#redirect Higgs boson
Higgs bosons are hypothetical elementary particles predicted to exist by the Standard Model of particle physics. These bosons are thought to play a rather fundamental role: according to the Standard Model, they are a component of the Higgs field which is thought to permeate the universe and to give mass to other particles. As of 2005, no experiment has definitively detected the existence of the Higgs bosons. The Higgs field is perceived the same from every direction and is mostly indistinguishable from empty space. A special article is dedicated to the Higgs mechanism, a physical phenomenon that is responsible for the spontaneous breaking of the electroweak symmetry. A slightly more technical presentation, which presumes cursory knowledge of quantum field theory, is given in the article Yukawa interaction. The Higgs boson (sometimes called the God particle) was first predicted in the 1960s by the British physicist Peter Higgs. The Higgs mechanism for giving mass to particles was actually first proposed in the context of solid state physics to explain how particle-like structures in metals can act as if they had an effective mass. The Higgs boson itself has a characteristic rest-mass. As of 2004, the best estimate for this mass is 117 GeV, with a theoretical upper limit of 251 GeV. Particle accelerators have probed energies up to about 115 GeV, and have recorded a small number of events that could be interpreted as resulting from Higgs bosons, but the evidence is as yet inconclusive. It is expected among physicists that the Large Hadron Collider, currently under construction at CERN, will be able to confirm or disprove the existence of Higgs bosons. Since the Higgs field is a scalar field, the Higgs boson has spin (physics) zero. ==Alternatives== Alternatives to the (Standard Model) Higgs field *top quark condensate *technicolor (physics) *little Higgs *Higgsless model ==Reference== * ''The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?'', by Leon Lederman, Dick Teresi, ASIN 0395558492 (ISBN 0385312113), Houghton Mifflin Co; (January 1993) ==See also== *Standard model (basic details) *List of particles ==External links== *[http://www.spacedaily.com/news/physics-04s.html ''Fermilab Results Change Estimated Mass Of Postulated Higgs boson''] *[http://physicsweb.org/article/news/4/9/2/1 ''Higgs boson on the horizon''] *[http://www.zen45800.zen.co.uk/projex5/page3.htm ''Higgs boson - What is the size of Nothing''] *[http://www.phy.uct.ac.za/courses/phy400w/particle/higgs.htm ''Higgs boson: One page explanation'']: : ''In 1993, the UK Science Minister, William Waldegrave, challenged physicists to produce an answer that would fit on one page to the question "What is the Higgs boson, and why do we want to find it?" '' *[http://www.quark.lu.se/~atlas/thesis/egede/thesis-node6.html ''Higgs physics at the LHC''] *[http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99995095 ''Quark experiment predicts heavier Higgs''] *[http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.04/grid_pr.html ''The God Particle and the Grid'' by Richard Martin] *[http://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/higgs.html ''The Higgs boson'' by the CERN exploratorium ] *[http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20041118.shtml ''BBC Radio 4: In Our Time " Higgs Boson - the search for the God particle"''] Boson Standard Model Electroweak theory vi:Hạt Higgs
== Removed == The whole subsection below is removed. Is there any particular reason to include each and every babble about serious things into their articles? IMO only important developments have to make into an encyclopedia article; e.g., if some pop-(mis)conception gained some degree of notoriety. But to include each casual reference of the term would be ridiculous. User:Mikkalai 22:09, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) ===Pop-culture references=== In the sci-fi comedy series Lexx, one character points out that although all-out nuclear war sometimes destroys all life on planets as advanced as Earth, it is much more common for such planets to be obliterated by physicists attempting to determine the precise mass of the Higgs boson particle, since the moment the mass is known the planet will instantly be compressed to the size of a pea. In Stanislaw Lem's Solaris (novel), a crew of scientists find themselves beset by the inexplicable presence of other people, including absent or deceased friends and relatives, on their space station - apparently the creations of an alien phenomenon they are studying. They discover that their visitors, when killed, always return to life, even if they attempt to kill themselves; their struggle to cope with this "problem" embodies one of the important underlying themes of the story. In Steven Soderbergh's 2002 Solaris (movie)#Soderbergh's 2002 version, the script (interestingly) references Higgs: ''"So, if we created a negative Higgs field, and bombarded them with a stream of Higgs anti-bosons, they might disintegrate."'' -----end of removed piece ----- I highly disagree on removal. These bits of information gives