It s Official: We ve Found the Higgs Boson. But Which One?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


When last we checked in on the hunt for the Higgs, physicists weren’t yet ready to call the deal done. They were only willing to say that they had discovered a new particle—some sort of boson—and that this new boson was “Higgs-like.” Their reticence hinged on the measurement of the new particle’s spin, a fundamental quality that, for bosons, must take an integer value such as 0, 1 or 2. Both in July, when the proto-Higgs was first announced, and in November, when scientists released additional data analysis, they didn’t have enough data to definitively say that the boson had a spin of zero, which a Higgs must have.

That uncertainty has now melted away. This week, physicists gathered in Moriond, Italy announced that additional data from the Large Hadron Collider’s 2012 data run now conclusively show that the new boson has a spin of zero, and is thus a Higgs boson.

The question now becomes: just what kind of Higgs boson is it? And might it have hidden twins?


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The Standard Model of particle physics—the extremely successful set of theories that physicists use to understand the universe but which most scientists believe is incomplete—predicts that the Higgs boson should behave in a particular way. Once we know its mass (which we do), the Standard Model precisely determines with what frequency the Higgs should change into other subatomic particles (a Higgs lasts for only a fraction of a second before decaying into other particles; these particles are what scientists measure at the LHC). Because scientists want to deeply probe the Standard Model to see where it fails—thus pointing the way to a new and deeper understanding of physical law—they have been closely monitoring just how the Higgs decays.

Early results indicated that the Higgs-like particle was behaving as the Standard Model predicts—with one intriguing exception. The Higgs seemed to be decaying into two photons about twice as often as it should. Could the discrepancy open a much-anticipated crack in the Standard Model?

Alas, no. New results presented at the Moriond Conference show that the apparent excess in photons was likely a statistical fluke. The Higgs appears to be a boring old Standard Model Higgs boson after all. Physicists hoping to find problems with the Standard Model will have to wait until the data from the next LHC run—which, because of a planned two-year shutdown to upgrade the machine, won’t begin before 2015.

Those who pine for strange Higgs physics now hope for a blockbuster: that the Higgs we’ve discovered isn’t the Higgs boson, but rather only the first of many. According to the decoupling theorem (PDF; see especially slide 15), if the Standard Model is not the whole story of the universe and many different Higgs bosons exist, one of them should look very much like a Standard Model Higgs boson. Therefore, the fact that we’ve seen a Standard Model Higgs boson does not mean that there aren’t additional non-Standard Model Higgs bosons out there waiting to be found.

So chin up, Higgs aficionados. Come 2015, we could be doing the Higgs dance all over again.

Image courtesy CERN/CMS

Michael Moyer is the editor in charge of physics and space coverage at Scientific American. Previously he spent eight years at Popular Science magazine, where he was the articles editor. He was awarded the 2005 American Institute of Physics Science Writing Award for his article "Journey to the 10th Dimension," and has appeared on CBS, ABC, CNN, Fox and the Discovery Channel. He studied physics at the University of California at Berkeley and at Columbia University.

More by Michael Moyer

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe