89
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 5:
Line 5: + + + +
→Is it real? Is it the Higgs?: new section
Higgs Boson? Higgs boson? Boson? bosun? You guys are all over the place on this one. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 17:01, 10 July 2012 (EDT)
Higgs Boson? Higgs boson? Boson? bosun? You guys are all over the place on this one. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 17:01, 10 July 2012 (EDT)
:"Higgs" is a proper name of an individual, so it will be capitalized; "boson" (correct spelling) is the name of a thing/object, and it is not capitalized. Make any corrections to reflect this. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:05, 10 July 2012 (EDT)
:"Higgs" is a proper name of an individual, so it will be capitalized; "boson" (correct spelling) is the name of a thing/object, and it is not capitalized. Make any corrections to reflect this. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:05, 10 July 2012 (EDT)
== Is it real? Is it the Higgs? ==
I may be confused, but I think a recent edit may be wrong. I'm not an expert on this, and my knowledge comes from the popular press. But I thought that what they announced, with 5 sigma / 1 in a million possibility of being a fluke was that ''the blip in the data at 126 Gev is real'', and hence that there is a particle in there. This was the announcement that was made with such fanfare on the 4th. The particle has the properties that the standard model predicts for the Higgs, that it decays into bottom quarks, etc. etc. This makes it very likely, ''but not 5 sigma likely'', that it actually is the Higgs. So the announcement came in two parts -- it is a particle, for sure, and it is the Higgs, most likely. A recent edit went in the opposite direction. Since I'm not an expert, I'll defer to LucoDaw on this. But please have a second look at this issue. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 22:16, 11 July 2012 (EDT)