wikipedia not only its humorous quirk, but also the important distinctive that Wikipedia is an "all-subject" Encyclopedia. Since they are separated into the "Pop-culture" part, they help people to distinguish from fiction to science. The article was well divided and balanced, and more information is not a problem.... --User:Nihil 14:35, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Rather than have "Pop-culture references" (which seems to be used more for listing references that the subject of the article makes to pop culture), I say it should be re-added and renamed to "Higgs boson in fiction" (or "science fiction", since both examples are). Many other proven and unproven ideas, stories, theories, objects, techniques, and peoples have such sections on Wikipedia: Fermat's last theorem#Fermat's last theorem in fiction Wormholes#Wormholes in fiction Alternate universe#Parallel universes in fiction Dyson sphere#Dyson spheres in fiction Tachyons#Tachyons in fiction Psychiatry#Psychiatrists in fiction Invisibility#Examples of Invisibility in Fiction Biotechnology#Biotechnology in fiction Cayman Islands#In fiction Molecular biology#In fiction and games Cannibalism#Cannibalism in fiction Nitrous oxide#Laughing Gas in fiction Mimas (moon)#Mimas in Fiction and Film Bottlenose Dolphin#Bottlenose Dolphins in fiction Caesarean section#Caesareans in fiction Nanotechnology#Nanotechnology in fiction Women's suffrage#Suffragists and suffragettes in fiction and popular culture Occam's Razor#In fiction Galaxy M33#References in fiction Fair coin#Coin flipping in fiction Mouse#Fiction and mythology Superconductivity#Superconductors in science fiction These are just a bunch of randomly found pages in no particular order, showing how such a section can live in harmony and mutual benifit with a serious or unserious topic. (Hopefully this won't start a witch hunt of removing such sections!) User:Splarka 08:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) In this case I agree with removal. Sci-fi movies and shows often throw scientific terms about carelessly just to tech it up a bit, but that doesn't mean they're saying anything about the actual physical phenomenon. Only when the piece of fiction deals with it explicitly, in-depth, and it's a source of common-knowledge on the subject is it important to the article, in my opinion. In other words, only when the appearances in fiction ARE the public persona of the phenomenon or effect is it important to treat those fictional references; however, in this case, I'd bet that more people have read ''The God Particle'' than have seen the shows in question. --User:Laurascudder | User talk:Laurascudder 16:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) :I disagree on several points. While some movies and shows do throw around terms for the tech effect (TNG, Dr Who), some don't as much. I agree the Solaris use was for tech effect, but the Lexx reference spanned a whole season of the show, with several mentions and implications. The Higgs Boson was said to be so elusive that most civilizations destroyed themselves trying to find it, as earth almost does in a near-future. :Also, as your your "I'd bet that more people have read ''The God Particle'' than have seen the shows in question." Solaris (2002 movie) grossed around 170 million worldwide. At a guess of about $10 average admission, that is at least 17 million (and very few repeats, who would want to see that movie more than once? ugh) and the DVD sales are pretty high too. I couldn't find any specific sales list of ''The God Particle'' by Leon Lederman, but about ''A Brief History of Time'' (Hawking): "It has sold in excess of 10 million copies; For a book to sell so many copies is almost unheard of in the history of science writing." The sales ranking at amazon.com shows TGP at #38,367 compared to ABHoT at #2,841. So I would wager that ''The God Particle'' has been read by fewer people than have seen Solaris. Not counting the addition of Lexx which has around 60+ episodes that have aired in most major markets, and the amazon sales rank of the first VHS tape of 1.0 "I Worship His Shadow" peaked at 150 (out of about 40,000). So I think it should be rephrased and readded. User:Splarka 21:43, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) == the Higgs field and inertia == I assume that if interaction with the Higgs fields is instrumental in giving particles mass, then the Higgs field can be assumed to be the mediator of inertia. Unlike drag, inertia does not relate to velocity. As far as inertia is concerned, any velocity is zero; inertia relates to rate of change of velocity. I wonder how that is accomodated in the theory of the Higgs field. Why does there appear to be no interaction with the Higgs field as long as the velocity is constant, and how does the Higgs field oppose acceleration? --User:Cleon Teunissen | User talk:Cleon_Teunissen 09:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Higgs_boson:
Higgs_Boson
Higgs_boson
Higgs_boson
Higgs Boson
#redirect Higgs boson
Higgs boson
