![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
This is supposed to be non-technical? LOL.
How does the relativity idea that mass bends space reconcile with the Higgs thingie? Higgs explains mass - are we talkin inertia mass or gravitational mass or they are the same? reminds me of ether: do we expect a Higgs-wind as the earth moves thru space Feldercarb ( talk) 22:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, now that what I wrote is back where I wrote it... 1) You'll note that the very next sentence calls them particles. It can be reorganized somewhat, but we can't pretend it's not quantum mechanics. 2) The field is introduced conceptually. I'll add another sentence to this paragraph, but you can't just stop at the topic sentence of each paragraph, it's the rest of the paragraph which elaborates on those sentences; look for keywords like 'for example' which follow. 3) I think 'presumed existence of different forces' falls down the ladder to the 'Physics' article. I hope to safely assume awareness of gravitational forces, electromagnetic forces, and maybe the fact that there are others. 4) Rather, if this is going to be an introduction, they should be introduced to both; the similarities can be elaborated on. Similarly for 5). 6) They actually aren't overly relevant for a very basic understanding, so it's fine if they're just wikilinked for more advanced readers. 7) Do you mean to imply that blotting paper is a technical concept? I could say sponge, but it loses some elegance... Darryl from Mars ( talk) 04:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
"This Higgs boson announcement typifies a big problem with science. The men (and sadly, it is mostly men) in the ivy tower throw information to the masses expecting them to appreciate it and even worse be grateful for it.
[1]]
I would recomend that this sentance "The Higgs particle is to the pervasive mass-generating Higgs field what the photon is to electromagnetic fields." and possibly a small bit of elaboration be put at or near the top of the article. Most who want to read a non technical article will want and need a simple answer to what the Higgs noson is before they get into the rest. Jbhunley ( talk) 15:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Reference #10 "Piel 180" is extremely vague. Can somebody please provide a more robust citation here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.74.219.145 ( talk) 10:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Isn't "possibly discovered" more like news coverage? The phrase doesn't even make a whole lot of sense to someone who doesn't know what it is yet.
66.30.48.212 ( talk) 19:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
No, because it has been possible discovered. The issue at hand is that while the numbers all line up with the particle found, there still is a bunch of needed examination of the data before everything can be shown to fall right into line with what is asserted.
One thing is off though. What exactly does this mean in Criticisms in the Inflation section -- "The Higgs field is one of the leading, theoretical explanations for the observed expansion of the universe. But there is no empirically or mathematically conclusive evidence for this cosmological model, nor for the existence of the 10-dimensional strings." It is the only place in the entire article strings are even mentioned, why is it mentioned here? Actually that whole section seems piecemeal and REALLY needs some work in my opinion. For example, this section is on Inflation, not expansion, these are quite distinct efforts, ie. inflation was the initial inflation period whereas expansion continues and is tied in with the cosmological constant. The criticisms section is wholly out of context. 24.42.221.147 ( talk) 02:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
...that we already have an "entry-level" version of the Higgs field article before having a regular version of said article? Doesn't an article like this usually pop up only as a supplementary version of the article instead of the only article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.255.107.182 ( talk) 22:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 16:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
and Introduction to the Higgs field → Higgs field – A technical move but as discussed above, requesting move per guideline. Reason: deletion/redirect at Higgs field resulting in this "orphaned" article as intro to a non-existent one. Consolidate. Widefox; talk 08:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
When I read this, I get the general impression that while mass particles are attractive to one another - the Higgs carrier particles may be repulsive to one another, no ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LG2003 ( talk • contribs) 14:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
The final section, entitled 'Motivation' suggests that the weak interaction violates Lorentz invariance. I do not believe this is true, as no experiment has observed CPT violation, which would imply Lorentz violation (see the Wikipedia page on CPT symmetry, for example). Furthermore, I have not heard any claims that the discovery of the Higgs implies anything about Lorentz invariance. This section only has one reference and looks extremely dubious to me. Can anyone confirm this as true or false? Being at the center of much public attention, it is important that this page is factually accurate. ETHJILA ( talk) 22:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
The article on the Higgs boson has been improved over the last few months, and is now a better quality description, including at lay-level, while this article seems poor quality with quite a bit of speculative WP:OR.
It doesn't need a separate "less technical" article now (or if it does then it is easy to modify that page for the purpose), which was part of the original motive for this page.
Also it's dubious whether a separate page is needed for a field and its quantum, given that this is a case where both are still strictly speaking, hypothetical.
Finally unlike longer known fields and their quanta, where we may have a lot more to say on both, there's little we can say about either of Higgs field or Higgs boson, that doesn't apply to the other, so there's a lot of redundancy.
On the basis any valuable sourced or useful content is retained, I'd like to merge these pages.
