Scientists at the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva have been looking for a mysterious particle called the Higgs Boson. Scientific American editor George Musser explains why the Higgs is so important to science, and to our very existence.

• Related Articles

• Why Twisters Hammer Tornado Alley
• What Role Does Climate Change Play in Tornadoes?
• No-Kill, High-Resolution 3-D Movies of Cells Now Possible [Video & Infographic]

19 Comments

1. 1. jctyler 07:00 AM 6/30/12

   great presentation - but give me only one good reason why the video can't be downloaded, for example for later viewings?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. QuantumWidgets.com 03:06 PM 7/2/12

   That was really a really good summary by GM--thank you! So, if I understand this correctly: there is a field suffusing all of space. Let's call it the aether. And the smallest constituent bundles of this aether-field are Higg's particles, which apparently do much? Could SA pass on a message from an unemployed physicist? "To all the 3000+ physicists currently employed at the LHC: I need a job, please contact CEO@QuantumWidgets.com. Also, we have been through this aether-thing before and we can break out the optics experiments again to show there ain't no aether (UW-L 1999 Optics Lab 404)." Thanks!

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. QuantumWidgets.com in reply to QuantumWidgets.com 03:21 PM 7/2/12

   Since I performed the aether experiment with a partner, and we established that the pathlength of a laser is not affected when rotated in any direction, when measured by an interferometer to a resolution of at least 10 nm, then the Higg's particle should be affected when you rotate the whole experimental setup ninety degrees in any direction. Unless the Higg's force strength weakens at a very large rate with distance, this would show up in the aether interfermeter experiments. Oh well, you did just cover that: the weak force act just so. Forget all that aforementioned, please (except the job request--please reply LHC)...

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. jctyler in reply to QuantumWidgets.com 05:28 PM 7/2/12

   "Unless the Higg's force strength weakens at a very large rate with distance..."
   
   The Higg's force strength weakens at a very largely increasing rate with increasing distance from the LHC. Not funny enough? Then you may want to watch this Wednesday's LHC semestrial self-incensing where they will announce that they are so very, very close to discovering the Higgs that it's unbelievable how close they are and that the closeness is nearly as good as proof. (What they have found is even smaller elements; unfortunately modern physics is too full of itself to understand the full meaning of fractals; but then, who does?) Of course, sitting right on top of the donut is not exactly, erm, conducive to objective viewing (see distance/Higgs).
   
   It would be funny if the repercussions weren't as important.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. rloldershaw 06:35 PM 7/2/12

   The "Standard Model" of particle physics [SU(2) gauge theory] originally predicted that particles have zero mass, which is clearly falsified by observation.
   
   So theoretical particle physicists tacked on the ad hoc "Higgs Mechanism" that involves a somewhat bizarre spontaneous symmetry-breaking that makes the particles have mass. It also involves introducing a new field and particle(s). The putative Higgs is supposed to be a spin=0 scalar particle. All of this is a bit weird and forced in my opinion.
   
   So the question is: Do we have a Ptolemaic situation wherein the "mechanism" can roughly reproduce the observed phenomena, but has nothing to do with how nature actually works?
   
   Robert L. Oldershaw
   http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
   Discrete Scale Relativity
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. vinodsehgal1957@yahoo.com 02:04 AM 7/3/12

   What is the basic difference between matter and energy? Scientists say that electron (basic unit of matter) is a bundle of concentrated energy (photons). In a way, there is some field which, thro some mysterious process, squeezes, compresses too many photons in too less space in the form of a tiny bundle of energy which we call as electron. This process may be applicable to quark also. So, is it Higg's field which localizes photons into electron and quark?
   
   Even if Higg's presence is observationally established, question shall remain wide open regarding the origin and source of Higg's field. Where is the end reality does not seem in sight.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. jtdwyer in reply to QuantumWidgets.com 02:57 AM 7/3/12

   I'm not a physicist, so I must be missing something since I don't see why a currently effective Higgs field is even considered by anyone.
   
   Wasn't essentially all of the mass in the universe originally imparted to condensed particles as they were initially emitted - only in the early universe? As I understand, quarks and electrons were emitted only in the very early universe - shortly afterwards quarks condensed into nucleons.
   
   Aren't massive W & Z bosons, for example, only produced in the recent conditions of the universe as massive nucleons decay?
   
   Under what recent conditions are massive particles emitted _except_ as decay products of preexisting more massive particles?
   
   Aren't essentially all new particles emitted in recent times zero mass photons?
   
   So it seems to me that mass was only originally imparted to newly emitted particle in the early universe. If a physical 'Higgs' field imparted mass to those early particles, wouldn't it have necessarily reflected the exceedingly high mass-energy densities prevalent throughout the universe at those times? Might that not explain how mass was physically imparted to particles, from the prevailing mass-energy density?
   
   Might that also explain why we don't find any direct evidence of mass in the extensively dispersed conditions of the recent universe, since it immediately disperses upon the decay of its minute condensed quantities.
   
   Following this line of reasoning, it seems that evidence of a 'Higgs' field that effectively imparted mass to newly condensed particles would only be found in the exceedingly dense conditions of the very early universe. Those dense conditions are not maintained by particle collider experiments that decompose existing particles - they in effect immediately disperse, including any evidence of mass, just as the momentum imparted to those particles also disperses...
   
   It seems that in the recent conditions of the now vastly expanded universe, the mass-energy density has been dispersed, rendering any 'Higgs' field no long effective.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

8. 8. lumidek 05:21 AM 7/3/12

   Dear George, a smooth, insightful, and valid video. I don't realize I've seen you in a moving way before. ;-)

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

9. 9. knagknostik in reply to jctyler 01:24 AM 7/4/12

   Get yourself a video capture app.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

10. 10. jctyler in reply to knagknostik 04:09 AM 7/4/12

    finding, installing... for one single 2,5 minutes video?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

11. 11. jctyler in reply to knagknostik 06:28 AM 7/4/12

    I forgot to add: finding, installing, learning to use = half an hour gone. For what? A video on a boson that does not exist? Watch the public announcement later and tell me then if it's worth the trouble.
    
