Glimpsing Higgs Boson: tracing subatomic particle amid the debris



This first appeared in Wired Science.

Newly Discovered Particle Appears to Be Long-Awaited Higgs Boson

by Adam Mann














During their talk, the LHC spokespeople stressed that their results are preliminary and will require further analysis to ensure the new particle is the Higgs boson. Yet plenty of other physicists are willing to call the Higgs a Higgs. “Many commenters out there are right in pointing out that no matter what CERN says, the world today will know that the Higgs boson has been discovered,” wrote particle physicist Tommaso Dorgio on his blog.










Image: Scientists assemble the endcap for the ATLAS experiment, one of the LHC’s two main experiments. Peter Ginter/CERN

People in this conversation

  • Guest - Carl Davidson

    Found this on DailyKOS this AM, a simplified metaphor, but good:

    "The Higgs field is like rain, and there is no place you can go to keep dry. Just like there’s no way to shield yourself from gravitation, there’s no way to hide from the rain that is the Higgs field. If there were no Higgs field, all the fundamental particles would be like dried-out sponges. Massless, dried-out sponges."

    Also, Scientific American's 'Instant Egghead' feature offers a two-minute video that isn't bad, either. Access it through the OUL, at the bottom of this page:

  • Guest - Contrarian




  • Guest - Miles Ahead

    And, also, what I found interesting was the way many in the U.S. news media treated this development and discovery politically. The question asked over and over to some expert guest--"Since the Higgs Boson was discovered in Switzerland," (at CERN which happens to be an internationally participatory center), "do you think the U.S. is falling behind in its scientific research?" OMg-particle.

  • Miles:

    I agree. It is important to note (and counteract) the way that "making America competitive" and "keeping America #1" has become a theme that soaks almost <em>everything</em> discussed in national official politics. Education of young? It is about economic competitivensess (are "we" as good as chinese high schoolers?). Provide healthcare to poor people? The question is can "America be competitive" if it adopts such new "entitlements." Every idea, change or problem is portrayed in the context of competition with China and other economic "rivals."

    Such political frameworks are totally toxic.... and totally capitalist (in their basis and implications).

  • Guest - Miles Ahead

    And certainly I agree with you Mike, as to the examples you laid out. But will add to the potpourri and underlying (but probably obvious to many, certainly to you) point that "keeping America Número Uno" is a necessity for the U.S. imperialists in beefing up its chauvinism, jingoism, patriotism--and all those disgusting "isms" for world domination, even in the realm of scientific discovery.

    Lest we not forget the (phony-ass) "Sputnik crisis" as example, and the freneticism and consternation the Soviets' launch caused the U.S. rulers...which in turn gave fodder (and justifications) to the already existing "Cold War."

  • Guest - Gary

    I was a little concerned that reports of the discovery of the "God particle" might somehow be used towards religious ends, as other scientific breakthroughs have been used in the past. (The Big Bang theory was propounded by the Belgian priest and astronomer Georges Lefebre from 1927; he thought it confirmed Christianity...) I imagine some folks will find ways to say this "poof of the God particle" is "proof of the existence of God" (because who else could have come up with something so amazing?)

    Anyway it was good to see press reports that Peter Higgs himself, born in northern England and long a professor at University of Edinburgh, is a staunch atheist who's always opposed the term.

  • I have noticed that a lot of reporting now has dropped the "god particle found" theme... and i assume it is for that reason.

    There has been value in scientists learning to popularize their work and discoveries (starting with naming particles "quark", and calling properties "spin," and naming something "nuclear winter" etc. etc. -- so that the controversies can more easily go viral).

    but the "god particle" was (from the beginning) a bad choice, laden with ways it obstructed the conveying of the discovery, and obscuring it all beneath a misunderstanding that scientists were finding proof of god.

    When picking this post, we (obviously) consciously picked an article that didn't use the "god particle" label.

  • Guest - P.Ranch

    Gary, I think you are mistaking Georges Lefebre for Georges Lemaitre. Either way, Lemaitre wasn't simply philosophizing about the nature of the Universe. He was a mathematician and physicist, and was one of the first to apply the equations of General Relativity and consider the implications of the expanding Universe, which the theory seemed to describe. As for utilizing it to justify Christianity, at least the article below claims that he opposed attempts to use the Big Bang theory to validate the Genesis creation story, the way groups like Answers in Genesis have more recently:

    I have no problem with people coming from religious backgrounds contributing to science. The Big Bang theory is one of the most important scientific breakthroughs of the 20th century, why should it matter if it was derived and described by a Belgian priest?

    I think the real problem is when scientific breakthroughs are taken apart and used piecemeal to support religious ideas like Intelligent Design and Creationism, which are wholly unscientific and undermine science. But it is a GOOD thing when religious people accept science, engage in science, and learn how to think scientifically. Religion isn't going away anytime soon, and will certainly exist in a socialist society. If religious people draw justification for their beliefs from science, that's fine if they actually understand the issue scientifically. As long as they aren't actively trying to "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" (Wedge Strategy), then I think that opens up the possibility of discussing philosophy, morality, and the implications of certain world views amongst friends and allies. Consider the example of the Clergy Letter Project and Evolution Sunday.

  • Guest - bezdomni








    The facts are:

    * This particle is the heaviest boson that has been discovered.
    * There is very little uncertainty (smaller margin than 1/1,000,000) that the model for this particle is consistent with the experimental results.
    * The particle seems to have all the properties of the Higgs Boson from the Standard Model, but further investigation may reveal additional properties that go beyond the standard model.

  • Guest - bezdomni

    "I was a little concerned that reports of the discovery of the “God particle” might somehow be used towards religious ends, as other scientific breakthroughs have been used in the past."

    Crackpots gonna crackpot. Refute them when doing so will set a good example for scientific inquiry and ignore them when it isn't worth the time.

    There are few people who would take such claims seriously. Those who would have much deeper issues with basic scientific education and wouldn't know or care very much what a Higgs Boson is anyway.

    Even most religious people understand that particle physics cannot prove the existence of God.

    "Anyway it was good to see press reports that Peter Higgs himself, born in northern England and long a professor at University of Edinburgh, is a staunch atheist who’s always opposed the term."

    Why? Would his contributions to science be any less valuable if he was a Christian? Or if he didn't mind the term?

    I don't see how this matters at all, except perhaps to people who are interested in biographical details about Peter Higgs.

    If people stop believing in God because they think being an atheist means they're smarter than non-atheists or because certain people they admire are atheists, then they have stopped believing in God for the wrong reason. A lot of the efforts to popularize atheism get it all wrong, it makes rejection of religion come off as childish and smug.

    I honestly don't care if he was an atheist or not. It makes no difference to me if he believed in God or not.

Leave your comments

Post comment as a guest

0 Character restriction
Your text should be more than 10 characters
Your comments are subjected to administrator's moderation.