Talk:Higgs boson/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: StringTheory11 (talk · contribs) 20:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

This article appears to cover an incredibly important subject, so it may take me a while to review the whole thing. I will go section by section.
 * I have placed the article on hold until the problems are dealt with. StringTheory11 20:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but the lack of refs means that I have to fail this article.... StringTheory11 01:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Having been busy on SOPA and other matters, would you be willing to "unfail it" but put it on hold for more than the usual GA week? I should be able to get back to it once SOPA is over, in maybe a week. FT2 (Talk 15:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * We seem to have, well not a problem per se, but something with the first image. It appears it is fine for now, although it appears that this could change at a later date.
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * We seem to have, well not a problem per se, but something with the first image. It appears it is fine for now, although it appears that this could change at a later date.
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

Theoretical origins and background

 * I recommend that you split this into two sections: history and (predicted) properties. More detailed info for subsections available below.
 * I retitled these, but overall I'm still happy to have them in one section. In this article and at this time, the particle itself is still theoretical, the alternatives are theoretical, the background is a discussion of how theory evolved..... the 3 sections read well as a whole. Once a definitive answer is available then a distinction of fact v. previous theory makes a change to sections sensible, and much of the "theoretical properties" or "alternatives" will be consigned to history too (and best shown in a "historical" section). For now as we don't know and it's all the story of theory, it really does seems to be better in one section as it is. FT2 (Talk 18:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Origins of the theory

 * First image should say who is not pictured.
 * Images of authors now side by side with caption covering both. FT2 (Talk 20:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * First para does not have any refs. It should have at least one ref, preferably more.
 * Last sentence in 3rd para needs a ref.
 * Quotation in 4th para needs a ref.
 * Why is the "a" in the last paragraph italic? Please make it normal text.
 * Fixed. FT2 (Talk 01:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Last sentence in 5th para needs a ref.

StringTheory11 19:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The Higgs boson

 * The whole section only has two refs, both in the same para. This thing needs WAY more references before it can become a GA
 * The section name should not be the same as the article.
 * Fixed. FT2 (Talk 18:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Try not to have multiple links next to each other; try to rewrite to spread them out.
 * Since it is its own antiparticle, it has zero net charge, which should probably be stated.
 * Added but needs disambiguation. In this context does this signify electric charge, color charge, magnetic charge, or all of these? We have articles on all 3. FT2 (Talk 18:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Clarified that electric charge is meant -- as in the diagram, no interaction between photon (the mediator of the electromagnetic force for electrically charged particles) and Higgs. Colour charge, as stated in the relevant article, is a property of quarks and gluons (only) and serves to determine the strong force between hadrons, for example. Magnetic charge redirects to Magnetic monopole and is clearly not relevant to the standard model which does not mention them.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puzl bustr (talk • contribs) 21:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The reference to the Higgs being its own antiparticle also implicates electric charge -- antiparticles having equal mass to the original particle but opposite sign of electric charge. Of course, having charge zero you could say it has none of any kind of charge you like but it makes sense to respect the way the physicists use terminology and be consistent with Standard Model. Puzl bustr (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "Many theorists expect new physics beyond the Standard Model to emerge at the TeV-scale, based on unsatisfactory properties of the Standard Model." Any specific names to mention here?
 * The statement existed in the article historically, was unsourced, needs researching and specifying (what theorists? what properties? on what basis "unsatisfactory"?). Will look into this. FT2 (Talk 01:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The Challenges section of the Standard Model lists these problems. Too many physicists to mention, I suspect. Can't find this statement in the current article but if it reemerges, suggest linking to Physics beyond the Standard Model. Puzl bustr (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * What different functions, if any, would the multiple Higgs bosons serve in the extensions to the Standard Model
 * Good question, will try to research it but at the moment - honest answer is no idea. Good question! FT2 (Talk 01:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the multiple Higgs particles are there because the special requirements of the particular extension theory require them in order to be consistent. For example, in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) you have to have superpartners so you get a Higgsino, even if you didn't want one:-) I don't know the details but I would say the various Higgs bosons (not the Higgsino, it isn't a boson) are together responsible for the electroweak symmetry-breaking (EWSB) which results in the assigning of mass to particles. It is well-known that EWSB occurs and some of the details are known but there are any number of ways in which you can introduce it into your theory. Hopefully the LHC will help sort out this mess by scouring for bosons in the appropriate mass range. Puzl bustr (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The SM is just the simplest realization of the Higgs mechanism: one SU(2) doublet of complex fields corresponds to four degrees of freedom, three of which are "eaten" by the gauge bosons while the fourth is the physical Higgs boson. However, there is no reason in principle to assume that the Higgs mechanism is realized in the simplest way. There might e.g. be two SU(2) doublets, in which case the role of the SM Higgs would be played by two combinations of the neutral components of the two doublets, and there would be three more physical fields (one pseudoscalar and two charged). This is e.g. how the Higgs mechanism is realized in the MSSM (because supersymmetry makes it impossible to give mass to both up-type and down-type fermions with just one Higgs doublet). In summary, I would not say that the additional Higgses "serve different functions", it's more like the role of the SM Higgs is spread among multiple particles. Ptrslv72 (talk) 10:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

StringTheory11 04:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Alternative mechanisms for electroweak symmetry breaking

 * The first para needs a ref
 * The last sentence needs a ref

StringTheory11 04:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Experimental search

 * How quickly is the Higgs boson predicted to decay?
 * "The tau lepton is a heavy brethren of the electron. Due to its large mass (approximately 3500 times the mass of the electron) it decays in less than a trillionth of a second after creation into electrons, muons or hadrons (a bunch of quarks)". I found this quote in  which serves to explain that, in essence, the heavier the particle the faster the decay. The mass of the tau from Standard Model (SM) is 1.78 GeV and we now expect the SM Higgs to have mass around 125 GeV so you can see it decays pretty fast! I would suggest quoting "less than a trillionth of a second". But I am no expert and would prefer to track down a direct reference. Working on it!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puzl bustr (talk • contribs) 23:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No longer working on it. Can't find a direct reference to the decay half life of the Higgs. That may not be surprising as it may not even exist and even if it does until it is discovered there may not be enough information to compute the half-life theoretically. Awaiting an expert who knows how to do the calculations. My guess is that, though there are massive variations in half-lives with mass, you would still expect a very heavy particle to have a very short half-life. Also, if the Higgs exists and has a long enough half-life to survive to reach a detector, it would surely have shown up by either being detected or sailing through the detector and leaving its indirect imprint in missing momentum. All the really heavy particles detected by accelerators have been detected through their decays. Puzl bustr (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Decided to be bold and fixed this by clarifying that the rapid decay of the Higgs is expected, not necessarily known, because of the decay rates of similarly high mass particles. If this is wrong or the half-life can be theoretically calculated, please amend the article. By comparing with the known decay rates of the similar mass W and Z particles gave a quantification of what the Higgs decay rate might be. It could vary by several orders of magnitude and still be too rapid to detect. Puzl bustr (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is wrong, the decay width of the Higgs boson can be theoretically calculated (in a given model, e.g. the Standard Model) and is not related to the decay widths of W and Z. See e.g. this rather old reference. Please refrain from modifying the article if you are not sure of what you are writing. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 10:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Brilliant, I knew I could provoke someone into providing a reference! From Decay width the mean lifetime is $$\hbar /\Gamma$$, where $$\Gamma$$ is the decay width. So from the graph in your reference, with the Higgs mass around 125 GeV, $$\Gamma$$ for the standard model Higgs boson is, extremely approximately, somewhere between 10-2 and 10-3 GeV. From Planck constant $$\hbar$$ is about 6.57*10-16 $1 eV$. So the Higgs boson mean lifetime is between 6.57*10-23 s and  6.57*10-22 s. All the reviewer wanted was a qualification of how quickly the Higgs boson decays. I don't want to get into an edit war so I'm not going to make any change myself. But if anyone wants to do the calculation for themselves and put in some helpful qualification at this point, they can. Meanwhile, I shall retire from this discussion and lick my wounds. Puzl bustr (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Second para needs a ref.
 * Last sentence of third para needs a ref.

StringTheory11 20:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Timeline of experimental evidence

 * All appears to be good here.

StringTheory11 20:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

"The God Particle"

 * There should not be quotation marks in the heading

StringTheory11 20:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not? They seem to me to be warranted both for use–mention distinction reasons (the section is about the  "the God particle", not about the particle itself) and for scare quotes reasons (we don't want to ‘endorse’ that phrase). ― A. di M.​   21:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Removed the quotes in the heading. They aren't appropriate in a section heading, only in the context of a sentence which describes why the use is deprecated. That correct use of the quotes in the section is maintained. Hopefully that is acceptable. Puzl bustr (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My change was reverted. After thinking about it, I agree with the reversion. Removing the quotes seems to lend an authority to the phrase it doesn't deserve. Puzl bustr (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I would recommend retiring the tiresome and now over-quoted phrase regarding 'God Particle'--"a name disliked by many scientists." First, 'liking' or 'disliking,' even when scientists are the actors, is completely and absolutely irrelevant requisite for scientific fact, other than detaining or accelerating inquiry. Second, it's not a God particle merely because scientists don't like the term. A recent Economist article pretty well nailed it without being so dismissive outright: "Such power to affect the whole universe has led some to dub the Higgs 'the God particle'. That, it is not. It does not explain creation itself." (The Higgs Boson, Jul 7th 2012 print edition of The Economist). Catrachos (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, retiring phrases isn't really the purview of an encyclopedia as I understand it. If it has actually fallen both out of favor and out of any historical significance with our sources in general because of that economist article, then so be it. Darryl from Mars (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Leon M. Lederman wanted to call it the goddamn particle but his publisher would not allow it so it was changed to the god particle for his publication. 10 July 2012  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.176.245 (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * His publication in 1993 was The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question? 11 July 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.156.147 (talk) 12:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)