A question on the Higgs Boson and fundamental particles in general.

shizz

Hey guys,

Just something that has been bugging me while thinking about the Higgs Boson.
I understand how we can produce say quarks by smashing protons into each other, as they are made up of them, but I'm having trouble understanding how we need to smash them together at high energy to produce a Higgs Boson.

How can we say something exists and permeates the universe interacting with all the other particles giving them mass, when in order to make it exist for a billionth of a second (or presumably shorter) we have to do such an experiment?

Why doesn't it always exist? Why isn't it easier to obtain since its supposedly everywhere?

Obviously I'm not up to scratch on this stuff at all, and I've a feeling its to do with the term Boson, but a quick google leads me to see that other Bosons are easier to obtain than this?

I'm probably asking a lot from someone to try explain this but I guess my main problem is how we can say it exists when to make it exist we have to do these experiments?

citrus burst

shizz wrote: »

Hey guys,

Just something that has been bugging me while thinking about the Higgs Boson.
I understand how we can produce say quarks by smashing protons into each other, as they are made up of them, but I'm having trouble understanding how we need to smash them together at high energy to produce a Higgs Boson.

Don't really know where to begin with, but I'll try to address everything. So I'll start with the mass of the Higgs boson. From today's announcement its around 125 GeV, this might mean nothing to you but its pretty big when compared to other elementary particles. Its over 100 times more massive then a proton.

In order to generate particles with such large masses, they must be given a huge amount of energy. This on its own won't do anything to the particle just make it move really fast. That's why they collide them. This will cause them to break apart into other particles, depending on a couple of factors. Once the new particles are created, they will interact with each other creating other new particles, among others things when the conditions are right the Higgs boson.

That's the easy part. The hard part is how to detect them. The Higgs boson, due to its large mass, isn't very stable. I don't know its decay rate. However when it does decay, it will always decay the same way, into other particles that can be detected.

Using all this you can piece together if a particle is there, using a few techniques.

Another problem, was the standard model doesn't actually predict a mass for the Higgs boson. If it did, this whole thing would have been solved decades ago.

shizz wrote: »

How can we say something exists and permeates the universe interacting with all the other particles giving them mass, when in order to make it exist for a billionth of a second (or presumably shorter) we have to do such an experiment?

See the thing is the Higgs boson itself isn't really that important. The Higgs mechanism is where its all at. This is what actually "gives" the mass to other
particles. By discovering the boson, we can now say how the mechanism works.

shizz wrote: »

Why doesn't it always exist? Why isn't it easier to obtain since its supposedly everywhere?

It does always exist, we just didn't know where.
Now that we are pretty sure of the mass of the particle, it will become much easier to create and experiment on.

shizz wrote: »

Obviously I'm not up to scratch on this stuff at all, and I've a feeling its to do with the term Boson, but a quick google leads me to see that other Bosons are easier to obtain than this?

The term boson doesn't really have anything to do with it. A boson is a type of particle, due to properties it has; integer spin etc. A way of thinking about it is the way biologists categorize animals; mammals, birds, reptiles. All animals in these types have things in common that allow them to be categorized.

I hope this helps

shizz

citrus burst wrote: »

In order to generate particles with such large masses, they must be given a huge amount of energy. This on its own won't do anything to the particle just make it move really fast. That's why they collide them. This will cause them to break apart into other particles, depending on a couple of factors. Once the new particles are created, they will interact with each other creating other new particles, among others things when the conditions are right the Higgs boson.

Thanks man. I guess this is the part I'm having trouble understanding. Why do we have to generate particles? If this much energy needs to be used to generate one, how does it exist elsewhere?

mooliki

shizz wrote: »

Thanks man. I guess this is the part I'm having trouble understanding. Why do we have to generate particles? If this much energy needs to be used to generate one, how does it exist elsewhere?

I think I know what you mean. As far as I can understand (correct me if I'm wrong), they're essentially looking for the Higgs field, which is, theoretically comprised of Higgs boson. To prove this, you have to isolate the Higgs boson, which in this case requires producing it in the huge amounts of energy from particle collisions like in CERN.

If you think of photons, they're everywhere, forming our visual spectrum, but you require experiments to isolate and study individual protons. Or, to put it another way, it's like you can be standing with an ocean right in front of you, but it's only when someone discovers the H2O molecule that you can say what exactly the water is. The higgs boson just happens to be a particularly elusive particle.

