Proof of "God Particle" Found

smarticle particle
no such thing
its just people trying to debunk religion

smarticle particle
no such thing
its just people trying to debunk religion

Thank you for your wonderful opinion which has no relevance at all to the thread or anything to do with the Higgs Boson in the slightest. Truely your mighty opinion will be remebered for all time over the cold hard scientific facts!

Unless you're being sarcastic, which I hope you are.

Thank you for your wonderful opinion which has no relevance at all to the thread or anything to do with the Higgs Boson in the slightest. Truely your mighty opinion will be remebered for all time over the cold hard scientific facts!

Unless you're being sarcastic, which I hope you are.

Do you have something against religion?

Do you have something against religion?

What does religon have to do with this thread barring a ridiculous name given by media outlets to grab attention?

Also, calling it the god particle would imply it doesn't exist.

What does religon have to do with this thread barring a ridiculous name given by media outlets to grab attention?

I've been told not to feed your trolling, but calling it ridiculous because it relates to religion?

I've been told not to feed your trolling, but calling it ridiculous because it relates to religion?

Ok then, go on, please justify giving a force mediating particle the name the God particle (For that matter, how is that less offensive than thinking it shouldn't be implied to be godlike?). Since I'm apparently trolling, there surely must be a good reason for it no? I mean, sure, the gluons (Holds the nuclei together!), photons (comes from the greek word for light) and weak bosons (Because the force is much much weaker than The strong and Electromagnetic forces) all have names that are completely logical,but hey.

And this is the last post I'm going to make in this thread about naming conventions, if we must have this argument, feel free to join me in PMs.

If anyone has an actual question about particle physics, this thread might get somewhere again.

Double posting, but the Higgs has been found to the 5 Sigma level to have a mass of 126.5 GeV.

[MENTION=5103]Satellite[/MENTION];

Watch this BBC Documentary. It's amazing.

[video=youtube;r4-wVzjnQRI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4-wVzjnQRI[/video]

I've watched it three times it's so good.

Come on Fiel post it a third time I need to watch it again!

Do you have something against religion?

are you high? The person he quoted made a completely idiotic post, and I agree that I hope he is being sarcastic thinking scientists are trying to prove the higgs because of religion....

Double posting, but the Higgs has been found to the 5 Sigma level to have a mass of 126.5 GeV.

Very happy about that. But is that enough stdev to be considered "discovered" or is there still too much doubt?

This article says the Higgs Boson is 125.3 GeV +/- 0.6 GeV and that a different type of boson is 126.5 GeV, but it is possible that one particle gave both values.

Results from the ATLAS experiment also pointed to "clear signs of a new particle" in the range of 126.5 GeV, spokesperson Fabiola Gianotti said in a statement. The uncertainty factors were wide enough for one particle to produce both of those reported values. CMS and ATLAS serve as backups for each other, and the fact that the same phenomenon was observed at both detectors added to the solidity of the claims.

this really isn't the best name to give a particle

Very happy about that. But is that enough stdev to be considered "discovered" or is there still too much doubt?

5 standard deviations is the standard for declaring something discovered in particle physics (It's 99.99994% chance of being correct, give or take a 9), so this is offically found to within the standard that this will be accepted by the majority of physicists.

This article says the Higgs Boson is 125.3 GeV +/- 0.6 GeV and that a different type of boson is 126.5 GeV, but it is possible that one particle gave both values.

Oops on my part then. I'm sure the report I read ealier said the number I gave above. The official release doesn't have an exact number, but I'm sure that a technical paper will pop up on arxiv soon that will be more informative.

If they found a second particle, that would be quite interesting too.

I suppose it wouldn't be unprecedented for the Higgs field to have more than one Boson, since the Weak interaction already has 3 (W+, W- and Z), with slightly different masses.

Does the Standard Model / SUSY allow for an additional boson? Does the math still work out?

Does the Standard Model / SUSY allow for an additional boson? Does the math still work out?

As far as I'm aware, the math behind the basic Standard Model does not allow for more than one Higgs boson, it should have 0 Electrical Charge, 0 Colour Charge and no Spin. I assume the next step is going to be to verify whether these Bosons have those properties or not

If there are multiple Higgs Bosons, that would actually match a model with a (or multiple) Higgs Doublets (or triplets,etc) such as supersymmetric models. I couldn't even begin to guess which one of those models would be likely to come up if there is more than one Higgs, though I would imagine the MSSM (Minimal Super Symmetric Model) which predicts supersymmetric particles while keeping as much of the standard model as possible will be where they start looking to begin with.

Thank you Mr. Lozmaster. You're truly an inspiration.

Here's a good article on why people should stop calling it the "God Particle". Frankly, I think it's a stupid title.

http://io9.com/5923170/stop-calling-it-the-god-particle

Apparently the name "Higgs" is so long that it needs to be nicknamed "the god particle."

why are so many of you hung up on the friggin name? Who cares about what the media decided to call it? It's called the Higgs Boson

Here ya go