    What they will announce is that they have found something "new" which was in fact predicted by a theoreticist (I'd have to look up my notes) three years ago in writing but which they refused to consider then. (Or they didn't tell him that they were going to use his work!? Why do people believe that scientists are morally so very different from bankers? Both deal in numbers...)
    
    

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

12. 12. vinodsehgal1957@yahoo.com 10:20 AM 7/4/12

    to jtdwyer
    
    I am also not a Physicist like you. Your arguments are based upon presumption that all the basic matter particles appeared on the scene with in-built mass. My conception and understanding leads me to think that in the very initial stage, with or without BB, there was some energy in the universe without any matter. A part of energy split into 3 basic forces - E.m. force (photon), strong force(gluion) and week forces (W and Z boson). Balance energy was converted to matter particles -- quarks and electron. For converting energy into matter, some agent was required. I think it is the Higgs field which played the role of that agent in localizing energy into matter. Even in present universe, there is interchange of mass into energy and vice versa. Process of conversion of mass into energy is has been quite well understood but reverse process of conversion of energy into matter has yet to be fully understood. Invention of Higgs Boson may facilitate Scientists in understanding this process. After all, what is the basic difference between energy and matter particles. Energy particles are self propagating, having zero mass and not localized. Matter particles are localized, having their own mass and localized. All the matter particles have to be with some mass. Any matter particle without mass will cease to exist as matter and assume energy.
    I visualize Higgs Field as an important stage in understanding process of creation of matter from energy. But even if existence of Higgs Boson is established, many questions of Physics/Cosmology shall remain wide open :
    i) Higgs mechanism explains only a fraction of the mass endowed to matter. balance mass reqyires yet to be explained
    ii) What will be the origin and source of Higgs field?
    iii) Is Higgs Field more fundamental than GUF which scientists postulate to exist at BB stage and which became progenator of three forces : e.m force, strong forces and and week forces
    iv) Higgs Field will not explain the all mysterious gravitational force
    
    Nevertheless detection of Higgs Field shall be a landmark event in the history of Physics akin to Theory of Relativity or Quantum Mechanics

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

13. 13. geojellyroll 11:31 AM 7/4/12

    It's a positive to try and understand this particle but using a simile or metaphor to try and explain sub atomic physics (or many things in science) isn't really explaining anything at all. We are physical beings and need something to hang our hat on (our 5 senses)
    
    'Think of the Higgs particle as...' Actually no, it's not really like that at all. Nobody can 'get it' and nobody can visualize it an any way whatsoever. The only understanding is as evidence taht when put on paper 'make sense'....there is nothing in our physical experience to relate it to. No analogy is valid.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

14. 14. jtdwyer in reply to vinodsehgal1957@yahoo.com 04:23 PM 7/4/12

    Your characterization of my proposal is not correct. You stated: "Your arguments are based upon presumption that all the basic matter particles appeared on the scene with in-built mass." Please do not summarize my ideas for me - you do me an injustice!
    
    The detection of fleeting, unstable particles produced as residue of the decomposition of preexisting, persistent massive particles does not constitute the detection of a existing Higgs field. It might support the proposition that a Higgs field once imparted mass to the component particles comprising the decomposed persistent particles of mass, but no Higgs field has been detected.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

15. 15. vinodsehgal1957@yahoo.com 07:17 AM 7/5/12

    To jtdwyer and others
    
    Sorry, if you have perceived that my mentioning your views, as I have understood the same, have done any unintended injustice to you.
    
    Your views at 14 may be correct. But the issue of endowment of mass shall remain wide open. In my views, it is not the issue of endowment of mass but the wide issue is of emergence of matter particles -- electron, quarks. In my view, Once electrons and quarks have come into existence, issue of mass gets resolved since there is no meaning of of a matter particle without mass.
    
    Most of the matter came into existence in universe in the earlier stages only when most of Higgs field might have been utilized. I do not think now new matter is being created. On the contrary, lot of energy is being created from matter continuously in stars. So what is the need of Higgs field now? After utilization of Higgs field during very early stages in universe, is there any field left in Space?
    
    Further, when matter is converted into energy thro fission, implying loss of mass as associated with matter and that mass appears as energy, where does Higgs field stuck to matter (as scientists visualize) disappears? Does it goes back into space from where it had emerged out or gets converted to some other fermions/bosons?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

16. 16. singing flea in reply to jctyler 12:54 PM 7/6/12

    LOL. Sometimes you have to think outside the box. Try a cell phone or video camera.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

17. 17. jctyler in reply to singing flea 02:14 PM 7/6/12

    the latest CERN press conference has voided the video anyway. They still haven't found the Higgs, whatever they found is not the Higgs, and they will never find it because it simply doesn't exist. In that sense the video would have made a great souvenir of those times when people who take themselves very seriously still believed in the bleepin ressource-wasting thing. The Higgs gospel is a waste of time. But I thank you for your efforts, still, SciAm should simply allow downloading, end of story. Although I believe that pursuing the Higgs was a great way to advance research.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

18. 18. rshoff 12:41 PM 7/18/12

    Good video. Good conversation. Just sayin'. Thanks S.A. And how do you define 'physicist' anyway.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

19. 19. earth22 07:41 PM 7/18/12

    it is said that matters and antimatters were created in equal proportions at the beginning. where are those antimatters. is it possible that a duplicate universe consisting of totally antimatters exists somewhere in a different dimension.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this