgs boson. Why isn't this property included in the article? Should this property be

2239:

The Higgs mechanism could be shortened, it has its own article. Large parts of the introduction before that are not specific to the Higgs boson either. The experimental search could be shortened or be moved to a separate article, this article can focus on the now measured

528:

sourced, it just continuously refers to the same source. In the section under discussion, I can't tell which assertions can be justified by the sources, and which can't. Therefore I maintain my opinion: the text is very poorly sourced, and hence its removal is justified.

1341:"... they never yet saw the particle’s telltale decay into 'matter' particles... Now scientists have succeeded in that observation, confirming that the particle whose discovery was announced at CERN on July 4th 2012, is indeed the long-sought-after Higgs boson." – 595:

Apologies I must have confused the revisions. Nonetheless, the section you linked still goes five paragraphs with many claims that require sourcing (like the ones I mentioned above) that go unsourced. In its current form, I still think the removal is justified.

233:

Basis of explanation: How about it's an English name, the author most probably benefited from English speaking media (interviewing him, reporting on him). Imagine having to go to Brussels, back in those days when not everyone spoke fluent English. Barbarians.

1332:"That uncertainty has now melted away. This week, physicists gathered in Moriond, Italy announced that additional data from the Large Hadron Collider's 2012 data run now conclusively show that the new boson has a spin of zero, and is thus a Higgs boson." – 2709:

The whole article is extremely daunting. While I appreciate the difficulties of explaining modern particle physics to a general audience, there must be a middle ground between the current article and describing HBs as 'god particles' or 'magic moonbeams'.

2103:

But I do believe that a wikilink to the first occurrence of the term boson is both appropriate and helpful (depression and fertility reduction from wikilink-blue not withstanding :) ) to the general reader who is likely not familiar with the term.

1636: 683:

I don't want to disrupt the work that is being done here, and I understand how hard it is to come up with a good lead for scientific articles that is also comprehensible by general readers. However 2nd sentence in the existing lead bothers me:

468:

References are not something you need once per x words. They are needed for disputed, unclear or otherwise problematic claims. And your section is full of them, while mathematical parts can closely follow a few references for the whole section.

2099:

First, congrats to all on an excellent article! And apologies in advance to anyone who might feel my edit is not appropriate. I mean no disrespect. And I fully understand that this article is not the place to describe what a boson is.

1592:

I tried to check that I only removed redundant info, but it's always possible that I missed something. I have also done a quick check to make sure that al the wikilinks from the old "overview" are present in the new text. Hope that helps.

2432:

The topic is probably searched for, under both, by now, and it would look strange if for instance the entry for "electromagnetic field" was a topic titled "photon", or the entry for "weak interaction" was just titled "W and Z bosons".

1327:"The Higgs boson is the final piece of the Standard Model – when it was discovered by the CMS and ATLAS experiments in 2012, it was the last particle predicted by the Model to be verified experimentally." – André David, CERN (2015) 490:. The editor who contributed the content went through a lot of time and effort to create it. If suitable references are not found for the statements, then the content could be deleted. from an un-involved editor. Best Regards, 2523:

confusion already shows up with photons, and explaining it here won't help. One thought, maybe not serious, would be a whole article just on quantum particle vs. quantum field. That is, independent of the actual particle/field.

1549:

has converted the non-technical summary table to prose. I've now gone ahead and also merged the scientific impact table into the significance section. Some duplicated info could definitely be cut down in the non-tech summary.

184:

I trimmed the generic musings on practical applications of fundamental science (as well as a sensationalist and dubiously sourced Hawking story). The sentence about distributed computing was taken almost verbatim from

1637:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130317191649/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/14/higgs-boson-discovery-confirmed-cern-large-hadron-collider_n_2874975.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk2&pLid=283596

816:

status. But I think that more concrete wording could be found for the lead, which is going to be all that some nontechnical readers, who just want the simplest definition of a Higgs particle, are going to read.

1640: 160:

Agree with Mfb. This section is a good example of the (somewhat chaotic) growth the article underwent in the days of enthusiasm that followed the Higgs discovery. I am in favor of trimming it. Cheers,

2676: 963:

It's not that it's a difficulty in following what you say, it's that what you say makes no sense on a level similar to "cakes are the opposite of trucks, one gives energy, the other consumes it".

96:

The results of massive amounts of data produced by the Large Hadron Collider have led to significant advances in distributed and cloud computing, now well established within mainstream services.

2726:

Without reading the above, I just looked at the article. I was about to say that it was fine, except for the second paragraph. Maybe it can stay, but it should not be anywhere near the top.

1258:

I do not have the book and I could not download it so as to know what is exactly written on page 139 but I hope that I answered your question. If not, then please feel free to ask me.

2609:

that name should remain as Higgs boson, as that name already implies excitation of a field. And a separate Higgs field article would overlap too much with this one and even more with

2311: 285:. Though it was not mentioned the consensus argument follows its logic. References are required if material is challenged, and if the refrences are not supplied it may be removed. 2511:

that the current name be kept, for the reasons he gave. I would also oppose splitting the article into separate articles for the boson and field, unless it gets a lot bigger. --

1393:

are also not sure that the top quark behaves exactly as the SM top quark. So what. We still call it "top quark". The top part of the edit warning was outdated in 2013 already. --

787:

I also agree, although I would go with "It is the quantum excitation of the Higgs field..." or something similar. "Particle associated to the excitations" seems a bit roundabout.