FT2 ( Talk | email) 16:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
This is supposed to be non-technical? LOL.
How does the relativity idea that mass bends space reconcile with the Higgs thingie? Higgs explains mass - are we talkin inertia mass or gravitational mass or they are the same? reminds me of ether: do we expect a Higgs-wind as the earth moves thru space Feldercarb ( talk) 22:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, now that what I wrote is back where I wrote it... 1) You'll note that the very next sentence calls them particles. It can be reorganized somewhat, but we can't pretend it's not quantum mechanics. 2) The field is introduced conceptually. I'll add another sentence to this paragraph, but you can't just stop at the topic sentence of each paragraph, it's the rest of the paragraph which elaborates on those sentences; look for keywords like 'for example' which follow. 3) I think 'presumed existence of different forces' falls down the ladder to the 'Physics' article. I hope to safely assume awareness of gravitational forces, electromagnetic forces, and maybe the fact that there are others. 4) Rather, if this is going to be an introduction, they should be introduced to both; the similarities can be elaborated on. Similarly for 5). 6) They actually aren't overly relevant for a very basic understanding, so it's fine if they're just wikilinked for more advanced readers. 7) Do you mean to imply that blotting paper is a technical concept? I could say sponge, but it loses some elegance... Darryl from Mars ( talk) 04:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
"This Higgs boson announcement typifies a big problem with science. The men (and sadly, it is mostly men) in the ivy tower throw information to the masses expecting them to appreciate it and even worse be grateful for it.
[1]]
I would recomend that this sentance "The Higgs particle is to the pervasive mass-generating Higgs field what the photon is to electromagnetic fields." and possibly a small bit of elaboration be put at or near the top of the article. Most who want to read a non technical article will want and need a simple answer to what the Higgs noson is before they get into the rest. Jbhunley ( talk) 15:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Reference #10 "Piel 180" is extremely vague. Can somebody please provide a more robust citation here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.74.219.145 ( talk) 10:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Isn't "possibly discovered" more like news coverage? The phrase doesn't even make a whole lot of sense to someone who doesn't know what it is yet.
66.30.48.212 ( talk) 19:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
No, because it has been possible discovered. The issue at hand is that while the numbers all line up with the particle found, there still is a bunch of needed examination of the data before everything can be shown to fall right into line with what is asserted.
One thing is off though. What exactly does this mean in Criticisms in the Inflation section -- "The Higgs field is one of the leading, theoretical explanations for the observed expansion of the universe. But there is no empirically or mathematically conclusive evidence for this cosmological model, nor for the existence of the 10-dimensional strings." It is the only place in the entire article strings are even mentioned, why is it mentioned here? Actually that whole section seems piecemeal and REALLY needs some work in my opinion. For example, this section is on Inflation, not expansion, these are quite distinct efforts, ie. inflation was the initial inflation period whereas expansion continues and is tied in with the cosmological constant. The criticisms section is wholly out of context. 24.42.221.147 ( talk) 02:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
...that we already have an "entry-level" version of the Higgs field article before having a regular version of said article? Doesn't an article like this usually pop up only as a supplementary version of the article instead of the only article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.255.107.182 ( talk) 22:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 16:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
and Introduction to the Higgs field → Higgs field – A technical move but as discussed above, requesting move per guideline. Reason: deletion/redirect at Higgs field resulting in this "orphaned" article as intro to a non-existent one. Consolidate. Widefox; talk 08:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
When I read this, I get the general impression that while mass particles are attractive to one another - the Higgs carrier particles may be repulsive to one another, no ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LG2003 ( talk • contribs) 14:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
The final section, entitled 'Motivation' suggests that the weak interaction violates Lorentz invariance. I do not believe this is true, as no experiment has observed CPT violation, which would imply Lorentz violation (see the Wikipedia page on CPT symmetry, for example). Furthermore, I have not heard any claims that the discovery of the Higgs implies anything about Lorentz invariance. This section only has one reference and looks extremely dubious to me. Can anyone confirm this as true or false? Being at the center of much public attention, it is important that this page is factually accurate. ETHJILA ( talk) 22:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
The article on the Higgs boson has been improved over the last few months, and is now a better quality description, including at lay-level, while this article seems poor quality with quite a bit of speculative WP:OR.
It doesn't need a separate "less technical" article now (or if it does then it is easy to modify that page for the purpose), which was part of the original motive for this page.
Also it's dubious whether a separate page is needed for a field and its quantum, given that this is a case where both are still strictly speaking, hypothetical.
Finally unlike longer known fields and their quanta, where we may have a lot more to say on both, there's little we can say about either of Higgs field or Higgs boson, that doesn't apply to the other, so there's a lot of redundancy.
On the basis any valuable sourced or useful content is retained, I'd like to merge these pages.
FT2 ( Talk | email) 16:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)