What is the Higgs Boson?

What is the Higgs Boson?

Ratings: 8.15/10 from 33 users.

What is the Higgs Boson?Scientists behind Sixty Symbols (Ed Copeland, Roger Bowley and Tony Padilla from the University of Nottingham) are doing their best to answer what actually is the Higgs Boson.

Named after Peter Higgs, an Edinburgh University physicist, the Higgs boson is crucial to understanding the origin of mass. The Higgs boson is a hypothetical elementary particle predicted by the Standard Model of particle physics. It belongs to a class of particles known as bosons, characterized by an integer value of their spin quantum number.

The Higgs field is a quantum field with a non-zero value that fills all of space, and explains why fundamental particles such as quarks and electrons have mass. The Higgs boson is an excitation of the Higgs field above its ground state.

Experiments to determine whether the Higgs boson exists are currently being performed using the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN.

More great documentaries

147 Comments / User Reviews

  1. I am by no means a particle physicist or mathematician; however, centuries ago, theoretical physicist referred to the "ether" to attempt to explain their observations. Einstein came along and said their is no ether, it is "space time" curved by objects that have mass. So, it seems to me the Higgs boson, the Higgs field, is the stuff that fills space between the earth and the sun and the space between our solar system and the galactic center and the space between the Milky Way galaxy and all the other galaxies. So, when a region of cosmic gas eventually collapses to form a star or a planet "space time" (the Higgs field) is stretched from surrounding regions and concentrated (curved) into the region of increasing mass (forming star or forming planet). So, the Higgs boson and the Higgs field make up "space time" which is nothing more than the "ether". Help me out here, I'm just an interested observer.

  2. Much fun, watching this and listening to these humble, brilliant men explain the frontiers of thinking in their and closely related fields, as well as the process by which complex scientific finds and work get done. These outtakes were a nice addition to what I know about this topic. I recommend that readers also consult the blog of Matt Strassler, formerly a particle physicist at Rutgers and Harvard, now a freelance science communicator.

    On the topic of intelligence: I'd much rather give money to build a new Webb space telescope or LHC every week than give it to "80% of people living on $10 a day." In my nation we tried pouring tens of trillions in the dimmest and most feckless, and all we have to show for it globally is massive proliferation of the dim and feckless. Go to the site Population Pyramids dot net and see how much of human creativity and intelligence has been drained into the sands of r-strategy reproduction and idiocracy.

    That's population genetics. The vast majority of humans distribute well to the left of the intelligence and potential curves. That "genius searching the trash dump" is arithmetically so improbable for a given population of failed humans that it isn't worth wasting the money finding it.

    I speak as a woman born to a very poor family whose IQ tested (multiple times) between 145 and 165. Nothing stopped me, and I was too smart to "beg on the streets" and so genetically robust that no "preventable childhood disease" stopped me either. I had most of them, and several enough to cause me lifelong physical problems that still did not impede me from getting a Ph.D. in statistics and having a good career supporting the proliferation of intelligence. In fact my IQ test that yielded the 145 I took with full-blown pneumonia and a fever of 101. I look back over my life now and see that no hardship ever stopped my intelligence from expressing itself, and I spent my first 22 years in a place that makes Ferguson, MO, look like a garden spot.

    The idea that genius or high intelligence is common in all populations has absolutely no data behind it. Quite the opposite: 100 years of data show exactly which populations generate which clusters of personality and intelligence traits.

    The idea that genius is that fragile strikes me as romantic...and condescending. Does the previous commenter (who sounds so resentful of people of high intelligence who don't trail some hard luck story behind them) believe that I needed him to thrive despite the rotten hand I was dealt at birth?

    Guess, what--I didn't! Life is an intelligence test, and the genuine geniuses I've ever known have been incredibly resourceful, robust, and creative people. To be stopped by one's life and surroundings from realizing one's potential is a commentary on and assessment of that potential.

  3. Very interesting documentary. I found very interesting the different levels of skepticism among the 3 speakers. The first one at a relatively young middle age displayed considerable skepticism. The second older scientist basically expressed skepticism not just about the Higgs Boson, but about the standard model as a whole. And then the young last guy really believed. And he did a much poorer job with the hat explanation than the older skeptical guy.

    The second scientist brought up various papers and also talked about how scientists in different specialties in quantum theory can't talk to each other, much less to the public.

    I think a lot of that happens because science has become big business and secret. I tried to look up the Anderson article and it popped up first on a google search. But when I went to the link you either had to sign in as a paid subscriber or pay a download fee.

    What about all the super smart young people out there who might contribute if only they had access to these papers. Satyendra Bose, who they mentioned and after whom they named the boson, translated Einstein's papers into Hindi and distributed them.

    Do these people think that only a small cadre of people have the intelligence to do what they do? Maybe, but super smart people get born every day all around the world. But 80% of the people live on less than $10 a day, so they have no chance under our pay to play system. How many geniuses wind up searching for scraps in trash dumps or begging on the streets, or dead at an early age from a preventable childhood disease?

  4. great documentary! i am not a physicists so at times i was a bit lost, but overall, i have a better understanding of the higgs boson particle

  5. can i tell you something buddy ??? the name higgs boson's does not necessarily contains the name of higgs , here the portion boson came from the most renowned physicist and mathematician sir sottendronath boso ... we call it by his name the boson's particle ..you should all make up your mind correctly each time you utter this word ...

  6. terrible, boring speecher. i came to this link to learn this ****, but he is constantly making me sleepy.

  7. Screw the critics. It's a brillilant theory...

  8. It's a brilliant concept. Screw the nay-sayers...

  9. Thanks!

  10. what i understood so far is:
    "Higgs didn't push himself!!!!"

  11. my brain hurts

  12. Hi. You could do uploading of scripts that video, please? I need of subtitle in english for understand

    1. If you didn't find answer to your query yet, Youtube provides English transcribed captioning service.. simply turn on the Caption (gear like icon at bottom right) in youtube videos...

  13. I'm sorry, but you 'aint got me'. I, for, one haven't a clue what your talking
    about. The Higgs-boson particle, (or whatever,) may well be correct, in that it DOES give other particles 'mass' ----------------- but it might also give atoms
    their colour! I wonder what colour they (atoms) are?

  14. If the Higgs-Boson particle gives mass to other particlels ------------ there must be as many Higgs- Boson particles in the universe, as there is ordinary matter. If not, then each Higgs-Boson particle must be infinate in mass! It must pass on its Mass-giving 'magic' to every other particle ------------ which
    leads me on to the next question; how does it avoid giving its 'magic', to a
    particle that has previously been 'magic'd'?

    1. It is the Higgs FIELD, not the particle, that gives mass to ordinary matter.

    2. Thank you very much. O.K, then, I'll ask the same question ------------------ just replace 'particle' with the word, FIELD..

    3. Not sure what you mean then... it's like a boat moving through water, the friction between the hull and water is an analogy to the higgs interaction between a mass and the field. When the boat moves fast enough, it creates foam, that would be an analogy to creating a higgs particle.

    4. If the boat's wake/foam is like the field created by the Higgs-Bosun, it MUST contain exactly the correct amount of mass to pass-on to the massless particle ----------------- even if that massless particle ends up the heaviest particle, or, the lightest particle, in the known universe. I'd like to know, how this Higgs-Bosun particle knows that? How does it keep the amounts 'just right'? Seeing, as there are unknown amounts of particles that go to make up the uniiverse -------------------- there MUST be unknown amounts of Higgs-Bosun 'things', to match these! Unless, of course, one Higgs- Bosun 'thingy' does the lot?
      No matter HOW you describe this Higgs-Bosun particle 'orp0piru', my questions still require an answer! THANKS, PRUNK.

    5. actually it depends on the particle. some particles interact with higgs field more then the others and some don't interact at all. particles interacting more then others are heavier. particles which don't interact don't have a mass. and again, as was mentioned above, it is a field and I like the boat anaogy.

    6. been here 39 out of 49 minutes now > best i can figure from the discussion on the discussion >is still at 0 which is the value for what it means to my equation resistant brain. So .. why not ....Once the symmetry is broken[assuming the process of examination in itself disrupts the symmetry of the example ] tip over the hat and throw an apple into the hole>the apple being an example of a disruption in the symmetry >and yet philosophically speaking a symmetry within a symmetry > what if you take out a chunk of the symmetrical example and sauce it ....another chunk for pie and another chunk for just chomping on while trying to come up with what you want to do with the rest of the apple. In breaking up the symmetrical value of 0 , you disrupt the whole but in the process create a thing of great beauty, that has much more potential than the perfect example of nothing . The application of desire [measured as positive charge into a negative field]resulting in a working model of a god particle >. or not ...

  15. I could do without the ticker at the bottom which is distracting me from trying to understand these ideas.

  16. However Kim Alseer u did just make a paradox, cause 10 cents even though its mathmatically = to a dime; it is still ten cents and not a dime.

  17. Kim Alseer im an American. Here theres 1 understanding, U got 2 cents, that is not = too, nor will it ever be a dime. So, back to the same thing of makeing the dime :) . U need 8 more cents. I could be wrong but im pretty sure my math is right on this. Common sense is a great power! Not a mirror or made believe fountain that only gathers 8 cents. TY!

    1. As i said, you can add any value you want the potential is infinite. There is no absolute as you like to claim. its all in your imagination.

  18. lets say the field is inside Plack, then the story of the universe/ all its particles, mass, and fluctuations are outside, in the past or in the future, and there by they gain values by being reflections of an infinite zero mass potential, so basically the higgs field is a mirror so potential can be described. far out but just my 2 cent. well make it a dime. This could in fact tie life to the very concept of a higgs field, life is a higs field, adding values to what ever it want. THATS INTERESTING! ;-)

  19. @Achems_Razor
    I can no longer afford the time for all of these circular 'discussions'. I made a comment about how eloquently someone described a concept and am unable to respond in kind to someone else's derogatory and unsolicited put down. Not talking about you, you always are polite. x

    1. norlavine...we are not picking sides if that is what you think, everybody has to adhere to the comment policy or the comments will be removed.

      We are definitely not picking on you, if you have comments to make concerning the docs in question, please do so, we always welcome that.

    2. @Achems_Razor
      Some folk have 'carte blanche' and some folk have to watch what they say. Simple as that. Being constantly personally derided when I make an honest comment doesn't phase me at all, but some who dish it out ad libitum apparently find it rather offensive when they are on the receiving end. That's all, goodnight xx

    3. @norlavine,

      Not true at all. Robert just gave a general statement (as if the scientists know nothing about math) as a response to your well hidden provocation (...their various and seemingly incoherent descriptions of the 'elusive' Higgs boson) without "describing" any of your personal attributes. On the other hand you rushed to judge his persona and mentality. If you have anything to add related to the documentary, please do so.

  20. If the Higgs Boson is crucial, as they say, to understanding the origin of mass, then it is crucial to understanding the origin of the universe. And they are not sure if they have it as yet. So how do we know there is not something else crucial to that understanding?

  21. Physicist Leon Lederman an Atheist coined the phrase "the God particle" he wanted to call it "the Goddamn particle" his editor would not let him. (Too bad)

    1. I wonder why he didn't opt for the Damned particle instead, may be his editor didn't like that either.
      You mean too bad.

    2. @Achems_Razor
      I personally would prefer to coin the phrase 'Higgs Bogun' and my editor said: 'go right ahead' xx

    3. Hi norlavine, "Higgs Bogun"?? please elaborate!

    4. @Achems_Razor
      Hi! Look up either 'bogun' or (even better)'bogan' in the 'urban dictionary'. xx

    5. norlavine...Still do not know what you are getting at, "Bogan"?...fascinating beast, majority are hideously repugnant, unintelligent, pertaining to Australia.??

    6. @Achems_Razor
      Just a play on words and thought 'the damned particle' would relate more to it's archaic/religious meaning = a concept of condemnation by God, therefore I replaced 'boson' with an (almost) similar word to 'bogan' but, of course, with totally different meanings. Hope that cleared up any confusion!
      PS: Personally, I believe they are all scratching at thin air...they are all looking to the right - perhaps the answer is to the left.xx

    7. norlavine...why do you believe that they are scratching at thin air? And what is to the left? is it the same as north of the north pole?

  22. A Higgs boson walks into a church,
    "We don't allow Higgs bosons in here!" shouts the priest.
    the particle asks "But without me, how can you have mass?" .

  23. Higgs Boson according to present findings is hypothetical. Why ? So far known Boson was the discovery of our past scientist like Prof. Satyan Bose of India on his mathematical calculation communicated to Einstein in connection with Theory of Relativity etc. Farther more recently, Quartz particles or Anti matters as per String Theory it has only linear existence with no width or height. This is absolutely fantastic. If a particle exist though we may not conceive with our naked eye or with any scientific instrument for mathematical calculation it may not be true that it does not exist. Only our perception or knowledge is limited till now to estimate width & height, which is infinitely smaller but not same as zero perception.

  24. An accidentally leaked video from CERN today (supposedly due to a technical glitch, and almost immediately taken down) announced the discovery of a new particle, that "decays into two protons, has an integer spin, and a mass roughly 100 times that of a proton." All of which fit the Higgs profile.

    Wednesday is going to be very interesting, indeed, looks like.

    1. From the BBC Science Editor Geneva

      Higgs boson-like particle discovery claimed at LHC

      The results announced at Cern (European Organization for Nuclear Research), home of the LHC in Geneva, were met with loud applause and cheering.

      Prof Peter Higgs, after whom the particle is named, wiped a tear from his eye as the teams finished their presentations in the Cern auditorium.

      "I would like to add my congratulations to everyone involved in this achievement," he added later.

      "It's really an incredible thing that it's happened in my lifetime."

      Today is a day I will never forget, my greatest congratulations go to all involved in this worldwide effort, today I am proud to be part of the human race.

    2. Nothing conclusive yet.

    3. I think you might be being a little absolutist here? If Stephen Hawking is prepared to pay up $100 dollars on its discovery it’s conclusive enough for me.