581:

in the description of the Rfc. This link shows clearly the section deleted by mfb, which is under consideration here (and again not the section I copied above in this talk page).

1641:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/14/higgs-boson-discovery-confirmed-cern-large-hadron-collider_n_2874975.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D283596

1766:, I expect that we get a conference note in the next few days, and ideally some news article. Not 5 sigma, but we can add it as "seen" once we have more than the slides. -- 2368:

Why has my edit to the higgs mass been reverted? The value used here is outdated. The global average value as of 2020 is 125.10 +/- 0.14 as given in the reference I added

1300:

particle has been validated as a Higgs boson. Not only that, but numerous reliable sources state that the Higgs has been confirmed or verified, including CERN physicists:

1076:, it is so far away from anything remotely reasonable that it is impossible to pin down what exactly would be wrong. Top quarks are heavier than the Higgs, by the way. -- 524:

reliable source. As for the mathematical section, I personally think it's rather technical and hence probably shouldn't be included in the article; on the other hand it

2041: 2037: 2023: 1698: 1694: 1680: 106: 2429:

The page covers both, and while for many years the boson was the more prominent search term (due to media attention), that has largely faded in recent years.

2545:. Also, it seems that this article has links to both. I am not convinced that one well explains the particle vs. field question, but asked in its talk page. 769:" is usually referred to forces as opposed to generic fields. What about "It is the particle associated to the excitations of the Higgs field ..."? Cheers, 1922: 1862: 138:

I'm not sure if we need the section at all, apart from the first paragraph. This is not an article about the LHC or fundamental science in general. --

1666: 1656: 1646: 2198:

That paragraph or at least a part of it could be moved further up. The naming part can move down and the experimental search can be shortened. --

1906: 1763: 1346: 189:, which does look like a reliable source (but I'm not an expert of distributed computing so I wouldn't go to the barricades on that). Cheers, 1467: 297:

An editor reverted a section named "Certification of the new particle as a Higgs boson" added to the page. The section deleted can be found

2293: 1886: 2412: 2332: 1337: 2277: 1378: 1274: 869: 241: 2680: 1896: 2379: 2019:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

1932:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

1797: 1676:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

1537: 1852: 1812:

That word didn't make sense there, I removed it. That section needs an update anyway, it was written before the Higgs discovery. --

1150: 264: 2266:

Physicist Matt Strassler highlighted "considerable" evidence that the new particle is not a pseudoscalar negative parity particle

2009: 1371:

I'd say give it another year or so. LHC collected lots of data in 2016, digesting it should significantly increase confidence.

891:

Off-topic discussion: talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles. Take this to the science refdesk, if anywhere. --

121:

Has work at CERN included research in distributed or cloud computing that has had an impact on mainstream industry or services?

2472: 1594: 1566: 1551: 1450:

spoken about as if it were definitely discovered in 2012. It is no longer a valid argument to say "CERN have been cautious "

973: 653: 107:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140212152732/http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/spotlight/SpotlightGridFactsAndFiction-en.html

912:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2456: 2436:

There isn't as yet, any point in having two separate pages for the field and boson, but we could at least joint title it.

1171:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

674:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

813: 2640: 2084: 1974: 1741: 101: 393:

the particle as the Higgs boson (i.e. this isn't a WP:FRINGE view). In its current form, I think removal is justified.

100:

I'd like to ask for citations for this sentence and propose its removal if we are not aware of any. The article on the

1923:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130121121537/http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/kaniol/p544/rmp46_p7_higgs_goldstone.pdf

1863:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130121121537/http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/kaniol/p544/rmp46_p7_higgs_goldstone.pdf

1353: 1181: 1515: 1323: 1318: 844: 337: 72: 67: 59: 38: 809: 2460: 1475: 2040:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

1697:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

1667:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140501135924/http://www.kcl.ac.uk/nms/depts/physics/news/events/MyLifeasaBoson.pdf

1657:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140501135924/http://www.kcl.ac.uk/nms/depts/physics/news/events/MyLifeasaBoson.pdf

1647:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140501135924/http://www.kcl.ac.uk/nms/depts/physics/news/events/MyLifeasaBoson.pdf

2407: 2327: 1907:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120707132113/http://www.atlas.ch/news/2012/latest-results-from-higgs-search.html

1488:

Thanks all. Updating some articles is my next todo-item after the remaining press release weblinks are fixed.

2281: 1926: 1866: 1328: 1184:? This article is completely absent of any criticism as to its actual existence. That is a bad sign that the 719:

ancillary. I think it would be better to actually describe the relation between the particle and the field:

245: 186: 2636: 2383: 2075: 2001: 1965: 1844: 1732: 1628: 1382: 1278: 873: 2452: 2375: 2273: 1793: 1531: 1374: 1284: 865: 641: 237: 2394:

It would seem that your source confirms the measurement; therefore that user was incorrect to revert it. –

1997: 1840: 1314: 1305: 415: 1887:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120704015916/http://lcg-archive.web.cern.ch/lcg-archive/public/overview.htm

2354: 2059:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2047: 1949:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

1801: 1775: 1716:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

1704: 1670: 1660: 1650: 1126: 1047: 1001: 954: 925: 840: 791: 649: 586: 549: 455: 306: 2000:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 1880: 1843:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 1627:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 1910: 1525: 1122: 1043: 997: 950: 921: 2582: 2562: 2542: 2160: 1471: 1039: 1897:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120106070159/http://www.atlas.ch/news/2011/status-report-dec-2011.html

1433:

why the edit notice is there. Any user with template editing rights or account creator can edit it.

1313:"... every alternative option tested has by now been ruled out with a high degree of confidence." – 1189: 2395: 2315: 1193: 896: 733: 698: 440: 981: 597: 564: 530: 394: 2369: 2189: 2111: 1890: 1874: 1263: 969: 774: 627: 349: 256:

RfC: Was the rejection of section "Certification of the new particle as a Higgs boson" justified?

219: 194: 165: 126: 2307: 2044:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

1853:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130926215031/http://www.catholic.org/technology/story.php?id=49808

1701:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

619: 428: 2243:

Large parts still need rewriting anyway. "If Higgs particle theories are valid" ... uh yeah. --

2060: 1950: 1717: 1356:

edit notice to no longer impose such a strong degree of uncertainty about the Higgs discovery?

1253: 2697: 2618: 1361: 1197: 1025: 601: 568: 534: 411: 398: 316:

For completeness, three different editors reverted successive incarnations of that section on

286: 2131:

zero". It is the first occurrence of "boson" as type of particle, not as part of the name. --

2010:

https://web.archive.org/web/20121110182115/http://lcg-archive.web.cern.ch/lcg-archive/public/

1759: 1543: 977: 2350: 2229: 1900: 1455: 1238: 1229: 1185: 808:

esoteric subject understandable to general readers. I think this page should be put up for

788: 741: 706: 496: 341: 47: 17: 2067: 1957: 1724: 1304:"Without a doubt, it is a Higgs boson, but is it the Higgs boson of the Standard Model?" – 317: 282: 2610: 2151: 577:

Banedon, the section under consideration in this Rfc is the one for which I have provided

1207:

is also absent of any criticism as to its actual existence. Is that really a bad sign? --

614:

Fred1810, the problem is not really the sources you provided, but rather the sources you

432: 321: 1856: 1241:. By weak charge, I believe the author is referred to the weak hypercharge of the Higgs 2731: 2715: 2660: 2590: 2571: 2550: 2528: 2512: 2496: 2128: 2026:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 1916: 1683:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 1158: 1073: 892: 818: 754: 737: 702: 436: 435:. Something along these lines could be a great addition to the page but this isn't it. 2066:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

2033: 1956:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

1723:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

1690: 2538: 2248: 2203: 2185: 2136: 2107: 2013: 1817: 1771: 1583: 1497: 1416: 1398: 1259: 1212: 1081: 1035: 965: 940: 770: 766: 645: 623: 582: 545: 514: 474: 451: 345: 302: 215: 190: 161: 143: 122: 1322:"Beyond any reasonable doubt, it is a Higgs boson." – Nobel Physics Committee (2013) 2693: 2614: 1519: 1357: 949:

I value all responses, please elaborate which part do you have trouble following?

2224:

This article is __very__ long. Is there anything that can be done to shorten it?

1578:

A lot of text from "overview" went away. Not sure if that was fully redundant. --

2735: 2719: 2702: 2684: 2664: 2644: 2622: 2594: 2574: 2554: 2532: 2515: 2500: 2468: 2464: 2443: 2418: 2387: 2358: 2338: 2285: 2252: 2233: 2225: 2207: 2193: 2170: 2140: 2115: 2089: 1993: 1979: 1836: 1821: 1805: 1746: 1620: 1601: 1587: 1573: 1558: 1501: 1479: 1459: 1451: 1442: 1420: 1402: 1386: 1365: 1288: 1267: 1232: 1216: 1162: 1130: 1114:(i.e., the fundamental fermion particles). Through spontaneous symmetry breaking 1085: 1051: 1005: 986: 958: 944: 929: 900: 877: 848: 823: 794: 778: 759: 631: 605: 590: 572: 553: 538: 518: 500: 492: 478: 459: 444: 419: 402: 353: 310: 291: 249: 223: 198: 169: 147: 130: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2032:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 1689:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 1435: 1408: 1254:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Minimal_Supersymmetric_Standard_Model#MSSM_Higgs_Mass

1030: 993: 2727: 2711: 2656: 2606: 2586: 2546: 2524: 2508: 2492: 2121:

That link is there already. "In the Standard Model, the Higgs particle is a

1245:. The weak hypercharge is computed according to the formula given in here: 1154: 2475:, and for me those are enough. That is leaving out why we don't have the 1927:

http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/kaniol/p544/rmp46_p7_higgs_goldstone.pdf

1867:

http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/kaniol/p544/rmp46_p7_higgs_goldstone.pdf

1565:

text that I combined contained few citations. More will need to be added.

1514:

Hello all, The issue of the tables containing paragraphs of text has been

2484: 2480: 2440: 2244: 2199: 2132: 1813: 1767: 1579: 1493: 1427: 1412: 1394: 1208: 1077: 936: 884:

if energy and mass are equal, higgs bosons would be the opposite of light

510: 470: 139: 2299: 2567: 1309: 918:

of energy whereby gravity acts as a form of magnetism between the two.

