
The Inevitability of Physical Laws: Why the Higgs Has to Exist (2012) [video] - lisper
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOEoffh6WTs
======
philipov
~2:35 > "In 2002, he moved to Harvard to become full professor there, and will
remain there until he joins our faculty of the institute in 2008"

I don't understand; when was this recorded? The Higgs Boson was discovered in
2012, and he refers to that event. Why is he referring to 2008 in the future
tense?

EDIT: It sounds like it is from the later part of 2012.

~~~
acchow
I'm a native English speaker - I feel it's totally valid to talk about a past
event in the future tense as used here. I can't explain why, but I've heard it
been used before and doesn't seem ambiguous or incorrect.

Edit: tho the past tense is preferable.

~~~
cormullion
Inconsistently used here, but it's the historical present:

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_present](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_present)

For some reason, I hear a old-style narration over a documentary film when I
hear this tense.

------
contravariant
Doe anyone know where I could find a more in-depth explanation of why there
can only be 0, 1/2, 1, 3/2, 2 spin fundamental particles??

~~~
miles7
If you're asking about why there's an upper limit to the spin, this Quora
thread had some good info (Simmons-Duffin is a top notch expert on field
theory): [https://www.quora.com/Why-are-there-no-spin-3-2-or-higher-
fu...](https://www.quora.com/Why-are-there-no-spin-3-2-or-higher-fundamental-
particles-in-the-standard-model-of-particle-physics) Short answer is that for
too high a spin the theories become non-renormalizable and break down [i.e.
require additional physics to enter] going to ever shorter length scales.

If you're asking why it goes in steps of 1/2 it's a group representation
theory thing (guessing you probably already know about that).

~~~
contravariant
I was mostly referring to the point in the talk where he claims that just
relativity and quantum mechanics is enough to imply that there are no spins
higher than 2, he kind of skips over that part.

In that view I'm not convinced renormalizability is a strong enough property,
since the graviton is famously non-renormalizeable (or so it seems, anyway).
But I'll have a closer look at the quora thread; maybe someone has a more
'fundamental' argument.

------
RachelF
Good video, thank you!

