
CERN scientists to announce proof of Higgs boson found - merraksh
http://phys.org/news/2012-07-cern-scientists-proof-higgs-boson.html
======
pagejim
Here is an easy to understand article about implications of this discovery:

[http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/07/higgs-boson-
breaks...](http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/07/higgs-boson-breaks-
physics/)

~~~
midko
And here's an animated introductory explanation of the Higgs boson particle
<http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap120501.html>

------
pessimist
They have certainly found something that is very close to the Higgs Boson
predicted by the standard model of particle physics. How do they know its the
Higgs?

[http://blog.vixra.org/2012/06/24/higgs-discovery-on-the-
brin...](http://blog.vixra.org/2012/06/24/higgs-discovery-on-the-brink-but-is-
it-the-higgs/)

There are some intriguing unexpected signals in the data that is public so
far:

[http://blog.vixra.org/2012/06/29/whats-the-deal-
with-h-%E2%8...](http://blog.vixra.org/2012/06/29/whats-the-deal-
with-h-%E2%86%92-ww/)

~~~
jessriedel
> How do they know its the Higgs?

Woit's comment is a pretty succinct explanation:

> The standard model gives very specific predictions for the behavior of the
> Higgs, which are fixed by the distinctive properties of the Higgs field
> (spontaneous breaking of the SU(2) gauge symmetry fixes how it interacts
> with gauge fields, giving mass to fermions fixes its interaction with them).
> These predictions have for a long long time shown that if the Higgs mass is
> 125 GeV, it could not be observed until the energies and luminosities of the
> LHC were available, and then it should be seen with certain specific signal
> sizes in certain specific decay channels.

> What the LHC experiments are seeing is, after decades of no such signal in
> these and similar channels, signals appearing in just the right channels,
> with roughly the right signal size. If this isn’t a Higgs, it’s something
> very like it.

[http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=4809&cpa...](http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=4809&cpage=1#comment-115426)

------
SquareWheel
To steal a user's comment, finally an article that doesn't include "God
particle" in the headline. I was rather disappointed in the CBC.

~~~
tokenadult
Leon Lederman, who popularized the phrase "God particle" with his book,

[http://www.amazon.com/The-God-Particle-Universe-
Question/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/The-God-Particle-Universe-
Question/dp/0618711686/)

has some serious street cred as a physicist

[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/198...](http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1988/lederman-
autobio.html)

and as a promoter science education reform. (I heard him speak on the latter
subject in my town at a science museum a few years ago.) I agree with you that
a term like that probably needs explanation in a popular article about
physics, but I can think of much more harmful terms in popular articles about
science.

~~~
SquareWheel

        but I can think of much more harmful terms
    

"Evolution? It's just a theory!"

------
zerostar07
It would be more interesting if they did _not_ find it. LHC needs more
exciting results to justify its cost.

~~~
jfoutz
Is 9 billion a lot? as an american, It's hard to see that as more than the
operational cost of a fighter jet.

Just trying to manage the data from the LHC lead directly to the world wide
web. I'm pretty sure there were a bunch of other technologies developed, like
the superconducting cable that power those magnets, that will have a big long
term payoff.

I mean, sure, it's a lot of money. I think we're getting NASA moon mission
level of return on our money. Paying a bunch of smart people solve really hard
problems does good things for everyone.

~~~
theorique
_as an american, It's hard to see that as more than the operational cost of a
fighter jet._

Not sure if you're being ironic but a fighter jet typically costs a couple of
orders of magnitude less than $9B - even the hugely expensive JSF (F-35) is
'only' $200M unit cost.

~~~
jfoutz
You're right. My estimate is off by a bit over an order of magnitude for the
f-22. they cost just under 50,000 an hour to operate
(<http://hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/USAFResponse.pdf>) you could certainly
operate more than 10 of them for 9 billion.

I think a B-2 will come close to that though. 1 billion in todays dollars and
130,000 an hour for operational costs. -it's not actually 2000 a minute,
there's a bunch of work before and after each flight.