1944:

An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

2488: 2476: 1671:

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/nms/depts/physics/news/events/MyLifeasaBoson.pdf

1661:

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/nms/depts/physics/news/events/MyLifeasaBoson.pdf

1651:

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/nms/depts/physics/news/events/MyLifeasaBoson.pdf

2585:, and will see if anyone replies. I am not up to doing it, though. 1881:

https://pdg.web.cern.ch/pdg/2012/reviews/rpp2012-rev-higgs-boson.pdf

281:

There is consensus that the removal of the section was justified by

1911:

http://www.atlas.ch/news/2012/latest-results-from-higgs-search.html

1246: 117:

CERN, uses resources contributed by grid projects around the globe.

2635:

We need to change mean lifetime. Check reference. It's not right.

2123: 1790:

Model is used in the article but isn't explained. What is this?

748:—a fundamental field first suspected to exist in the 1960s . . . 713:—a fundamental field first suspected to exist in the 1960s . . . 1490:

I know the "Bose" story, that's not the part I was questioning.

2370:

https://pdg.lbl.gov/2020/listings/rpp2020-list-higgs-boson.pdf

1891:

http://lcg-archive.web.cern.ch/lcg-archive/public/overview.htm

1204: 25: 2306:

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

2298: 336:. Extensive talk-page discussions of the issue can be found 2004:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

1847:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

1631:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

765:

I agree with the point you are making, although the term "

559:

The section you wanted to add however is different. There

2268:(consistent with this required finding for a Higgs boson) 1901:

http://www.atlas.ch/news/2011/status-report-dec-2011.html

2675:

simply not intelligible for laypeople. Not even close.--

2566:

needs some content that general readers can understand.

744:. It is the quantum particle that is the carrier of the 1624: 1411:: What would be necessary to change the page notice? -- 578: 333: 329: 325: 298: 1857:

http://www.catholic.org/technology/story.php?id=49808

344:. Additional opinions are obviously welcome. Cheers, 1917:

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/urpas/news/Hagen_030708

1180:

Are there any sources that label the Higgs Boson as

263:

The following discussion is an archived record of a

2451:Hmm. First, I believe that the current name is the 2036:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 1693:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 273:

No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2014:http://lcg-archive.web.cern.ch/lcg-archive/public/ 1149:: this entire discussion is off-topic here. See 88:Practical impact of LHC on distributed computing 2022:This message was posted before February 2018. 1679:This message was posted before February 2018. 214:lead is definitely not about history. Cheers, 276:A summary of the conclusions reached follows. 8: 509:So far, no one found suitable references. -- 92:A sentence in the article currently claims: 2373: 2271: 1992:I have just modified one external link on 1791: 1372: 1282: 863: 235: 2483:. In other cases, we know which ones are 1835:I have just modified 7 external links on 1619:I have just modified 4 external links on 1247:https://en.wikipedia.org/Weak_hypercharge 2670:lede not readable for a general audience 2677:2603:8000:8900:6E00:D156:AA5E:D00F:414F 1758:bb results at EPS, 3.6 σ significance. 1470:have already been made thanks to Izno. 1116:(dictated by the uncertainty principle) 113:Fiction: The Grid was invented at CERN. 709:. It allows scientists to explore the 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1352:rule out more and more alternatives." 7: 2457:Photon and the electromagnetic field 908:The following discussion is closed. 1188:has taken place on a massive scale. 935:This does not make sense at all. -- 427:lots of unsourced claims, apparent 2463:, though. There are redirects for 2425:Rename to "Higgs boson and field"? 834:Non-technical summary and Overview 24: 1996:. Please take a moment to review 1839:. Please take a moment to review 1623:. Please take a moment to review 1935: 1167:The discussion above is closed. 1112:massless quark and lepton fields 670:The discussion above is closed. 29: 2692:You mean the second paragraph? 2473:Introduction to the Higgs field 1915:Corrected formatting/usage for 1510:Converting text tables to prose 2736:20:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC) 2720:18:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC) 2703:20:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC) 2685:19:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC) 2253:08:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC) 2234:08:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC) 1822:09:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC) 1806:04:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC) 1217:19:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC) 1198:12:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC) 105:example I was able to find is 1: 2645:10:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC) 2090:00:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC) 1588:17:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC) 1574:06:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC) 1559:10:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC) 1502:15:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC) 1480:22:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC) 1460:21:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC) 1443:01:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC) 1421:15:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC) 996:for quite a few decades now. 878:19:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC) 849:17:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC) 824:20:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC) 795:14:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC) 2650:A pedant writes: extra comma 2419:19:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC) 2388:16:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC) 1980:13:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC) 1757:ATLAS showed updated H-: --> 1602:03:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC) 1403:11:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC) 1387:13:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC) 1366:05:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC) 1289:13:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC) 1163:21:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC) 1131:19:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC) 1086:12:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC) 1052:06:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC) 1006:03:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC) 987:02:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC) 959:01:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC) 945:20:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC) 930:10:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC) 901:22:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC) 102:Worldwide_LHC_Computing_Grid 2623:20:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC) 2595:01:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC) 2575:23:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC) 2555:20:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC) 2533:20:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC) 2516:13:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC) 2501:09:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC) 2461:Electron and electron field 2444:11:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC) 1175: 2756: 2665:08:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC) 2339:07:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC) 2286:17:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC) 2053:(last update: 5 June 2024) 1989:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 1832:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 1710:(last update: 5 June 2024) 1616:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 1233:06:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC) 1223:weak charge of higgs boson 519:15:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC) 501:22:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC) 479:00:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC) 460:23:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC) 445:10:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC) 420:05:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC) 403:02:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC) 354:18:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC) 311:10:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC) 250:16:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC) 224:12:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC) 2570:is another possibility.