    4. I didn't know Hawking was from Scotland! :)

    5. Stephen Hawking, in an interview with the BBC's Pallab Ghosh: ''It seems i have just lost 100 dollars''

    6. Sure, they can't say conclusively that it's the scalar particle they predicted in their models, that will take more time, they have none the less discovered a new particle. the statistical significance of the results were 4.9 sigma for the CMS detector and five sigma for ATLAS that seems pretty conclusive to me.

  25. @Moderators

    A reply to @Pysmythe just disappeared? Was there something wrong with it or should I repost?

    1. To let you and others know. It seems we are broken, hope it will be fixed soon. I will try to enter most posts manually, will not guarantee anything though.

  26. AP News reports one hour and 10 minutes ago that the "God particle" has been found. They have a shadow and a footprint, and all that is left is for them to actually "see it".

    They plan to make an announcement Wednesday.

    1. Nice one Pysmythe.

      This is from today’s Guardian. Monday 2 July 2012 19.57 BST

      Higgs boson: US physicists find strongest evidence yet of “god particle”

      Scientists at Tevatron say they have come close to proving particle’s existence, and hope Cern will announce firm results.

      "We will need to wait until Wednesday and the latest results from the LHC before getting the full picture," said Tovey. And although the Cern spokesman James Gillies called Fermilab's "a nice result", he quickly added: "It will be interesting to see how it lines up with Cern's results on Wednesday. Nature is the final arbiter so we'll have to be a little more patient before we know for sure whether we've found the Higgs."

      Tom LeCompte, a scientist at Argonne National Lab who works at Cern and knows the results, said he was confident the Higgs would be shown to exist, or not exist, this year. But he would not disclose if the findings scheduled to be unveiled on Wednesday would be definitive.
      "I know the 2012 is the year. I can't tell you July is the month," he said.

      Others were less circumspect. "This is the most exciting week in physics history," said the theoretical physicist Joe Lykken of Fermilab.

      This doc takes on even greater significance now. I’m so glad I watched it and recommend it to all.

    2. couldnt the same be said about big foot and the loch ness monster? lol

    3. I laughed pretty hard at this one. Good one! Thankfully, not the same kind of "scientists," though. And they know this is the sort of monster you could never "see," anyway. Come to think of it, I'm sure those others are, too, but don't tell them that!

  27. As i am watching the suggested talk The Hidden Reality, i got to think why is this one What is the Higgs Boson showing on TDF instead of Keen?
    Just wondering.
    A special interest of the owner of the site perhaps, although i think Vlatko owns both sites.

    1. Yes, even though the sites are separate, Vlatko owns both.

    2. @Azilda,

      I thought of placing this here, because several people are interviewed (kind of a doc format). On the second hand, no doubt they're just interviews and should be at Keen Talks but, I don't know, I've put it here.

    3. I see the interest at the moment...tomorrow being Higgs big day.

  28. thanks ,for correcting me .i'm not firm on american literature,except of having the pleasure of enjoying hemmingway,bukowski,sallinger(?),burroughs & the sorts,but never 'uncle tom's cabin',which is a standard for american pupils,or not?here in europe it's more hesse,fallada,goethe etc...i've never caught up on 18th-early 19th century american literature,must do !i guess i mixed-up early childhood TV impressions(from 'roots' to 'our little farm on the prairy' with actual history....lol)!
    will have to polish up my side-board for a new purchased h.b.stowe book,which hopefully will polish-up my missing knowledge!regards.........uncle dumb

    1. uncle tom's cabin really isnt a standard of our educational system, except maybe in american lit elective courses, though the work of clemens (twain's real name) USED to be. uncle tom is actually misrepresented by the current use of the phrase as a perjorative, as the character was falsely defferential to "the man" in public light, but had a subversive side as well. both ms stowe and twain did an excellent job of illustrating life and biases of the time, their characters are carefully crafted illustrations of good, bad, ignorance, greed, malice, etc. ms stowe's work inspired many to ponder, and then support the abolishonist movement by intent, while twain was more a journalist, he didnt push agenda so much as just desire to realistically put a face on the world he grew up and resided in. there is currently a publisher here who has rewritten "tom sawyer" with politically correct names for the minority protagonists, which i find very "revisionist", as it really steals much of what he was attempting to convey from the work. oh, and "uncle dumb" is being a bit hard on yourself, as if you were never exposed to the works, it is a VERY easy error to make, many here do as well, lol

  29. wasn't he the one with the "uncle-tom-judge" quote?i was quite fond of my
    mark twain punned reply,as having the opportunity of using terms like "res'twain't"-order & 'mark-my-word'......but no response of shame or defence?!i guess you're right ,as you seem to have had multiple pleasures of
    communicating with the gentleman,as i haven't.....i envy your 'contenance'!

    1. exactly correct! but in his defense, "uncle tom" wasnt a twain character, but one of harriet beecher stowe. actually ive had the "pleasure" of a few replies (all negative), and just reading his comments on several threads. i think below was actually my first reply to him (though i could be wrong).his moniker struck a chord, as ive had "run ins" with the nibiru bunch on other sites, and im blessed(cursed) with a good memory. i honestly doubt enki even searches out replies, perhaps as an insulator of criticism of his opinions/views. so, i guess my reply to him was an exercise in futility, but ive engaged in those before and escaped with reasonably intact epidermal tissue, lol

  30. @Ivar

    if that were so, it would be very difficult to achieve such stability in mass, which is what we observe.

    i'm no physicist, but whatever the origin of mass is, it must be bound up within the composition of the larger particles of which it is an aspect.

    the fact that in the early (apparently massless) universe, it played no part is extremely odd, by the way.

  31. Fascinating. I love what he says about how we need the lack of symmetry in the universe to exist. I could listen to this kind of thing all day.

    Odd, but, this is exactly what my father the Kabbalist says. (not the Madonna kind of Kaballah, the hard core thing)

  32. "Higgs Boson" is nothing because it hasn´t been found - and it never will be either.

    The "origin of mass" has nothing to do with a single particle, but with several dynamic forces that acts together on gasses and particles.

    1. @Ivar Nielsen,

      I wonder what will you say after CERN press conference next week. Check the link in my previous comment.

  33. Ohhh lol at GodmanEnki - Fool!

    1. play nice, daniel.... lol (sorry, i honestly just couldnt resist)

  34. why do you not mention : Boson in Higg's Boson is after the name of Satyendra Nath Bose an Indian and Bengali Scientist who gave mathematical model of Einstein's Theory of Relativity

  35. my thanks go out to az,dew & waldo (my nephew got a high, due to your 'likes'
    which gave him the notion of posting 'crap' is a virtue!!??°!& he doesn't even speak english!),for replying!thank god,they were deleted(excuse moi,psymythe)!
    cheers for the comforting reply,i've more hope for roddenberry's visions than in 'the venus project',which share the same visionary result for mankind...
    but whom came first????
    again,sorry for the disturbance,i'm now going back to baby-sitting my nephew
    & will hopefully see you all tomorrow,with new news about higgs & his undetectable boson(or the other way around?),which hopefully don't make him look like a thick ' planck '.....(higgs,of course!!!)