Again, that's only my understanding of it, and I may be very wrong!

shizz

mooliki wrote: »

I think I know what you mean. As far as I can understand (correct me if I'm wrong), they're essentially looking for the Higgs field, which is, theoretically comprised of Higgs boson. To prove this, you have to isolate the Higgs boson, which in this case requires producing it in the huge amounts of energy from particle collisions like in CERN.

If you think of photons, they're everywhere, forming our visual spectrum, but you require experiments to isolate and study individual protons. Or, to put it another way, it's like you can be standing with an ocean right in front of you, but it's only when someone discovers the H2O molecule that you can say what exactly the water is. The higgs boson just happens to be a particularly elusive particle.

Again, that's only my understanding of it, and I may be very wrong!

Yeah I think I get what you are saying. But if that was the case would it not be sort of knocking a higgs boson out of the higgs field to measure it rather than "generating" one as it is often spoke about?

As has been said, Higgs bosons are excitations of the Higgs field, just like photons are excitations of the electromagnetic field. Photons are created due to particle interactions, annihaltions etc., as is also the case for the Higgs boson. That is in order to "make" the energy needed to disturb the Higgs field, it has to come form somewhere, e.g. proton annihilations. And because the mass of the Higgs boson is so much greater than then 2 stationary protons, we need energies such that 2*(proton rest energy + kinetic energy) > Higgs mass.

Also to note, it is the Higgs field rather than the boson that permeates space. And we know that the boson has such a short lifetime because it is very interactive, and we know this because a lot of stuff interacts with it thus giving this stuff mass! Also, bosons having a short lifetime is nothing strange!

Morbert

shizz wrote: »

Yeah I think I get what you are saying. But if that was the case would it not be sort of knocking a higgs boson out of the higgs field to measure it rather than "generating" one as it is often spoke about?

To echo Aristotle: A Higgs boson is a quantised excitation of the Higgs field. Just as a photon is the quantised excitation of the electromagnetic field. So even at low energies, a Higgs field exists even if the boson excitations do not. But to directly detect the presence of the Higgs field, scientists have to look for the excitations of the Higgs field, which requires high-energies.

Think of a swimming pool. When you add energy to the water, ripples form. If no energy is added, there are no ripples, but the pool still exists. Scientists are trying to verify the pool exists by adding energy to it and detecting the ripples.

Zombrex

I think shizz is asking if the Higgs field is every where why are higgs bosons not every where, why do we need to make them. Why can't we just point an electron microscope or some other detector at something, anything, and see billions of higgs bosons flying around, like you could with normal matter, say an electron. Why do we need to create them through LRC collisions.

I'm just guessing but I imagine the answer is because they don't simply exist as Higgs bosons floating around in space, that they hidden behind levels of ordinary particles and it is only when you strip out everything else can you get down to the level where you can detect them individually from the soup of other particles.

Close? Completely wrong?

It's primarily because of their short lifespan. They're more of an intermediate state than a final state if you like.

In fact, when the protons collide and a Higgs boson is created, it has already decayed before it can reach the detectors.

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote: »

It's primarily because of their short lifespan. They're more of an intermediate state than a final state if you like.

In fact, when the protons collide and a Higgs boson is created, it has already decayed before it can reach the detectors.

This is the puzzling bit for me. So do Higgs bosons exist naturally? My understanding was that it was particles interacting with Higgs bosons that caused mass? Surely that would mean the universe is full of Higgs constantly banging into particles?

Apologies if that is a stupid question :pac:

Morbert

Zombrex wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

It's primarily because of their short lifespan. They're more of an intermediate state than a final state if you like.

In fact, when the protons collide and a Higgs boson is created, it has already decayed before it can reach the detectors.

This is the puzzling bit for me. So do Higgs bosons exist naturally? My understanding was that it was particles interacting with Higgs bosons that caused mass? Surely that would mean the universe is full of H
iggs constantly banging into particles?

Apologies if that is a stupid question :pac:

You're thinking of virtual particles. The electromagnetic force for example is not carried by real photons but by virtual photons which are transient unobservable excitations of the electromagnetic field that dont satisfy certain relations.

I.e It is the Higgs field that interacts with particles not the Higgs boson. And the Higgs field is not made of Higgs bosons just as water in a pool is not made of ripples.

Zombrex

Morbert wrote: »

You're thinking of virtual particles. The electromagnetic force for example is not carried by real photons but by virtual photons which are transient unobservable excitations of the electromagnetic field that dont satisfy certain relations.

