Changes

:Scientists tend to avoid making conclusive statements when they're not sure. Unfortunately, "we think this might be the Higgs, assuming certain other conditions are met and we get more data" isn't as quotable in the popular press as "SCIENTISTS FIND GOD PARTICLE". There are other particles that the new data might represent, and [http://www.technologyreview.com/view/428428/higgs-boson-may-be-an-imposter-say-particle/ THIS ARTICLE] has a pretty good layman's overview of what other things the new discovery could be. Cheers!--[[User:Guitarsniper|Guitarsniper]] 12:28, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

:Scientists tend to avoid making conclusive statements when they're not sure. Unfortunately, "we think this might be the Higgs, assuming certain other conditions are met and we get more data" isn't as quotable in the popular press as "SCIENTISTS FIND GOD PARTICLE". There are other particles that the new data might represent, and [http://www.technologyreview.com/view/428428/higgs-boson-may-be-an-imposter-say-particle/ THIS ARTICLE] has a pretty good layman's overview of what other things the new discovery could be. Cheers!--[[User:Guitarsniper|Guitarsniper]] 12:28, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

:: I tend to agree with GuitarSniper here. I also abhor the name 'God particle'. It has nothing to do with god in any sense, I think it was poorly conceived, and perhaps intended as more a descriptor of its elusive and mysterious nature. I have yesterday's Nature Journal in front of me, however, and the news section is treating the discovery ''as'' the Higgs, effectively. A little bit of background is necessary here I think; they have discovered a new particle with an energy which the Standard Model predicts is within the acceptable range for a theoretically predicted particle. It was one of the few remaining energies to be explored, which I think is down to poor luck than anything else. Because of this, CERN would have been announcing either that it is does, or does not exist, very soon anyway. Not existing would have potentially been even more exciting news, as it would suggest the Standard Model was actually incomplete. I should point out, also, that the standard model is self-consistent, which means it seems to explain all the fundamental forces, except gravity, without needing any more elements. This is normally a sign of a solid candidate for a scientific theory. Many super-/string theories are also self-consistent, but the energies needed to test the hypotheses are unattainable at the moment, and may never be realized. The real goal in the search for the Higgs was to confirm the existence of the Higgs ''field'', which all massive particles are believed to interact with in order to derive their mass. This is achieved by smashing protons together hard enough such that a quantized, discrete particle flys out of the mix. The probability of the data recorded being due to an as-yet uncharacterised particle, rather than random chance or noise, is  99.99996... etc percent. The scientists involved can only say the particle currently appears to be consistent with the ''theoretically predicted'' higgs boson. Work to determine the behaviour of the particle will be required now to confirm that is does do what is expected (and there are a few gaps in the knowledge relating to this). The Standard Model of particle physics says this is the last piece of the jigsaw. but it isn't necessarily in reality, as there are many non-standard models that include other elements (it is too early to tell whether any of these hold any truth). Further, the behaviour could be discovered to be radically different from what we expect of the Higgs mechanism (the process by which matter is bestowed mass) - in which case, whether it should still be called the 'Higgs' boson would be largely a linguistic choice. The 5 sigma (standard deviations) of significance that the result was determined to be within is what, in the Particle Physics community, constitutes a confirmed new particle. This result was found by the ATLAS detector. The Large Hadron Collider determined it to within 4.5 sigma I believe. It is an exponential scale, so 5 sigma is an order of magnitude or so better than 4 sigma.  

:: I tend to agree with GuitarSniper here. I also abhor the name 'God particle'. It has nothing to do with god in any sense, I think it was poorly conceived, and perhaps intended as more a descriptor of its elusive and mysterious nature. I have yesterday's Nature Journal in front of me, however, and the news section is treating the discovery ''as'' the Higgs, effectively. A little bit of background is necessary here I think; they have discovered a new particle with an energy which the Standard Model predicts is within the acceptable range for a theoretically predicted particle. It was one of the few remaining energies to be explored, which I think is down to poor luck than anything else. Because of this, CERN would have been announcing either that it is does, or does not exist, very soon anyway. Not existing would have potentially been even more exciting news, as it would suggest the Standard Model was actually incomplete. I should point out, also, that the standard model is self-consistent, which means it seems to explain all the fundamental forces, except gravity, without needing any more elements. This is normally a sign of a solid candidate for a scientific theory. Many super-/string theories are also self-consistent, but the energies needed to test the hypotheses are unattainable at the moment, and may never be realized. The real goal in the search for the Higgs was to confirm the existence of the Higgs ''field'', which all massive particles are believed to interact with in order to derive their mass. This is achieved by smashing protons together hard enough such that a quantized, discrete particle flys out of the mix. This is analogous to the photon being a quantisation of an electromagnetic field. The higgs field is effectively that which fills a vacuum, and is persistent across the whole universe.  The probability of the data recorded being due to an as-yet uncharacterised particle, rather than random chance or noise, is  99.99996... etc percent. The scientists involved can only say the particle currently appears to be consistent with the ''theoretically predicted'' higgs boson. Work to determine the behaviour of the particle will be required now to confirm that is does do what is expected (and there are a few gaps in the knowledge relating to this too). The Standard Model of particle physics says this is the last piece of the jigsaw. but it isn't necessarily in reality, as there are many non-standard models that include other elements (it is too early to tell whether any of these hold any truth). Further, the behaviour could be discovered to be radically different from what we expect of the Higgs mechanism (the process by which matter is bestowed mass) - in which case, whether it should still be called the 'Higgs' boson would be largely a linguistic choice. The 5 sigma (standard deviations) of significance that the result was determined to be within is what, in the Particle Physics community, constitutes a confirmed new particle. This result was found by the ATLAS detector. The Large Hadron Collider determined it to within 4.5 sigma I believe. It is an exponential scale, so 5 sigma is an order of magnitude or so better than 4 sigma.  

:: It is definitely fair to consider the particle 'discovered', and the Higgs is the most suitable name for it right now (and we need a name better than "a-particle-consistent-with-the-Higgs-boson-determined-to-5-sigma-accuracy. So I can say with what is effectively certainty, in this context, is that the Higgs exists. I will let someone else update the article in light of this information, I am not going to step on anybody's toes, I haven't made any reversions myself either. I have made the odd edit here and there, but on minor points. I can't really edit myself anyway due to the lack of night editing based on the server's own clock (I'm in Europe). Plus, I'm too tired to write in an encyclopaedic manner right now. Some simple scripting could potentially determine the user's localtime if the rule must be in place?

:: It is definitely fair to consider the particle 'discovered', and the Higgs is the most suitable name for it right now (and we need a name better than "a-particle-consistent-with-the-Higgs-boson-determined-to-5-sigma-accuracy. So I can say with what is effectively certainty, in this context, is that the Higgs exists. I will let someone else update the article in light of this information, I am not going to step on anybody's toes, I haven't made any reversions myself either. I have made the odd edit here and there, but on minor points. I can't really edit myself anyway due to the lack of night editing based on the server's own clock (I'm in Europe). Plus, I'm too tired to write in an encyclopaedic manner right now. Some simple scripting could potentially determine the user's localtime if the rule must be in place?