-- 2344:Section Symmetry breaking 1747:03:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC) 1268:23:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC) 1182:The Emperor's New Clothes 1176:The Emperor's New Clothes 632:09:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC) 606:03:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC) 591:20:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC) 573:16:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC) 554:13:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC) 539:09:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC) 199:16:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC) 170:16:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC) 148:15:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC) 131:02:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC) 2359:07:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC) 2314:if you wish to do so. – 2310:. Please participate in 2294:Redirects for discussion 2208:06:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 2194:06:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 2171:23:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 2141:23:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 2116:22:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 1777:17:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC) 1169:Please do not modify it. 910:Please do not modify it. 779:16:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC) 760:00:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC) 672:Please do not modify it. 433:original interpretations 292:01:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC) 270:Please do not modify it. 2312:the redirect discussion 2292:"Hugs bison" listed at 1985:External links modified 1828:External links modified 1612:External links modified 1151:wp:talk page guidelines 2303: 2149:Agreed, Thank you, - 1782:Minimal Standard Model 1203:The article about the 2302: 2259:Section needs rewrite 42:of past discussions. 2583:Quantum field theory 2581:I asked in talk for 2563:Quantum field theory 2543:quantum field theory 2507:Agree strongly with 2034:regular verification 1691:regular verification 1040:loop quantum gravity 854:Further Applications 383:, but it sure isn't 301:. Was it justified? 2024:After February 2018 1681:After February 2018 1334:Scientific American 734:elementary particle 699:elementary particle 620:derived conclusions 429:derived conclusions 265:request for comment 2637:Intelligent boy 13 2537:OK, it seems that 2481:electrical fermion 2304: 2263:Bolded and after: 2095:suggested wikilink 2078:InternetArchiveBot 2029:InternetArchiveBot 1968:InternetArchiveBot 1735:InternetArchiveBot 1686:InternetArchiveBot 911: 324:grounds, see also 209:Splitting the lead 187:this APS reference 2541:is a redirect to 2390: 2378:comment added by 2288: 2276:comment added by 2168: 2054: 1808: 1796:comment added by 1711: 1598: 1570: 1555: 1516:raised previously 1491: 1389: 1377:comment added by 1291: 1026:hawking radiation 909: 880: 868:comment added by 658: 644:comment added by 252: 240:comment added by 85: 84: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 2747: 2700: 2605:Also agree with 2415: 2410: 2335: 2330: 2169: 2165: 2158: 2156: 2088: 2079: 2052: 2051: 2030: 1978: 1969: 1942: 1939: 1938: 1878: 1788:Minimal Standard 1745: 1736: 1709: 1708: 1687: 1596: 1568: 1553: 1548: 1547: 1528: 1489: 1440: 1438: 1431: 1295:Verified or not? 1186:bandwagon effect 985: 841:Isambard Kingdom 821: 757: 742:particle physics 707:particle physics 657: 638: 499: 289: 272: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 18:Talk:Higgs boson 2755: 2754: 2750: 2749: 2748: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2698: 2672: 2652: 2633: 2611:Higgs mechanism 2561:It seems to me 2427: 2413: 2408: 2366: 2346: 2333: 2328: 2297: 2261: 2222: 2161: 2152: 2150: 2097: 2082: 2077: 2045: 2038:have permission 2028: 2002:this simple FaQ 1987: 1972: 1967: 1940: 1936: 1872: 1845:this simple FaQ 1830: 1784: 1755: 1739: 1734: 1702: 1695:have permission 1685: 1629:this simple FaQ 1614: 1529: 1524: 1523: 1512: 1472:Graeme Bartlett 1466:Changes in the 1436: 1434: 1425: 1297: 1225: 1178: 1173: 1172: 964: 914: 905: 904: 903: 886: 856: 836: 819: 814:Feature article 755: 681: 676: 675: 639: 616:did not provide 497:leave a message 491: 294: 287: 268: 258: 231: 211: 90: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2753: 2751: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2724: 2707: 2690: 2671: 2668: 2651: 2648: 2632: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2579: 2559: 2535: 2520: 2505: 2449: 2426: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2365: 2362: 2345: 2342: 2296: 2290: 2260: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2241: 2221: 2220:Article length 2218: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2144: 2143: 2096: 2093: 2072: 2071: 2064: 2017: 2016: 2008:Added archive 1986: 1983: 1962: 1961: 1954: 1930: 1929: 1921:Added archive 1919: 1913: 1905:Added archive 1903: 1895:Added archive 1893: 1885:Added archive 1883: 1869: 1861:Added archive 1859: 1851:Added archive 1829: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1783: 1780: 1754: 1750: 1729: 1728: 1721: 1674: 1673: 1665:Added archive 1663: 1655:Added archive 1653: 1645:Added archive 1643: 1635:Added archive 1613: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1511: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1483: 