I.e It is the Higgs field that interacts with particles not the Higgs boson. And the Higgs field is not made of Higgs bosons just as water in a pool is not made of ripples.

Cool, ok I think I got it. A higgs boson is really just a excited area of the higgs field, and that requires a lot of energy it is not something that just is happening naturally.

shizz

Thanks guys. I think I get the analogies but I was always under the assumption that photons were actual particles? Or is it that it doesn't take much energy to excite the electromagnetic field and create photons?

Morbert

shizz wrote: »

Or is it that it doesn't take much energy to excite the electromagnetic field and create photons?

Bingo. Photons are very easy to produce. You do it every time you switch on a light.

shizz

Morbert wrote: »

Bingo. Photons are very easy to produce. You do it every time you switch on a light.

I wrote out a good bit there but I think it clicked with me mid way.

Is the electromagnetic field in this case considered to be the force holding the atoms in the filament together? We impart energy to it which in turn creates photons? So we're saying the Higgs field is a force which permeates all of space, interacting with matter giving it mass. When we excite this field enough it produces a Higgs boson?

Gru

Here's a nice video which gives a decent explanation of what the Higgs is and why it matters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Uh5mTxRQcg

krd

Morbert wrote: »

The electromagnetic force for example is not carried by real photons but by virtual photons which are transient unobservable excitations of the electromagnetic field that dont satisfy certain relations.

Virtual photons are transient and unobservable because they may only exist to satisfy the equations.

A real photon, can never be observed as a particle. When the light wave collapses at a detector - it just excites the waves within the detector. At no point is there ever a particle observed - the quantity of energy can be observed - the point the wave collapses at - but there is no particle , ever.

I know the Standard Model gives absurdly correct results, but I think it could be wrong (not complete wrong). I don't like the idea of particles and I don't like the idea of aether like fields.

Ed Sheeran

Hi guys, I'm 17 and have heard about the Higgs Boson for the last year, from teachers talking about it and stuff.

I understand that this "God Particle" is what supposedly gives mass to matter.
Presumably they have found the Higgs Boson but I'm not exactly sure what it means now.

I have been trying to look for a straight-forward answer to the question whether or not finding the God Particle could actually prove definitely whether or not God exists or doesn't exist.

I've searched online for a straight answer but haven't been able to find it.

I'm hoping someone on here would be able to try and explain basically what finding the Higgs Boson would prove right or wrong.

Thanks in advance.

krd

Ed Sheeran wrote: »

I understand that this "God Particle" is what supposedly gives mass to matter.
Presumably they have found the Higgs Boson but I'm not exactly sure what it means now.
.

[/QUOTE]

The Higgs field is gravity.

The Higgs boson, is the gravity particle.


The idea of the Higgs field is gravity is something like magnetism - you've played around with magnets? - you know that invisible force you can see with magnets. The Higgs field is the same kind of idea. The idea is like magnets - the bigger the magnet the more powerful it is. And with the Higgs field, the bigger you are, the stronger the Higgs force.

sponsoredwalk

krd wrote: »

I don't like the idea of particles and I don't like the idea of aether like fields.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMDTcMD6pOw

Kidding aside, are you arguing that action at a distance is more philosophically pleasing than field theory? As I understand it field theory is a way to get rid of the concept of action at a distance with relativity causing the field to 'acquire a physical reality' so what is the point in trying to denigrate, deny or dislike such ideas by tying them to the aether when the aether field produced no observable effect, unlike those fields giving absurdly correct results?

krd

There is also the possibility Feyman was wrong.

And I believe his path integrals are a convoluted cop out.

I do not believe in particles. I do not believe in aetherical fields.

sponsoredwalk

I asked you to justify your use of the phrase 'aetherical fields', instead you ignore the question & repeat the phrase as if it's unquestionably legitimate. How is that any different from big pharma establishment physicists repeatedly using their path integrals as if they're unquestionably legitimate?

krd

krd wrote:

The Higgs field is gravity.

The Higgs boson, is the gravity particle.


The idea of the Higgs field is gravity is something like magnetism - you've played around with magnets? - you know that invisible force you can see with magnets. The Higgs field is the same kind of idea. The idea is like magnets - the bigger the magnet the more powerful it is. And with the Higgs field, the bigger you are, the stronger the Higgs force.

I think I should just comment on this in case anyone has gotten confused. The Higgs field is NOT the gravitational field, and likewise the Higgs boson is NOT the gravity particle (graviton).

