>>here are two explanations that hopefully explain what the higgs boson is and why it is important.

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 ... boson?lite

These guys are really great and draw nice cartoons that explain the higgs in straightforward language.

Here's a bigger version of the same talk. It's like a sunday comic gone all Einstein-like and lots of fun.

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive ... micid=1489

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... tEpSvzPROc

This guy is from FermiLab and does a good job of explaining the higgs from a somewhat different point of view.

It's not that one explanation is right or wrong.

It's that an explanation will reveal why things have mass.

I choose not to believe in the Higgs Boson.

I remember a Neutrino when it had no mass.

And guess what.

BTW I was at U.C.I. when Frederick Reines was there.

http://www.ps.uci.edu/physics/reinestrib.html

That's the beauty of particle physics.

The Higgs Boson might not exist but the Higgs Field is there and something cases the Higgs Field.

It's a matter of what we call the "thing" that manifests the Higgs Field.

Electricity is the manifestation of the Electron.

Mass is the manifestation of the Higgs Field. It might take fifteen quarks in a complex ring to manifest mass. Then again it might be one particle. We don't know yet.

moi621 (imported) wrote: Sat May 05, 2012 7:53 pm I choose not to believe in the Higgs Boson.

I remember a Neutrino when it had no mass.

And guess what.

BTW I was at U.C.I. when Frederick Reines was there.

http://www.ps.uci.edu/physics/reinestrib.html

OK, so lets start at the beginning of what you believe, is the earth round or flat? answer this and we can move to the next question.

I choose not to believe in Moi. Surely, no such person could exist, one that believes in Ron Paul but does not believe in the Higgs Boson. What proof do we have that he exists other than the modification of some pixels on our computer screens? Anyone could be doing that, or maybe Moi is a computer virus infecting EA. If that's the case, does anyone have a good antivirus program that might eradicate it/him from the site?

Riverwind (imported) wrote: Sun May 06, 2012 12:07 pm OK, so lets start at the beginning of what you believe, is the earth round or flat? answer this and we can move to the next question.

Perhaps contingent upon the definitions of the words used, especially "earth," "round," and, "flat," the earth may be deemed to be only round, only flat, both round and flat, neither round nor flat, or otherwise.

moi621 (imported) wrote: Sat May 05, 2012 7:53 pm I choose not to believe in the Higgs Boson.

I remember a Neutrino when it had no mass.

And guess what.

BTW I was at U.C.I. when Frederick Reines was there.

http://www.ps.uci.edu/physics/reinestrib.html

Typing slowly.

I was at UCI when Frederick Reines was a major name. Late sixties. The word, Neutrino was not foreign to those of us on campus. And a Neutrino was defined as having no mass. Today it does have mass. It did not live up to its' definition but we still call it a Neutrino.

The Higgs Boson may not live up to its' billing either once researched.

Maybe we should be looking for the God String and not the God Particle.

Because of my let down over Neutrino mass,

moi621 (imported) wrote: Sat May 05, 2012 7:53 pm I choose not to believe in the Higgs Boson

and be hurt by Science again.

The late sixties was a time of disillusionment.

I do hope that make more sense now, if not provoke a little smile.

The thing I love about science, is also the thing that a lot of people hate about science.

Science cannot be taken as 100% proof. Our understandings and our learning is only the best understanding we have right now. When new evidence comes along, and it better fits the facts than our understanding of it, we can change our understanding. I love that. It is humility, that we cannot know everything.

A lot of people get angry at science when it changes its position. We were taught one thing, now something completely different is being taught.

I remember my poor out of date school in Saskatchewan. I wanted to learn about the planets, and found a textbook in the library on the subject. It told all about Venus, and its thick cloud cover. It suggested that Venus must have much more water than earth, and because it was closer to the sun, that water was constantly becoming clouds. It even went so far as to suggest that there might be great swamps and endless amounts of life, down on the surface we couldn't see. This was an inspiring assertion. It was based on the best evidence they had, at the time the book was written. (1930 or 1940)

Now we know that Venus has no water, and its surface cannot in any way we know of, support life. Yet it was once taught in schools the exact opposite.

Science is not married to any one opinion, or idea, only to the facts. When a new idea is created, and it better fits the facts, then that is the newly accepted idea.

When there is a persistent theory like the Higgs Boson particle, we cannot just accept it as fact. We have to experiment, and see what the facts are. We have to improve our methods and keep trying until we can put that theory into the "facts column" or the "Not true column". If it turns out there is no Higgs Boson, that is just as exciting as if we prove it exists. It is the facts we learn along the way that makes the process exciting.

It was once thought the Neutrino had no mass, because we couldn't detect its mass. We had to invent newer and more sophisticated technology for that to happen.

Learning something new shouldn't make people feel hurt, or wronged. It should inspire people to know there will always be something new to learn.

Cainanite

I just think they should have renamed the Neutrino with mass to differentiate it from the massless particle.

Like Neutrino Plus, because Neutrino+ , might be confused with a positively charged Neutrino.

Leave the door open to the massless particle, or Neutrino.

Moi

Is and Are and Will Be and Has Been Before. Therefore, Is.

And here I thought you decided not to believe when Pluto was no longer a planet.

River