    1. Only the best gets deleted...or at least that's how it feels like sometimes.
      News about the higgs and his boson? I think once they find what ther're looking for, they'll be looking for what else they could be looking for. At the moment they make it sound like it's the limit.

    2. Az...I agree, if they find the Higgs Boson I do believe there still would be no limit, even if the physicists/scientists find the TOE, that still would not be the end all.

      "There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
      There is another theory that this has already happened."...(Douglas Adams)

      Falls in line with Hugh Everett 111...multiple universes theory.

  36. I like the broken symmetry, one of the only things that almost makes sense to me. Brian Cox explained it somewhere before. I picture it as a water wheel, weighted to make it turn otherwise it stands still. I might be wrong but it's as right as I can get at the moment ;) Did anyone see the free energy doc with the inventors? Now I wonder, if the universe is going to slow and die, how do they ever expect to keep a simple machine going without giving it a push now and then? No need to answer, I might not understand ;)

    1. Actually you have it exactly right man. Both are closed systems, meaning they are doomed to reach a point when entropy is at its highest potential value and all energy has been transformed into unusable forms. It has been transformed into heat and motion in the more simple system and everything from heat and motion to mass and chemical bonds in the more complicated system, the universe. Either way it will dissapate and the machine will stop. Now I know many inventors have come up with extremely efficient machines that may run for an unbelievable amount of time before this happens but, eventually it must happen- period. Otherwise nothing we knew about physics would be right, and we know that isn't the case.
      Perpetual motion though is a fine goal, even though we will never achieve it unless we find some way to alter the laws of physics as we know them. It leads us to more and more efficient machines, it inspires people, and many of the machines I have seen are like works of art when in motion. If you want to see some really cool stuff and meet some really inspiring people just google perpetual motion machines and check it out.

    2. Afternoon wald0,
      If the machines are losing their energy in friction (?) is the universe dying of gravity? Does that question make sense?
      Edit, if higgs gives things mass is it making them have gravity? Sorry to confuse but I don't know how else to word it :)

  37. the particle (higgs boson) is like a single brick in a huge thick wall. imagine the energy one would have to commit in a single, rapidly applied blow to dislodge one of the most central bricks intact. machines like the cern are called collidors or atom smashers for a reason, they are kinetic energy weapons for attacking these particles. dislodge a partial brick from my wall, you get inconclusive results. same for a mass of partial and whole bricks still bound with mortar. the analogy isnt perfect, of course, but it goes a way toward excusing the elusive nature of the particle. the nature of the particle itself reminds me of helium in a way. it wont phase change into a thicker state of existance (helium is a byproduct of natural gas harvesting, for the most part. the gas is collected in a vessel, and supercooled until all but the helium phase changes to liquid, then the helium is sucked out of the vessel). now, is it because it is so light, or is it because it is already "frozen", and thus cant "freeze" anymore? it would seem possible that the theoretical "super-energized" particle could be just the opposite, a "super de-energized" particle, and changes radically when that state is disturbed. no energy, no mass, that's the "back end" of relativity. all of the universe we can detect has a common thread, it resonates in one way or another. it might hum, it might whine, it might dance, it might spin, it might oscillate, but ALL resonates. is it possible the higgs does not, and if forced to, it becomes detectable as a different particle? perhaps the field, and particle have already been "detected" as much as it can be with our insturmentation, as that elusive "dark matter" and "dark energy". how about an even further speculation, could it be the "messenger" of transfer of energy? that its natural entropic state requires it to strive for "sum zero" VERY enthusiastically? disturb that entropy, it becomes a photon, or gluon, etc, but only until it sheds the gained energy to the next boson, then it reverts to "higgs laziness"? such a body would be for all intents impossible to detect, as heisenberg said you cant examine without disturbing, and any disturbance would illicit a metamorphisis (albeit temporary) into a different detectable particle. such a brick could never really be dislodged from my wall analogy, at least not as itself, it could only exist as a part of a matrix of brick and mortar, or it would become a cinderblock, or cobble stone, or casing stone, if dislodged solitarily. now i know, "but harry, the fly in the ointment is the higgs is postulated as a particle WITH mass"... what if they had the wrong sign in front of that mass number, maybe the "+" should be "-". feel free to hurl insults, poke holes in my speculation, speculate on my ancestral lineage or IQ level, whaddaya think kiddies?

  38. So... we thrive in the dip of the brim of a Universal Sombrero?
    I'd imagine a few cases of Cuervo and one hell of a mariachi band is in store for some of these blokes pretty soon. :)

    1. Universal Sombrero? Here comes the torus again.

    2. Similar enough to pique one's curiosity, anyway! Makes me wonder a little bit about the power of intuition.

    3. "ole, torus torus"? running with the sombrero theme, lol

  39. A mass-less very early universe... So kinda like a bag of broccoli-noodles: Sauce will thicken upon standing, lol.

    edit- Oh, wow, right after I clicked pause off, he went into a food analogy of his own. Makes me feel like I was on the right track just a little bit... somehow, lol.

    1. or more like the opposite, as mass is a function of energy... to gain mass energy must be ADDED, not removed E=M(CC), thus M=E/(CC), C is constant, so to add mass energy must be added... thaw the frozen tuna into sushi, lol

    2. It was a shock to me when the first interviewee said that in the very early universe everything was mass-less. He said that during that (mere fraction of a second, I'm sure) time, they now think all the particles were evenly spaced between one another, with no way, therefore (somehow, lol), for gravity to to get anything to interact with anything else, before the establishment of the Higgs field... or something like that.
      Very weird... So, the Higgs field is, I don't know, a by-product, or something? But how, if nothing could interact with anything else?
      Forget the math, somebody give me a visual!

    3. how about a pool table. it is covered in balls, all with 1 inch between them. static, entropic, sum zero existance. now, drop another ball anywhere on that table. energy added, entropy disturbed, particles (balls) interact (collide, fall in pockets, bounce off the table, etc). for adding energy to give mass, how about a water bomb (balloon full of water if our yank expression is alien to you). the water added to the balloon adds energy (stretches the elastic envelope), and mass (a gram per milliliter). knot the open end, toss it at your kid sister. on contact, the envelope breaks, liberating the water, restoring the balloon to it's original entropic state, albeit torn asunder now, and the energy is transferred "MOMMMMMMM! PYS IS BEING MEAN!!!" very much oversimplified in both cases, but illustrative to a point, and great fun if i remember my youth correctly, lol

    4. But where does the extra ball suddenly come from? Or am I over complicating things again? :)

    5. Out of the magician pocket. Oups!

    6. Good opening for a new book of everything, the magicians balls dropped and hey presto, the universe was born! ;)

    7. whisper that b word please...all religious are still asleep.

    8. Good point! Edited! ;)

    9. Good grief! you aren't a relative of WoodyAllen are you?

      Think Occam's Razor!