For one, the Higgs boson has a theoretical spin of zero, meaning it doesn't couple to the photon. However we know that light bends under the influence of gravity, thus photons and gravitons couple. That is, gravity interacts with massless particles, particles that do not interact with the Higgs field. Also, the gravitational field has a long range influence whereas the Higgs field is short range.

Just to leave you with some questions to think about: How can the particle which supposedly gives stuff mass have mass itself? Also, do you think Higgs bosons feel the gravitational force?

shizz

shizz wrote: »

I wrote out a good bit there but I think it clicked with me mid way.

Is the electromagnetic field in this case considered to be the force holding the atoms in the filament together? We impart energy to it which in turn creates photons? So we're saying the Higgs field is a force which permeates all of space, interacting with matter giving it mass. When we excite this field enough it produces a Higgs boson?

Just wondering if someone can reply to correct me on this ^^^

Deleted User wrote: »

Just to leave you with some questions to think about: How can the particle which supposedly gives stuff mass have mass itself? Also, do you think Higgs bosons feel the gravitational force?

Also, after all the discussion we had previously it's comments like this that confuse me again. Is it not the field which gives a particle mass and not the boson? Is the boson not an excitement of the higgs field due to the amount of energy put into it? And isn't the fact that the higgs boson has so much mass down to the amount of energy put into it? (i.e. mass is proportional to energy?)

opinion guy

shizz wrote: »

Thanks guys. I think I get the analogies but I was always under the assumption that photons were actual particles? Or is it that it doesn't take much energy to excite the electromagnetic field and create photons?

krd wrote: »

A real photon, can never be observed as a particle. When the light wave collapses at a detector - it just excites the waves within the detector. At no point is there ever a particle observed - the quantity of energy can be observed - the point the wave collapses at - but there is no particle , ever.

krd that's not strictly true. If you do a Young's slits experiment you can demonstrate both wave and particle nature of light:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

The point is thinking in terms of waves or particles are both wrong. These are analogies humans use to describe phenomena that are fundamentally weird to us. Instead wave particle duality is what we should consider (even though this itself is also a human analogy we know it is a better one)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality

For this reason you sometimes hear the term 'wavicle' which I've personally always liked

shizz

shizz wrote: »

Also, after all the discussion we had previously it's comments like this that confuse me again. Is it not the field which gives a particle mass and not the boson? Is the boson not an excitement of the higgs field due to the amount of energy put into it? And isn't the fact that the higgs boson has so much mass down to the amount of energy put into it? (i.e. mass is proportional to energy?)

You are completely correct! There is absolutely nothing paradoxical about the boson having mass, the reason being exactly what you said.

opinion guy

Ed Sheeran wrote: »

I understand that this "God Particle" is what supposedly gives mass to matter.

First things first. The phrase 'God particle' was coined by a guy who wanted to call it 'that god-damned particle' in frustration at the difficulty in finding it, but was not allowed to by the publication he was writing in.
It has nothing to do with God or religion. Imho it should be a banable offence to use the phrase seriously on boards

I have been trying to look for a straight-forward answer to the question whether or not finding the God Particle could actually prove definitely whether or not God exists or doesn't exist.

The Higgs boson has absolutely ZERO bearing on any debate of whether god exists or not. You might as well debate whether the existence of cheese has implications as to whether fish can feel pain or not.

I've searched online for a straight answer but haven't been able to find it.

That because the religious types don't understand that 'God particle' is a misnomer and the atheist types don't understand that the religious types don't understand this. You are best off avoiding that debate altogether (unless you know, you enjoy smacking your head off brick walls)

I'm hoping someone on here would be able to try and explain basically what finding the Higgs Boson would prove right or wrong.

Thanks in advance.

The only thing discovering a Higgs boson proves right or wrong is whether our theory about the universe called the Standard Model is right or wrong. Simple as. Nothing more nothing less.

shizz

Deleted User wrote: »

You are completely correct! There is absolutely nothing paradoxical about the boson having mass, the reason being exactly what you said.

Thanks man. Now to try and beat it into my head.

opinion guy wrote: »

First things first. The phrase 'God particle' was coined by a guy who wanted to call it 'that god-damned particle' in frustration at the difficulty in finding it, but was not allowed to by the publication he was writing in.
It has nothing to do with God or religion. Imho it should be a banable offence to use the phrase seriously on boards



The Higgs boson has absolutely ZERO bearing on any debate of whether god exists or not. You might as well debate whether the existence of cheese has implications as to whether fish can feel pain or not.