1482: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1405: 1349: 1348: 1339: 1330: 1325: 1320: 1311: 1296: 1293: 1287:comment added 1224: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1177: 1174: 1166: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1119: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1074:not even wrong 1061: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1008: 915: 906: 890: 889: 888: 887: 885: 882: 855: 852: 835: 832: 831: 830: 829: 828: 827: 826: 800: 799: 798: 797: 782: 781: 751: 750: 738:Standard Model 730:Higgs particle 716: 715: 703:Standard Model 695:Higgs particle 680: 677: 669: 668: 667: 666: 665: 664: 663: 662: 661: 660: 659: 612: 611: 610: 609: 608: 561:are no sources 521: 504: 503: 484: 483: 482: 481: 463: 462: 447: 422: 406: 405: 389: 388: 376: 375: 374: 365: 364: 357: 356: 295: 280: 279: 278: 259: 257: 254: 230: 227: 210: 207: 206: 205: 204: 203: 202: 201: 177: 176: 175: 174: 173: 172: 153: 152: 151: 150: 119: 118: 114: 98: 97: 89: 86: 83: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2752: 2737: 2733: 2729: 2725: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2717: 2713: 2708: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2701: 2695: 2691: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2682: 2678: 2669: 2667: 2666: 2662: 2658: 2655:Sooooo yeah. 2649: 2647: 2646: 2642: 2638: 2631:Mean lifetime 2630: 2624: 2620: 2616: 2612: 2608: 2604: 2596: 2592: 2588: 2584: 2580: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2573: 2569: 2564: 2560: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2552: 2548: 2544: 2540: 2539:quantum field 2536: 2534: 2530: 2526: 2521: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2514: 2510: 2506: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2498: 2494: 2490: 2486: 2482: 2478: 2477:Optical boson 2474: 2470: 2466: 2462: 2458: 2454: 2453:WP:COMMONNAME 2450: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2442: 2437: 2434: 2430: 2424: 2420: 2416: 2411: 2405: 2404: 2401: 2398: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2389: 2385: 2381: 2377: 2371: 2363: 2361: 2360: 2356: 2352: 2343: 2341: 2340: 2336: 2331: 2325: 2324: 2321: 2318: 2313: 2309: 2301: 2295: 2291: 2289: 2287: 2283: 2279: 2278:93.177.73.138 2275: 2269: 2264: 2258: 2254: 2250: 2246: 2242: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2231: 2227: 2219: 2209: 2205: 2201: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2191: 2187: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2172: 2166: 2164: 2157: 2155: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2145: 2142: 2138: 2134: 2130: 2126: 2125: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2113: 2109: 2105: 2101: 2094: 2092: 2091: 2086: 2081: 2080: 2069: 2065: 2062: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2049: 2043: 2039: 2035: 2031: 2025: 2020: 2015: 2011: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2003: 1999: 1995: 1990: 1984: 1982: 1981: 1976: 1971: 1970: 1959: 1955: 1952: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1933: 1928: 1924: 1920: 1918: 1914: 1912: 1908: 1904: 1902: 1898: 1894: 1892: 1888: 1884: 1882: 1876: 1870: 1868: 1864: 1860: 1858: 1854: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1846: 1842: 1838: 1833: 1827: 1823: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1807: 1803: 1799: 1795: 1789: 1781: 1779: 1778: 1773: 1769: 1765: 1761: 1751: 1749: 1748: 1743: 1738: 1737: 1726: 1722: 1719: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1706: 1700: 1696: 1692: 1688: 1682: 1677: 1672: 1668: 1664: 1662: 1658: 1654: 1652: 1648: 1644: 1642: 1638: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1630: 1626: 1622: 1617: 1611: 1603: 1600: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1585: 1581: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1572: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1557: 1545: 1542: 1539: 1536: 1533: 1527: 1521: 1517: 1509: 1503: 1499: 1495: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1481: 1477: 1473: 1469: 1465: 1461: 1457: 1453: 1448: 1444: 1439: 1429: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1418: 1414: 1410: 1406: 1404: 1400: 1396: 1391: 1390: 1388: 1384: 1380: 1379:213.175.37.10 1376: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1354: 1347: 1344: 1340: 1338: 1335: 1331: 1329: 1326: 1324: 1321: 1319: 1317:, CERN (2014) 1316: 1312: 1310: 1308:, CERN (2014) 1307: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1294: 1292: 1290: 1286: 1280: 1276: 1275:213.175.37.10 1270: 1269: 1265: 1261: 1256: 1255: 1249: 1248: 1244: 1240: 1235: 1234: 1231: 1222: 1218: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1183: 1170: 1165: 1164: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1132: 1128: 1124: 1120: 1117: 1113: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1087: 1083: 1079: 1075: 1072:Your text is 1071: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1053: 1049: 1045: 1041: 1037: 1036:string theory 1032: 1029:process of a 1027: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1007: 1003: 999: 995: 990: 989: 988: 983: 979: 975: 971: 967: 962: 961: 960: 956: 952: 948: 947: 946: 942: 938: 934: 933: 932: 931: 927: 923: 919: 913: 902: 898: 894: 883: 881: 879: 875: 871: 870:140.226.99.46 867: 860: 853: 851: 850: 846: 842: 833: 825: 822: 815: 811: 806: 805: 804: 803: 802: 801: 796: 793: 790: 786: 785: 784: 783: 780: 776: 772: 768: 764: 763: 762: 761: 758: 749: 747: 743: 739: 735: 731: 727: 722: 721: 720: 714: 712: 708: 704: 700: 696: 692: 687: 686: 685: 678: 673: 655: 651: 647: 643: 635: 634: 633: 629: 625: 621: 617: 613: 607: 603: 599: 594: 593: 592: 588: 584: 580: 576: 575: 574: 570: 566: 562: 557: 556: 555: 551: 547: 542: 541: 540: 536: 532: 527: 522: 520: 516: 512: 508: 507: 506: 505: 502: 498: 494: 489: 488:Not justified 486: 485: 480: 476: 472: 467: 466: 465: 464: 461: 457: 453: 448: 446: 442: 438: 434: 431:and possible 430: 426: 423: 421: 417: 413: 408: 407: 404: 400: 396: 391: 390: 386: 382: 377: 373: 369: 368: 367: 366: 362: 359: 