    10. Evening Blue, I hope I'm not, he marries them doesn't he?
      Whatever is most likely is most probably true? I don't know? Did everything just seem to be perfectly balanced for a split second but wasn't really? Something tiny. If you were building a table and got a measurement wrong, only 3 legs touch the floor. The mistake/imbalance was there all along?

    11. I have a friend who makes furniture, all his chairs have 5 legs...just in case i guess.

    12. You know if that's true, that the mistake was there all along, that it is still perfect in an imperfect way. Not a mistake at all :)

    13. that's the million dollar question, lol. just got home from a hard days labor at "bob's house of fab and finish horror", sorry for the delay in reply. it could be a "ball" evolves into a different shape (a torus, an ovoid) either physically or energetically, thus violating the entropic state. it wouldnt need to do much, especially in the current "pre-big bang" universe model. any change at all would cause a disturbance, and then "zowie" our current reality is born. it could be that the entropic pre-bang universe was still assembling the matrix of entropic particles, and one just violated the entropic state as a random fluctuation. it could be some vandal from another dimensional reality decided it was too damned boring, and kicked a particle just for fun. i wasnt there that i can remember, so all i can do is speculate. my bet is illegal aliens or commies had something to do with it, you know how mischeivous they both are, roflmao. thats why i have long held the hubble big bang model was really an attempt to allow science and religion to peacefully coexist, as it allows for yahweh, the flying spaghetti monster, or sparky the robot's cat mr jinx to provide that "spark" that destroyed that beautiful still life drawing. though the red shifts are indicative of dopplerism, they could also be caused by the laws of thermodynamics. as light is fixed in speed of travel, any loss of energy would have to manifest as a loss of vibratory motion, rather than linear speed. such a loss of vibratory motion would shift light to the red. either explanation would allow for all observed phenomena, right down to the background microwave hum of the distant universe. as i often tell my employer "i leave my psychic powers home when i come here, as the humid environment causes unsightly corrosion", so any explanation i can offer is no more or less than a speculative guess. so, ill stick with the illegals or reds theory, as it fits my countries current politics so well ; D

    14. Well Harry, I like your answer! The bit I understood was 'cat' I'm going to keep that bit because next time something about string theory pops up I can picture that cat with a ball of wool and just fill my head with fluffiness! Not so hot on the FSM, unless it was he that dropped a meatball? ;)

    15. im not really a fan of string theory, i find it kind of violates reality. im one of those puritanical "if you need 15 dimensions to explain the universe, you must have displaced a decimal point somewhere" traditionalists. i came up with a very similar GUT (grand unification theory) a decade and a half ago, and mine works in our current reality, but dr kaku is a respected physicist, and i am a mere mortal, so i defer to the exalted one,lol. yes, that "mr jinx" is one of my prefered deities as well, even though im allergic to the feline species et al. as for the higgs causing gravity (your question to waldo), if it causes mass, then it is at least a conspirator in the causation of gravity, if not the whole cause.

    16. What other causes? Spinning? Have to make that string somehow! ;)

    17. well, mine began as "the peanut butter theory", but continued rumination evolved it into "the mayonaise theory". the original concept came to me while walking my dog and observing clouds while in a fairly inebriated state due to some excellent "chronic" i had just partaken of. the continued rumination was caused at least in part by an actual observation of gravitational lensing a few days later, an incredibly impressive phenomena! it allowed for the naked eye observation of both the rings of saturn, and the bands of jupiter (also while walking my dog and observing the few clouds at hand), i even verified that others could see it by pointing it out to a few other dog walkers, just to insure it wasnt completely caused by the "chronic" my friend and i had partaken in. my theory is particulate in nature, i actually think the higgs is the particle i postulated on the existance of, though i dubbed it the "aetheron" in honor of newton (isaac, not fig)

    18. So really all credit for the theory, and the Nobel prize should go to you, your dog and some clouds! ;)

    19. well, as far as i know, the dog probably long ago shucked off his mortal coil (my then girlfriend traveled 1200 miles after we broke up to steal him from me, successfully unfortunately), and after much consideration on karmic ramifications, i decided humanity is entirely unready for a workable unified field theory that could theoretically provide some very impressive new methods for cutting each others throats on an incredibly grand scale. i had a "lukewarm fusion" idea as well using silicon rather than hydrogen, that i also left by the wayside for the same reason. i still postulate and mind experiment, but only for my own amusement, as i have no desire for the notoriety shared by the likes of teller and oppenheimer. so the clouds will have accept the prize solo, i guess

    20. you do it well better than mr. nassim har(r)amein,whom postulates
      a deffinate & not an opinion to this subject!!!

    21. i had to look him up, having never heard of him, though i am familiar with marco rodin. the bahai physics stuff never really impressed me to any extent, though it is of note that rodin actually came up with some math wizardry that made some very interesting toroidal coils(electrical variety) that manage to eminate lines of force at 90 degrees from where a traditional toroidal would. impressively as well, it has found application in antenna design for radio. however, my first video of rodin left me slack jawed in disbelief at what i was hearing. i may well be wrong, but i chalk his discovery up to the "even a blind pig can find an acorn" theory, lol. the video was rodin lecturing a college "innovation" class, and though his "blue wife beater, cut off jeans, and sandals" style was refreshingly different than the "pants to the sternum and pocket protector" one displayed by many tech folks, his rambling delivery of near indecipherable psuedo-tech gobbldigook certainly was different, it was in no way refreshing. the apparent glint of at least borderline insanity in his eyes didnt inspire much confidence either. congrats on the compound wound 9 phase toroidal, marco, but i think that's really all he has to offer.

    22. chuckled myself to death...very refreshing!you should option literature as a medium of sharing your thoughts/knowledge to the impaired of this field?!i would pay hard-earned cash to follow your thoughts by a snug camp-fire.............can't wait for you to publish,
      as you have an addictive way of conveying information!!!!!thumbs

    23. again,can't stop reading your comment.brilliant.........thumbs-up!!!!

    24. forgive the delay, the comforting arms of morpheus wooed me into "naptime" for a bit, to which im hoping to return momentarily (another day of 90 degree plus labor looms in my very immediate future). i do appreciate the kind words, i strive to make "my little world" as amusing as possible for myself and those i contact in it. i honestly believe educators should have stand-up comedy classes available to them, and as part of the required curriculum for certification in the field, as humorous delivery often inspires so much more than the more traditional stuffy automaton like lecture that so many i had employed. i cant see how both confusing, and boring a student is in any way inspirational. of course, a case can be made that here in the states, the concept of education is somehow considered efficient if it closely resembles some form of endurance test. it's a pity really, as it inspires little more than a desire to escape the "hallowed halls" as rapidly as possible in many cases. the NYC public school system that im a product of seemed to value "educator as border collie" above all else. in light of such observations, im not really surprised by the willful, prideful ignorance of so many in this country.

    25. "The comforting arms of Morpheus?" Oh please. You might just as well say "the comforting arms of Ringo Star!" At least HE, is REAL. "Morpheus" was a "made-up" man in a fkg MOVIE! aka "NON-FICTION." "Ringo" was "as real" as you or myself. Too many people making-up **** as they go. There's nothing wrong with attempting to make others smile or laugh. Laughter is THE BEST MEDICINE. But at least use REAL things as opposed to NON-fictional charactors.......