That because the religious types don't understand that 'God particle' is a misnomer and the atheist types don't understand that the religious types don't understand this. You are best off avoiding that debate altogether (unless you know, you enjoy smacking your head off brick walls)



The only thing discovering a Higgs boson proves right or wrong is whether our theory about the universe called the Standard Model is right or wrong. Simple as. Nothing more nothing less.

If you are looking for some laughter (or a sense of despair for the human race) have a look at this

opinion guy

shizz wrote: »

Thanks man. Now to try and beat it into my head.



If you are looking for some laughter (or a sense of despair for the human race) have a look at this

:eek:

That's almost as bad as the after hours thread!

Enkidu

Although I'm not a physicist, as I understand it the Higgs boson does not give mass to particles.

Rather the existence of the Higgs boson is evidence of the mechanism which gave leptons and the Weak bosons their mass, it does not cause the mass itself. Also, even this rest mass is not most of our actual mass, that comes from the binding energy of gluons inside protons and neutrons, which would still occur even without the Higgs.

Enkidu

shizz wrote: »

I wrote out a good bit there but I think it clicked with me mid way.

Is the electromagnetic field in this case considered to be the force holding the atoms in the filament together? We impart energy to it which in turn creates photons? So we're saying the Higgs field is a force which permeates all of space, interacting with matter giving it mass. When we excite this field enough it produces a Higgs boson?

All particles are excitations of fields, even electrons and protons.

Enkidu

krd wrote: »

There is also the possibility Feyman was wrong.

There was, until Quantum Electrodynamics was tested and every single one of its predictions verified.

krd wrote: »

And I believe his path integrals are a convoluted cop out.

Why do you believe an infinite dimensional integral over the space of field histories is "a cop out"?

krd wrote: »

I do not believe in particles. I do not believe in aetherical fields.

The fields in quantum field theory are not the same as the aether fluid from 19th century physics. The just both happen to have the word field in them.

shizz

Enkidu wrote: »

All particles are excitations of fields, even electrons and protons.

I reckon that's the reason why I was getting confused about it. What fields are protons and electrons an excitation of? (electrons I presume electromagnetic?)

Why do they constantly exist?

Enkidu

shizz wrote: »

I reckon that's the reason why I was getting confused about it. What fields are protons and electrons an excitation of? (electrons I presume electromagnetic?)

The electron is an excitation of the electron field (named after the particle of course, sometime called the Dirac field), the proton is a combined excitation of ten fields, the eight gluon fields and the up and down quark fields.

shizz wrote: »

Why do they constantly exist?

Why wouldn't they? Nothing can make them go away. Although the full answer is a little more technical.

shizz

Enkidu wrote: »

The electron is an excitation of the electron field (named after the particle of course, sometime called the Dirac field), the proton is a combined excitation of ten fields, the eight gluon fields and the up and down quark fields.

The idea of all these fields is really starting to confuse me now. Just particles made so much sense, but alas that doesn't matter a dam.

Enkidu wrote: »

Why wouldn't they? Nothing can make them go away. Although the full answer is a little more technical.

Just from the previous discussions in this thread the idea that energy needs to be put into these fields to create the particles, I can't understand how they are always there?

Also if all these fields need to be excited to create their respective particles, what is causing the fields? As my previous thinking was that these particles created the fields

Morbert

krd wrote: »

Virtual photons are transient and unobservable because they may only exist to satisfy the equations.

A real photon, can never be observed as a particle. When the light wave collapses at a detector - it just excites the waves within the detector. At no point is there ever a particle observed - the quantity of energy can be observed - the point the wave collapses at - but there is no particle , ever.

I know the Standard Model gives absurdly correct results, but I think it could be wrong (not complete wrong). I don't like the idea of particles and I don't like the idea of aether like fields.

They don't only exist to satisfy equations. You admit yourself that they are used to predict absurdly accurate results.

Also, a photon isn't a particle in the billiard ball sense. It is a quantised excitation that can exhibit discrete, particulate behaviour like the kind seen in the photo-electric effect.

The fields in quantum field theory are not aether-like.

Morbert

shizz wrote: »

The idea of all these fields is really starting to confuse me now. Just particles made so much sense, but alas that doesn't matter a dam.

Just from the previous discussions in this thread the idea that energy needs to be put into these fields to create the particles, I can't understand how they are always there?