Higgs bosons are hypothetical elementary particles predicted to exist by the Standard Model of particle physics. These bosons are thought to play a rather fundamental role: according to the Standard Model, they are a component of the Higgs field which is thought to permeate the universe and to give mass to other particles. As of 2005, no experiment has definitively detected the existence of the Higgs bosons. The Higgs field is perceived the same from every direction and is mostly indistinguishable from empty space. A special article is dedicated to the Higgs mechanism, a physical phenomenon that is responsible for the spontaneous breaking of the electroweak symmetry. A slightly more technical presentation, which presumes cursory knowledge of quantum field theory, is given in the article Yukawa interaction. The Higgs boson (sometimes called the God particle) was first predicted in the 1960s by the British physicist Peter Higgs. The Higgs mechanism for giving mass to particles was actually first proposed in the context of solid state physics to explain how particle-like structures in metals can act as if they had an effective mass. The Higgs boson itself has a characteristic rest-mass. As of 2004, the best estimate for this mass is 117 GeV, with a theoretical upper limit of 251 GeV. Particle accelerators have probed energies up to about 115 GeV, and have recorded a small number of events that could be interpreted as resulting from Higgs bosons, but the evidence is as yet inconclusive. It is expected among physicists that the Large Hadron Collider, currently under construction at CERN, will be able to confirm or disprove the existence of Higgs bosons. Since the Higgs field is a scalar field, the Higgs boson has spin (physics) zero. ==Alternatives== Alternatives to the (Standard Model) Higgs field *top quark condensate *technicolor (physics) *little Higgs *Higgsless model ==Reference== * ''The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?'', by Leon Lederman, Dick Teresi, ASIN 0395558492 (ISBN 0385312113), Houghton Mifflin Co; (January 1993) ==See also== *Standard model (basic details) *List of particles ==External links== *[http://www.spacedaily.com/news/physics-04s.html ''Fermilab Results Change Estimated Mass Of Postulated Higgs boson''] *[http://physicsweb.org/article/news/4/9/2/1 ''Higgs boson on the horizon''] *[http://www.zen45800.zen.co.uk/projex5/page3.htm ''Higgs boson - What is the size of Nothing''] *[http://www.phy.uct.ac.za/courses/phy400w/particle/higgs.htm ''Higgs boson: One page explanation'']: : ''In 1993, the UK Science Minister, William Waldegrave, challenged physicists to produce an answer that would fit on one page to the question "What is the Higgs boson, and why do we want to find it?" '' *[http://www.quark.lu.se/~atlas/thesis/egede/thesis-node6.html ''Higgs physics at the LHC''] *[http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99995095 ''Quark experiment predicts heavier Higgs''] *[http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.04/grid_pr.html ''The God Particle and the Grid'' by Richard Martin] *[http://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/higgs.html ''The Higgs boson'' by the CERN exploratorium ] *[http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20041118.shtml ''BBC Radio 4: In Our Time " Higgs Boson - the search for the God particle"''] Boson Standard Model Electroweak theory vi:Hạt Higgs
Higgs boson
== Removed == The whole subsection below is removed. Is there any particular reason to include each and every babble about serious things into their articles? IMO only important developments have to make into an encyclopedia article; e.g., if some pop-(mis)conception gained some degree of notoriety. But to include each casual reference of the term would be ridiculous. User:Mikkalai 22:09, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) ===Pop-culture references=== In the sci-fi comedy series Lexx, one character points out that although all-out nuclear war sometimes destroys all life on planets as advanced as Earth, it is much more common for such planets to be obliterated by physicists attempting to determine the precise mass of the Higgs boson particle, since the moment the mass is known the planet will instantly be compressed to the size of a pea. In Stanislaw Lem's Solaris (novel), a crew of scientists find themselves beset by the inexplicable presence of other people, including absent or deceased friends and relatives, on their space station - apparently the creations of an alien phenomenon they are studying. They discover that their visitors, when killed, always return to life, even if they attempt to kill themselves; their struggle to cope with this "problem" embodies one of the important underlying themes of the story. In Steven Soderbergh's 2002 Solaris (movie)#Soderbergh's 2002 version, the script (interestingly) references Higgs: ''"So, if we created a negative Higgs field, and bombarded them with a stream of Higgs anti-bosons, they might disintegrate."'' -----end of removed piece ----- I highly disagree on removal. These bits of information gives wikipedia not only its humorous quirk, but also the important distinctive