358: 355: 351: 347: 343: 339: 335: 331: 327: 323: 319: 315: 314: 313: 312: 308: 304: 300: 293: 290: 284: 277: 274: 271: 266: 261: 260: 255: 253: 251: 247: 243: 242:98.143.217.83 239: 228: 226: 225: 221: 217: 208: 200: 196: 192: 188: 183: 182: 181: 180: 179: 178: 171: 167: 163: 159: 158: 157: 156: 155: 154: 149: 145: 141: 137: 136: 135: 134: 133: 132: 128: 124: 115: 112: 111: 110: 108: 103: 95: 94: 93: 87: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2673: 2653: 2634: 2438: 2435: 2431: 2428: 2402: 2399: 2396: 2380:81.107.39.90 2374:— Preceding 2367: 2347: 2322: 2319: 2316: 2305: 2272:— Preceding 2267: 2265: 2262: 2223: 2163:open channel 2162: 2153: 2122: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2076: 2073: 2048:source check 2027: 2021: 2018: 1991: 1988: 1966: 1963: 1943: 1934: 1931: 1834: 1831: 1792:— Preceding 1787: 1785: 1756: 1733: 1730: 1705:source check 1684: 1678: 1675: 1618: 1615: 1595:T.Shafee(Evo 1567:T.Shafee(Evo 1552:T.Shafee(Evo 1540: 1534: 1513: 1373:— Preceding 1350: 1342: 1333: 1298: 1271: 1257: 1250: 1242: 1236: 1226: 1179: 1168: 1146: 1145: 1115: 1111: 920: 916: 907: 864:— Preceding 861: 857: 837: 810:Good article 753:Comments? -- 752: 745: 729: 725: 723: 717: 710: 694: 690: 688: 682: 671: 640:— Preceding 615: 560: 525: 487: 424: 412:JonRichfield 384: 380: 370: 360: 296: 288:AlbinoFerret 275: 269: 262: 236:— Preceding 232: 212: 120: 109:which says: 99: 91: 78: 43: 37: 2471:, and even 2469:Higgs Field 2465:Higgs field 2351:Prime Lemur 2240:properties. 1994:Higgs boson 1837:Higgs boson 1798:89.135.87.8 1621:Higgs boson 1526:2.28.156.81 1283:—Preceding 1228:included?-- 1123:The5thForce 1044:The5thForce 998:The5thForce 951:The5thForce 922:The5thForce 746:Higgs field 726:Higgs boson 711:Higgs field 691:Higgs boson 36:This is an 2439:Thoughts? 2364:Higgs Mass 2308:Hugs bison 2154:FlightTime 2085:Report bug 1975:Report bug 1786:The name 1742:Report bug 1468:editnotice 1409:User:M.O.X 1315:John Ellis 1306:John Ellis 1031:white hole 994:Lee Smolin 2572:Chetvorno 2513:Chetvorno 2068:this tool 2061:this tool 1958:this tool 1951:this tool 1875:dead link 1725:this tool 1718:this tool 1190:Trilliant 893:The Anome 820:Chetvorno 756:Chetvorno 618:for your 579:this link 437:SPACKlick 425:Justified 79:Archive 7 73:Archive 6 68:Archive 5 60:Archive 1 2485:fermions 2376:unsigned 2274:unsigned 2186:Duedilly 2108:Duedilly 2074:Cheers.— 1964:Cheers.— 1794:unsigned 1776:bb": --> 1731:Cheers.— 1538:contribs 1407:Pinging 1375:unsigned 1343:Discover 1260:Irene000 974:contribs 966:Headbomb 866:unsigned 771:Ptrslv72 654:contribs 646:Fred1810 642:unsigned 624:Ptrslv72 583:Fred1810 546:Fred1810 452:Fred1810 346:Ptrslv72 303:Fred1810 238:unsigned 216:Ptrslv72 191:Ptrslv72 162:Ptrslv72 123:Xiphoris 2615:Dilaton 2568:Quantum 2397:Laundry 2317:Laundry 1998:my edit 1879:tag to 1841:my edit 1752:H-: --> 1625:my edit 1520:Kaldari 1358:Kaldari 1285:undated 1239:LaoChen 1230:LaoChen 978:physics 767:carrier 736:in the 701:in the 598:Banedon 565:Banedon 531:Banedon 395:Banedon 39:archive 2694:Ruslik 2489:bosons 2226:Ergzay 1871:Added 1452:Dukwon 1345:(2014) 1336:(2013) 1237:Hello 732:is an 697:is an 493:Bfpage 385:useful 283:WP:VER 229:Naming 2459:, or 2400:Pizza 2320:Pizza 2127:with 2124:boson 1597:& 1569:& 1554:& 1544:WHOIS 1437:James 1243:field 982:books 381:wrong 16:< 2732:talk 2728:Gah4 2716:talk 2712:Ef80 2699:Zero 2681:talk 2661:talk 2657:Tpth 2641:talk 2619:talk 2607:Gah4 2591:talk 2587:Gah4 2551:talk 2547:Gah4 2529:talk 2525:Gah4 2509:Gah4 2497:talk 2493:Gah4 2487:and 2384:talk 2355:talk 2282:talk 2249:talk 2230:talk 2204:talk 2190:talk 2137:talk 2129:spin 2112:talk 1818:talk 1802:talk 1772:talk 1760:Talk 1599:Evo) 1584:talk 1571:Evo) 1556:Evo) 1532:talk 1498:talk 1476:talk 1456:talk 1417:talk 1399:talk 1383:talk 1362:talk 1279:talk 1264:talk 1213:talk 1194:talk 1159:talk 1155:DVdm 1153:. - 1147:Note 1127:talk 1082:talk 1048:talk 1038:and 1002:talk 970:talk 955:talk 941:talk 926:talk 897:talk 874:talk 845:talk 775:talk 724:The 689:The 679:Lead 650:talk 628:talk 602:talk 587:talk 569:talk 550:talk 535:talk 515:talk 475:talk 456:talk 441:talk 416:talk 399:talk 350:talk 342:here 340:and 338:here 334:here 332:and 330:here 326:here 307:talk 299:here 246:talk 220:talk 195:talk 166:talk 144:talk 127:talk 2479:or 2441:FT2 2372:. 2245:mfb 2200:mfb 2133:mfb 2042:RfC 2012:to 1925:to 1909:to 1899:to 1889:to 1865:to 1855:to 1814:mfb 1768:mfb 1764:PDF 1699:RfC 1669:to 1659:to 1649:to 1639:to 1580:mfb 1518:by 1494:mfb 1428:Mfb 1413:mfb 1395:mfb 1281:) 1209:mfb 1205:sun 1078:mfb 937:mfb 812:or 740:of 728:or 705:of 693:or 511:mfb 471:mfb 361:Yes 318:POV 140:mfb 2734:) 2718:) 2710:-- 2683:) 2663:) 2643:) 2621:) 2613:. 2593:) 2553:) 2531:) 2499:) 2491:. 2467:, 2417:) 2414:c̄ 2403:03 2386:) 2357:) 2337:) 2334:c̄ 2323:03 2284:) 2251:) 2232:) 2206:) 2192:) 2139:) 2114:) 2055:. 2050:}} 2046:{{ 1877:}} 1873:{{ 1820:) 1804:) 1774:) 1762:, 1753:bb 1712:. 1707:}} 1703:{{ 1586:) 1522:. 1500:) 1492:-- 1478:) 1458:) 1441:• 1419:) 1401:) 1385:) 1364:) 1266:) 1215:) 1196:) 1161:) 1129:) 1084:) 1050:) 1042:. 1004:) 980:/ 976:/ 972:/ 957:) 943:) 928:) 899:) 876:) 847:) 817:-- 777:) 656:) 652:• 630:) 604:) 589:) 571:) 552:) 537:) 526:is 517:) 477:) 469:-- 458:) 443:) 418:) 401:) 352:) 328:, 322:OR 309:) 267:. 248:) 222:) 197:) 168:) 146:) 129:) 64:← 2730:( 2714:( 2696:_ 2679:( 2659:( 2639:( 2617:( 2589:( 2549:( 2527:( 2495:( 2409:d 2406:( 2382:( 2353:( 2329:d 2326:( 2280:( 2247:( 2228:( 2202:( 2188:( 2167:) 2159:( 2135:( 2110:( 2087:) 2083:( 2070:. 2063:. 1977:) 1973:( 1960:. 1953:. 1941:Y 1816:( 1800:( 1770:( 1744:) 1740:( 1727:. 1720:. 1582:( 1546:) 1541:· 1535:· 1530:( 1496:( 1474:( 1454:( 1430:: 1426:@ 1415:( 1397:( 1381:( 1360:( 1277:( 1262:( 1211:( 1192:( 1157:( 1125:( 1080:( 1046:( 1000:( 984:} 968:{ 953:( 939:( 924:( 895:( 872:( 843:( 792:R 789:T 773:( 648:( 626:( 600:( 585:( 567:( 548:( 533:( 513:( 495:| 473:( 454:( 439:( 414:( 397:( 387:. 348:( 320:/ 305:( 244:( 218:( 193:( 164:( 142:( 125:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index