Also if all these fields need to be excited to create their respective particles, what is causing the fields? As my previous thinking was that these particles created the fields

The ontology is always going to be a headache. Fields are generally interpreted as the fundamental "stuff" of physics. Since it is an empirical issue, we can always ask why fields exist and quantum field theory, per se, won't be able to answer the question.

shizz

Morbert wrote: »

The ontology is always going to be a headache. Fields are generally interpreted as the fundamental "stuff" of physics. Since it is an empirical issue, we can always ask why fields exist and quantum field theory, per se, won't be able to answer the question.

OK, well I think it's a bit over my head for the moment but I got the answer I was looking for. Of course it also left me with more questions but hey, if that isn't science I dunno what is haha.

Zombrex

shizz wrote: »

OK, well I think it's a bit over my head for the moment but I got the answer I was looking for. Of course it also left me with more questions but hey, if that isn't science I dunno what is haha.

Asking how the fields are there is sort of the same as simply asking why does space exist, or why is there something rather than nothing. The fields are basically existence. Existences exists as a set of fields that can have points that are excited by energy (if I understand correctly). It is not really a case of thinking of these fields as something that exists in reality, but rather they are the fabric of reality. Reality is a set of fields and all the stuff that exists are excitements of these fields.

Why that rather than something else. Well that is because it is the way the Great Turtle wanted it to be :P

krd

Morbert wrote: »

They don't only exist to satisfy equations. You admit yourself that they are used to predict absurdly accurate results.

The thing about the Standard Model, is I think the maths gives the correct answers, but the underlying ideas may be wrong.

The only way I can describe how I feel about it, would be like earlier theories of light. The observations and calculations were in agreement - but of course the ideas were wrong.

Also, a photon isn't a particle in the billiard ball sense. It is a quantised excitation that can exhibit discrete, particulate behaviour like the kind seen in the photo-electric effect.

Yes, and no. Yes, the photon exhibits discrete behaviour when the wave collapses at a detector- but a particle is never observed. And it's the same with the photoelectric effect - neither photons or electrons are observed as particles. They have discrete qualities, and it's intuitive to think of them as particles. Or that a particle has taken a path to get from point A to point B. And the maths works.

When you measure a photon it exhibits discrete behaviour - but I can think of other instances, where it doesn't behave discretely.

I'm not proposing a new theory, I just have a feeling that certain ideas may be wrong.

What would be an absolute disaster, is if the CERN guys do a Pons-Fleischmann. If the Higgs is not there, it's not there - and it not being there could be the key to why everything is there - or at least appears to be there.

The fields in quantum field theory are not aether-like.

Aethers are wonderful, they can literally be pulled out of thin air to explain things.

mooliki

Think I'm getting more confused the longer this thread goes on for! Anyone recommend good reading material that covers these topics, particularly on the Standard Model, say in the layman-friendly manner of Brief History of Time or Short History of Nearly Everything?

krd

Stephen Hawking has apparently had to pay out on bet. He didn't think they'd find it.

That's another question Where does the Higgs field fit in, in terms of things like black holes?

opinion guy

krd wrote: »

Stephen Hawking has apparently had to pay out on bet. He didn't think they'd find it.

That's another question Where does the Higgs field fit in, in terms of things like black holes?

He wasn't denying the Higgs - he just thought it would take longer to find - i.e. he didnt' think they would find it in his lifetime.

It seems most people including the CERN sceintists are surprised to have found it already

krd

opinion guy wrote: »

He wasn't denying the Higgs - he just thought it would take longer to find - i.e. he didnt' think they would find it in his lifetime.

Black holes is Hawking's thing. I'm not sure where the Higgs field fits in, in the scheme of a black hole.

It seems most people including the CERN sceintists are surprised to have found it already

You're not saying that's a little fishy, are you.

opinion guy

krd wrote: »

You're not saying that's a little fishy, are you.

Not at all. At the CERN announcment/panel interview thingy it was commented on the the Higgs came easier than expected hwilst other experiments ar etaking longer than expected

sponsoredwalk

Setting the stage:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0NiNp66mGM

for a fantastic video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6huY4kBotD4

that I don't fully understand, but superficially - wow...

doctoremma

Ah ha, I see a few familiar faces round here!

This thread has been illuminating.

Anyone know anything about stars? I posted a question on the astronomy forum but no answers....

juneg

Please can anybody direct me to a link or website that explains about the higgs bosun particle in an accessible way for a child of 12 please who is interested in this type of physics.
many thanks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzQpeqE_wLg

juneg

That was enjoyable, thanks Aristotle!!