    26. you should look up morpheus & when you have you should edit your comment to save yourself the embarrassment....your face will have a
      'ring o' fire' & will be bright as a 'starr',due to blushing !

    27. You might mean fictional ;)

    28. @GodmanEnki,

      Save yourself the embarrassment and edit that comment. Or should I delete it for you?

    29. Enki is the same guy posting racist rants against Muslims in the society section!

    30. enki, you might actually want to do some studying, "morpheus" is the greek god of sleep and dreams, long before larry fishburn's character in that incredibly lousy movie. hence my use in reference to catching a quick nap. i try to avoid ad hominem attacks here, but, honestly, you tend to try my patience and endurance, lol...

      edit: btw, morpheus is the root of the name of the drug morphine, named in his honor due to it's ability to inspire a "nod" (in junkie parlance here in the states). is it just me you enjoy snapping at like a pitbull on meth, or is that just your "style"? i only ask because a few times before you have come at me in similar fashion, and im wondering if i slighted you in some way previously

    31. you should've let him done his own research,maybe the learning experience would broaden his horizon?!but at least he has shut-up
      for a while & is ashamed enough to become more humble?!

    32. i considered that option, but his obvious cerebral chemical imbalances (i have NO doubt his eyes resemble those of mr rodin, lol) probably wouldnt allow such a course of action. ashamed? humble? i doubt both... probably just wandered off to spread his version of "joy" on another thread, or an appointment for the fitting of a more ornate tinfoil hat.

    33. very well conceived...i just found him trolling on the "the weight of the nation..." thread,spouting wisdom by using capitals to give his
      ranting more 'weight' !he's not always completly wrong but he has a chip on his shoulder ,which makes me believe he is very young or very naive ,with a tendency to spend too much time on web-sites,that have conspiracies on sale,without cross-checking facts &/or allegations!he should've taken the blue pill (matrix pun intended due to his morpheus quote!)

    34. from some posts on another thread, he has been married, so very young is out. he ranted how a judge had forced him to fly a long distance for a restraining order hearing(due to posting a letter to his ex), yet had not allowed his testimony. that and his style of posting led me to the conclusion of mental imbalance. his moniker is related to the "planet x" doomsday cult, another clue to mental imbalance. im friends with a couple of paranoid schizophrenes that live in a nearby residential treatment facility, and his mania is VERY evocative of theirs on "bad days". my "inner hercule poirot" just wandered from A, to B, to C, et voila! true, he has grains of truth sprinkled in his vitriol, and he doesnt strike me as the "troll for trollings sake" type, he seems more consumed by anger than anything else. for these reasons i tend to just refrain from response to him, as im not big on rewarding ploys for attention with a negative methodology. but, even my "job like" patience has a limit, lol. hopefully he'll find some peace and contentment somehow. if i didnt know better, id swear it was my elder brother, who displays a very similar flair for getting under ones skin, but he has never been married, and doesnt follow "nibiru nancy the dog killer" of planet x notoriety

    35. Nassim should keep writing because when he talks he loses whatever credibility he might have gotten...he does have a weird voice.

    36. @Azilda,

      It is not because of the voice. He loses credibility because of his non-sense pseudo science.

      Hawking has no voice at all, yet he's credible... to some degree at least.

    37. I thought the scientisfic jargon was hard to understand but you beat them with a baseball bat....at least for me Frenchie girl!

    38. Yeah, that works! Those are good, and funny, illustrations.

    39. There are pictures on the whiteboard behind him, and some scribble!

    40. to get a little more technical with it, you have to understand gravity is based on mass of the object, and distance between objects. more massive, more attractive. closer, more attractive. so, if we fill a space with objects of the same mass, all evenly spaced in all directions, the sum gravitational infuences all cancel each other out. but, just 1 particle moves at all, in any direction, that cancellation of forces is disturbed. as soon as that happens, it cascades (the 2 objects that are closer than all others become a more massive object, thus disturbing the cancellation (entropy) even more). the addition of an object that violates the original entropic state (more massive, different spacing) at any point in that original scene has the same effect. tug of war is a good example. 2 teams perfectly matched in size and strength, it becomes a boring exercise in entropy. add more ropes acting on the same center, with the same team size and strength, and it remains a still life picture, so long as all ropes radiate from the centerpoint at equal angles (vectors in math). but, kick one tuggers feet out from under him on any team, the balance of applied force no longer exists. put a very strong guy or gal on any one rope end, the balance no longer exists. add a team that isnt perfectly matched, the balance no longer exists. then the teams start inching fore and aft, until one gain advantage, and tugs the others out of the game.

    41. You sure are good at visuals! That's how science should always be explained so the whole world understands...simple like do re mi without sharp and flat.
      Do, le do il a bon dos.
      Ré, rayon de soleil d'or.
      Mi, c'est la moitié d'un tout.....

    42. tyvm, az! i have often been told i would have made a good teacher had my past not been so checkered. i long ago found verbose, long winded explanations loaded with jargon and impressive hand flourishes more often than not elicit only expressions similar to what one sees when showing a card trick to a cocker spaniel, so i strive for simplicity as often as possible. the universe is a fairly simple system when you break it down to its "action-reaction" roots, and though long strings of formulae are needed to fully quantify all the gee-whizzery, they really dont help introduce the concepts to those who havent learned the equations. simple works best for establishing the baseline, and if a real interest evolves, then toss math at them. i have to say, though i fully expected you to take me to task for tossing the waterbomb at my kid sister, though, lol : D

    43. A good teacher and a confusing one...which all together is a good thing, no one would be ashamed of asking any kind of question knowing full well that you would understand the depth of where it comes from, if not what it's about.

    44. az, where i work i have taught "the manly art of metal joinery"(welding) to a few of my coworkers. the first and foremost concept i plant in their skulls is "there are NO stupid questions, only stupid reasons not to ask them", immediately followed by long hours of tedious, dangerous, dirty grinding (to be a good welder, one must first be an excellent grinder). i could never grasp why folks try to embarrass others for ignorance of concepts they havent learned yet, especially if they show a genuine desire to actually learn them. i have yet to meet anybody who was actually born knowing much of anything, though ive met many who pretend they were. welcome back, btw, i hope your day in the workplace wasnt too strenuous

    45. I've always looked at all jobs as if i am going to school but i get paid for it. So no, not strenuous but certainly non stop all day long, i'm said to be a hard worker...when i decide to get a job for a while.
      I like this: "there are NO stupid questions, only stupid reasons not to ask them". The problem is that when someone gets interested in some process or subject, they often don't sound like they're asking question after a while, they make it sound like THEY KNOW even though they may be wrong.
      How do you approach that?

      I don't know if you have noticed but i have a habit of writing, i think in my opinion may be or it could be that.... (lol)
      My way of staying safe while allowing my opinion to flow.