that Wikipedia is an "all-subject" Encyclopedia. Since they are separated into the "Pop-culture" part, they help people to distinguish from fiction to science. The article was well divided and balanced, and more information is not a problem.... --User:Nihil 14:35, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Rather than have "Pop-culture references" (which seems to be used more for listing references that the subject of the article makes to pop culture), I say it should be re-added and renamed to "Higgs boson in fiction" (or "science fiction", since both examples are). Many other proven and unproven ideas, stories, theories, objects, techniques, and peoples have such sections on Wikipedia: Fermat's last theorem#Fermat's last theorem in fiction Wormholes#Wormholes in fiction Alternate universe#Parallel universes in fiction Dyson sphere#Dyson spheres in fiction Tachyons#Tachyons in fiction Psychiatry#Psychiatrists in fiction Invisibility#Examples of Invisibility in Fiction Biotechnology#Biotechnology in fiction Cayman Islands#In fiction Molecular biology#In fiction and games Cannibalism#Cannibalism in fiction Nitrous oxide#Laughing Gas in fiction Mimas (moon)#Mimas in Fiction and Film Bottlenose Dolphin#Bottlenose Dolphins in fiction Caesarean section#Caesareans in fiction Nanotechnology#Nanotechnology in fiction Women's suffrage#Suffragists and suffragettes in fiction and popular culture Occam's Razor#In fiction Galaxy M33#References in fiction Fair coin#Coin flipping in fiction Mouse#Fiction and mythology Superconductivity#Superconductors in science fiction These are just a bunch of randomly found pages in no particular order, showing how such a section can live in harmony and mutual benifit with a serious or unserious topic. (Hopefully this won't start a witch hunt of removing such sections!) User:Splarka 08:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) In this case I agree with removal. Sci-fi movies and shows often throw scientific terms about carelessly just to tech it up a bit, but that doesn't mean they're saying anything about the actual physical phenomenon. Only when the piece of fiction deals with it explicitly, in-depth, and it's a source of common-knowledge on the subject is it important to the article, in my opinion. In other words, only when the appearances in fiction ARE the public persona of the phenomenon or effect is it important to treat those fictional references; however, in this case, I'd bet that more people have read ''The God Particle'' than have seen the shows in question. --User:Laurascudder | User talk:Laurascudder 16:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) :I disagree on several points. While some movies and shows do throw around terms for the tech effect (TNG, Dr Who), some don't as much. I agree the Solaris use was for tech effect, but the Lexx reference spanned a whole season of the show, with several mentions and implications. The Higgs Boson was said to be so elusive that most civilizations destroyed themselves trying to find it, as earth almost does in a near-future. :Also, as your your "I'd bet that more people have read ''The God Particle'' than have seen the shows in question." Solaris (2002 movie) grossed around 170 million worldwide. At a guess of about $10 average admission, that is at least 17 million (and very few repeats, who would want to see that movie more than once? ugh) and the DVD sales are pretty high too. I couldn't find any specific sales list of ''The God Particle'' by Leon Lederman, but about ''A Brief History of Time'' (Hawking): "It has sold in excess of 10 million copies; For a book to sell so many copies is almost unheard of in the history of science writing." The sales ranking at amazon.com shows TGP at #38,367 compared to ABHoT at #2,841. So I would wager that ''The God Particle'' has been read by fewer people than have seen Solaris. Not counting the addition of Lexx which has around 60+ episodes that have aired in most major markets, and the amazon sales rank of the first VHS tape of 1.0 "I Worship His Shadow" peaked at 150 (out of about 40,000). So I think it should be rephrased and readded. User:Splarka 21:43, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) == the Higgs field and inertia == I assume that if interaction with the Higgs fields is instrumental in giving particles mass, then the Higgs field can be assumed to be the mediator of inertia. Unlike drag, inertia does not relate to velocity. As far as inertia is concerned, any velocity is zero; inertia relates to rate of change of velocity. I wonder how that is accomodated in the theory of the Higgs field. Why does there appear to be no interaction with the Higgs field as long as the velocity is constant, and how does the Higgs field oppose acceleration? --User:Cleon Teunissen | User talk:Cleon_Teunissen 09:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
H
HA | HB | HC | HD | HE | HF | HG | HI | HJ | HK | HL | HM | HN | HO | HP | HR | HS | HT | HU | HW | HX | HY | HZ |Words begining with Higgs_boson:
Higgs_Boson
Higgs_boson
Higgs_boson
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