    46. oh, i actually enjoy a good debate, and i have an open enough mind that ill give the benefit of the doubt and hear out the point of somebody at variance with my ideas, even if i have reason to presuppose error. i am definately smart enough to realize how ignorant i am, ive learned from and been inspired by some very unlikely folks in my day, so i know the value of "mouth in neutral and ears in overdrive". assuming the other debater is in error, i usually "break it down" point by point, in a non belittling manner, enumerating points of error, demonstrating why, and if all else fails, i stand back and allow them to toss their monkey wrench in the gears, and assist in rectifying the problem it causes, while using it to illustrate to them that perhaps they dont know it all either. trial and error is often the best teacher, and in my world at least there really arent many absolutes beyond it must be done correctly (as in the final product must be acceptable, however you go about doing the job). my employer, various supervisors, and coworkers have grown comfy with my nonchalant style, and penchant for ballbreakery, so i honestly get little in the way of conflict. im not one of those "my way or the highway types", and seem to have more than my share of patience (or so ive been told more than a few times). of course, ive also spent the odd saturday afternoon repairing the problems others have caused (without pay) just to make sure the job is done right, and nobodies neck ends up on the chopping block, lol

    47. I think they were really explaining a concept that logically underpins how they think the higgs began to impart mass on other particles. Its called breaking symmetry, they gave the example of the homogenous universe and gravity, because everything is uniform gravity is pulling on every particle equally in every direction- nothing can happen until you break that symmetry and then gravity starts to form clumps of matter or structures. But that is where I get a little confused. I am not sure whether they are saying that when the higgs rolls down this field of potential to the brim of the hat that is like breaking a symmetry so mass is imparted at that point or if they are saying the higgs particle itself is the result of some earlier symmetry in the baby universe breaking. I do know however that this plays into why they think it is a particle- because of the concept of breaking symmetry, which was a huge part of Higgs 1964 paper.
      My advise to anyone that really wants to understand this whole thing (the standard model, the Higgs Boson, how it imparts mass on other particles, breaking symmetry, etc.) is to read Higgs' 64 paper and start working out how to understand it. It will take you years if you don't already have a good solid background in physic and calculus but you seem to be pretty knowledgable about such things. There really is no substitute for the real paper and backing off to get a rough understanding of all the other particles and forces and how they work. Once you have that knowledge roughly understood it becomes apparent why they are looking for a particle, why they can't just explain it to everyone, how amazing the LHC really is, and that Higgs, Kibble, Boson, Nabu, Brout, Englirt, Guralnik, Hagan, are all genuises. Whew, I had to look all those names up I had forgoten most of them.
      If you start with Nabu's work, spontaneous symmetry breaking, and end with Higgs or Kibbles 64 papers it will make more sense because that is sort of what Higgs did. He started with symmetry breaking and ended with postulating the Higgs particle, so to speak. It is amazing to think all those physicists came up with this same concept at about the same time working independently of one another. That really lends validity to the concept in my mind. The fact that once you get an overall picture what they are describing fits into it nicely, no forcing or trimming edges, also lends credibility to the idea. It would be very odd if mass turned out to be an isolated anomaly when compared to all we know about the standard model and other particles and forces. It makes much more sense that it will fit into the context of previousely established knowledge instead of contradicting it.

  40. Higgs Boson, named after two physicists, first Bose an Indian physicist, whose proposal was supported by Einstein to get recognition. Good to give credit to him as well not just Higgs.

    1. I noticed that Boson is written without a capital in the introduction of the doc and is often the case on the net.

  41. Very interesting and informative, though I dont quite think it warrants the type of excitment others seem to think it does. As they said in the doc. they have already bought into the higgs fully so it shouldn't change things drastically if it is discovered. Now when they determine the coupling values and field constant, that will be an unbelievable day. Then we can actually begin to use this discovery to see further into reality than we have ever done before and Mr. rodenberry's dream has a real chance.

    1. who's excited ? just a great time to live in,that's all.

    2. I couldn't agree more, It is a very interesting time to be alive. I just hate to see people build thier expectations up for something monumental that will issue in a new age of reason and prosperity and not get it. That tends to make them turn on the istitutions that seemed to promise such a thing and then not deliver. That is the last thing particle physics needs. It seemed to me you were suggesting that this would bring- "a health,that would be aligned with our planet & social-econmic system.....bringing prosperity to education,social-equallity & world-wide-nourishment?!?!!..." when in reality there is no reason to think it will. I apologize if I missunderstood you.

    3. no prob's,i was just word-playing/-mixing with the science facts/theories given here
      & the televized probabillities of the near future,as monsieur roddenberry tended to do in the past
      ,whom in fact brought the sensuallity to these topics to the broad consensus of mankind, which inspired so many young people of the time,to delve
      into these awe inspiring problems of physics & to dive deeper & deeper
      into an unknown realm of reality!
      of course you're right with.."I just hate to see people build thier expectations up for something monumental that will issue in a new age of reason and prosperity and not get it. That tends to make them turn on the istitutions that seemed to promise such a thing and then not deliver. That is the last thing particle physics needs."...well
      spoken &very wise of a gentleman,that has his profession in related fields(chemistry,i believe?).i tend to leave general remarks that want
      to emphasize the documentary given,to be 'watchable' , 'insightful' or
      the likes......sorry,for sounding like a 'trekkie'( & some old comments
      of mine could even be mis-understood as a 'creationist-view',even if the sarcasm was clearly visible!),but this is the sort of information(docu.),
      that i want my mother to watch,so she has a better understanding of
      the world that surrounds her/us (even if it succumbs her blessed soul...),
      but waldo....again you're right,with identifying that we're blessed (no pun intended!)with living in the sign'o times!
      so,"unter'm strich",i have to apoligize for my mis-understanding....
      ps:i wrote this fast without consulting my oxford-concise,please forgive grammar defaults!

    4. It all good, you are a pleasure to speak with- very eloquent. And the more I read your posts the more i kind of "get it", if you know what I mean. I have always been a little challenged when it comes to the abstract, symbolic language of certain literatures and ways of speaking. I suppose I am just predisposed to logical deduction and mathematics. Then again if you put a guitar in my hand or turn on some music I become very at home with the abstract and symbolic language of rythm, melody, structure, timing, etc. I can also analyze the song lyrically and usually have no problem understanding what the artist was saying. I have been told all my life that the two are incompatible but, the more I stay on ths site (I think about two or more years now) and meet people like yourself and all the others, its apparent that we humans are just to complicated and beutiful to say things like that about.
      I think I become very creative in the lab as well, and yes I am a chemist. But I haven't been one long enough to not feel wierd calling myself one- its cool but strange. I am an assistant research chemist at the community college where I got my liberal arts degree as well, which doesn't help because it feels like I am still seen as a student in many ways- because I hang out with them and eat lunch with them and just got my bachelor of science degree or B.S. degree (LOL) I am seen as not being part of the staff sort of. I hate the way my chosen proffesion seems to be so ana11y retentive and straight laced, we all have a tendency to be overly serious all the time.
      I have recently become a little bit of a trekkie myself. I grew up in the late seventies early eighties, so I missed the hey day of trekkie fever. But one day i stumbled across it online, one of the newer spin offs actually, and was blown away- so I then checked out the original an fell in love. I just finished the first season, how many more are there? Of course the acting and special effects are super cheesy but the vision of what Rodenberry thought tommorrow should and could be is very inspiring.

  42. I found this doc rather disappointing in that they were trying to describe the concept of a concept that they hardly understood at all. Using the ‘mexican hat’ analogy of the Higgs Boson particle turning potential energy into kinetic energy by moving down the crown of the hat to the brim and getting excited by arcing back and forth from the base of the crown to the base of the brim until the kinetic energy turns into a mass field, I think is pretty lame.

    I think the Higgs Boson is the gestalt of electromagnetic fields caused by the bonding of particles (atoms); similar to the electromagnet force generated by placing like poles of very strong magnets together. The strength of the magnetic field(s) created by these opposing forces is stronger than the weak force that holds the shared electrons of two or more atoms together, but weaker than the strong force that holds the protons together.

    This allows for the breaking or chunking of larger mass fields into smaller mass fields and still hold onto the integrity of the initial mass field; why an axe can go through a piece of wood, why a knife can go through butter and why a laser can go through metal. I suspect that there is a critical mass required, depending on the characteristics of the bonding atoms, which determines mass density; steel vs. aluminum. The rest I think is an interpretive response by our senses and our brain (mind) to this cumulative force field.

    1. Alrighty then, what experimental or mathematical proof do you have for this theory? Because while I may not be a physicist expert I am fairly knowledgable in the field as a chemist and x-physics major and I couldn't make heads nor tails of your theory. It sounds akin to the electric universe theory however, which is absolute rubbish in my opinion. The physics these guys are describing are far over the head of even graduate students and most proffesors, who have proven their worth by providing us with realistic, functional, and practical discoveries and technologies. So forgive me if I don't just take the word of someone posting online, giving no proof or credentials what so ever. And I would hardly say these people didn't know what they were talking about, doing so makes it even harder to take you seriousely. Exactly what makes their description of the higgs "lame", because it doesn't feel right to you? Any real phsyicist knows better than that kind of reasoning when it comes to something as elusive and odd as the higgs.

    2. Take a chill pill Waldo! Where did I say this is a theory; it is my O-P-I-N-I-O-N. I know in the scientific world opinion and theory have identical meanings; but I still advocate some evidence for an opinion to be elevated to even a postulate. I was disappointed that they really didn’t say anything other than they are looking for this elusive particle; and the ones that did try to describe it looked like Jehovah Witnesses using the same exact rote wording. I wasn’t impressed. That is my opinion of the documentary.

      And IN MY OPINION not all physicists are worth listening to. Julian Barbour is one, his book on his theory “End Of Time” is a movie screenplay and has duped other physicists into thinking it is a valid theory. I read his book and that is my opinion of his far off landscape and obscuring fog.

      Let me use ‘little’ words. Gestalt means roughly ‘the whole is more than the sum of its parts’. When you put two south poles or two north poles of a magnet close together the opposing magnetic fields create a powerful force field pushing outward in every unobstructed direction. When the same pole of a third magnet is placed near this force field it is repelled (as if there was mass there pushing against it)…the illusion of mass.

      My idea, not theory, is that the forces holding atoms together create a force field (Not plasma, not electricity spewing into the universe) that is ‘different’ when a critical accumulation of atoms is reached, that give the illusion of mass (just like the magnets). And when two separate groups of atoms, with the appropriate minimum critical accumulation to create this field, come into contact they repel each other giving the illusion of mass by not allowing one to freely flow through the other. If enough kinetic energy is in play with one ‘accumulation’, the other can be ‘broken or made into smaller ‘chunks’ as the result of this contact.

      I think our senses and our brain are such that they interpret this field as being solid (having mass). If we touch it with our finger, the same force field holding the atoms together in our finger interacts with the object’s force field causing what we call a sensation. This sensation is reinterpreted over and over as it travels up the nerves, through the spinal cord, across synapses along the way, until a mental image is created.

      If you have ever played ‘telephone’ as a kid where one person whispers a word or small phrase into another’s ear who then whispers what he ‘heard’ being said into another kid’s ear through a line of kids, the word or phrase at the end is almost always completely different from the first word spoken; this is because of ‘interpretations’ along the way.

      The sensual and nervous system of our body uses the same principle where interpretations are required as the stimulus crosses from skin to nerves to spinal cord, etc. There is no way of knowing what the original stimulus was, only the end result of multiple interpretations.

      In short, I think they should be looking for the field, not the particle. This is my opinion, I am not looking for peer review, just someone with the intellect to grasp what I am saying and possibly engage in a discussion about it. It may be religion to you (case closed) but it is science to me, open to debate.

    3. I don't know very much about the subject, but I do remember the first interviewee saying the field itself was simply too big for the LHC to discover.

    4. Hey, you know what your right. I forget that many people don’t come to these forums in search of real scientific discussion they just like to postulate and theorize without challenge or presenting any real proof. They like to put forth their own intuitive ideas as real science and if you do challenge them they always play the same card- “I have a right to my opinion”. Well yes, you do have a right to your opinion- but you have no right to demand it not be challenged and that others respect it when you have no credentials, no proof, nothing- especially when we are talking about matters concerning complicated physics. You want your opinion to matter in such a field you have to do the work like everyone else did, you can’t just demand it. But I don’t mean to p1ss on the public’s parade, if ppl enjoy sitting around postulating about this or that- fine. Just don’t be so arrogant as to go as far as disrespecting those who have done the work.

    5. @Robyn318:

      I have been following Julian Barbour's "end of time theory" for some time. It makes sense to me, all our reality is formed by our "nows" our fleeting nows that are transposed into the past instantly, therefore we basically live in the past, the future we can only postulate about.

      According to Barbour the universe that we know is flipped every "Planck" second by our "nows" that follow one after another that we pull out from our static picture book of "nows" in the field of probabilities, taking into consideration interactions.

      Julian Barbour has not duped any other Physicists into anything, he has the credentials and everything that he theorizes is all peer reviewed, and published. Please show what other "real" Physicists that you are referring to.

  43. @ thenesteamonster

    That was some speech! I listening to some mellow sounds right now, I've got to watch this one now (thumbs up).

  44. excellent!it is fascinating to live in this day & age !when it is proven, by finding the particle that creates mass,then the next step will be like a step
    into a new realm.....

    1. it would be a world changing event harnessing that power, bye bye gravity, hello a new age of wealth

    2. a health,that would be aligned with our planet & social-econmic system.....bringing prosperity to education,social-equallity & world-wide-nourishment?!?!!roddenberry's vision should not demise under
      the stagnation of ad hoc co-operatism !

    3. first a nuclear war, then roddenberry, hyperspace and vulcans; the new technology would permit those who posses it to break the others (or at least try) and install a new world order; that's what everyone is fighting against; this freedom bullshit is standing in the way of progress!! hear me out Stalin&Hitler