Peter Higgs, physicist who discovered Higgs boson, has died

945 points by angrygoat 1 year ago | 104 comments
  • vazma 1 year ago
    I was incredibly fortunate to meet him at CERN the day before the Higgs boson announcement. As an intern, I encountered him the evening prior; he was dining alone in the CERN cafeteria, blending in like a kindly elderly gentleman. He was exceptionally humble and courteous. I feel so lucky that I mustered the courage to speak with him and shake his hand. Rest in peace, Mr. Higgs.
    • teekert 1 year ago
      These are the kind of opportunities one must take when they present themselves. Well done.
    • dotnet00 1 year ago
      The story of how Higgs predicted his mechanism was part of what got me into physics as a kid. It fit 10 year old me's obsession with the 'soft-spoken genius' archetype perfectly and formed a pillar in my belief that 'genius' was made through hard work (and some amount of luck) rather than being born with it.

      The announcement of the detection at the LHC is a core memory of mine, I still distinctly remember where I was, what I was doing and very excitedly trying to explain how cool it was to my parents at the time.

      • moelf 1 year ago
        Same, same, and same, + currently working on one of the LHC detectors as a phd student -- but it can all be traced back to the lore of the golden age of particle physics and the discovery of Brout–Englert–Higgs boson in 2012.
        • KingFelix 1 year ago
          That is awesome, we need some more amazing scientists in the public eye to inspire the young. I know there are a lot of amazing scientists, but somehow need to get them on tiktok or something? Can you share the story?
          • moelf 1 year ago
            Specific to Particle physics and Peter Higgs, this book (https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/frank-close/elusive/978166...) by Frank Close is fantastic.
            • dotnet00 1 year ago
              My parents had a hard time explaining my dad's job to me, so they just told me he was a scientist because he had a masters in physics (he was a diplomat). Like any little kid, my parents were my heroes, so of course this led me to becoming obsessed with scientists and reading up on science stuff, eg trying to read my sister's university textbooks.

              I developed a hobby of reading up on and sharing factoids I found online, and found one about the 'god particle'. At first I thought it was cool because it seemed to basically talk about a particle that causes mass (of course, this was actually wrong, but that didn't really matter to a 10 year old), but reading about how it was predicted 40-50 years ago and the largest single machine humanity had built was being used to try to find it made it my favorite factoid and I'd excitedly start talking all about it the moment anyone showed even the slightest bit of interest.

              In 2012 when the detection was announced, we were on a short 2-3 day vacation in Dubai and were having breakfast in the hotel. The TV was right next to us, and seeing the news I was trying (and failing) to explain to my parents how the Higgs boson had been predicted 50 years ago and it took that long for the technology to finally catch up to be able to verify it, and how this would represent one of the last remaining pieces of the standard model (although back then I didn't quite grasp that the standard model was not a full theory of everything). I was trying to explain to them the size of the LHC, how it was the biggest single machine we've built, how when they were turning it on for the first time, there were fears about it creating micro-black holes which might swallow the Earth.

              I think that while we need scientists in the public eye, we don't need them as social media entertainers, a lot of well known science communicators on social media come off as attention-seeking charismatic fakes/frauds to me (eg NDT). Stuff like the interviews and documentaries Stephen Hawking had appeared in (or to a lesser extent, the ones Michio Kaku has appeared in) did much more for me in being inspired, even without having known what research they were known for.

              I think we could also do with more books like Hawking's 'A Brief History of Time' and encouraging kids to read them. Also, instead of over-simplifying everything and passing off scientists as geniuses in the traditional sense, we should be more open in showing that the people who made these discoveries or predictions were not inherently born with it, the vast majority of them were completely normal people who worked very hard to build skills in the thing they enjoyed.

              Another discovery I feel was somewhat similar is that of discrete time crystals, casually predicted in 2012, turned out to actually be possible in 2018 and has a similar 'cool' factor.

              • cge 1 year ago
                I think a difficulty with science communication is that it is very rare to have someone who is both a great scientist and great science communicator, and even with the ability, it is difficult for them to devote enough time and focus to be great at both. Feynman was, if flawed in some ways as a communicator. Hawking was, but I got the sense that at some point later in his life his focus on communication to the public limited his ability to continue doing research rigorously (after somewhat idolizing him as a child, as a graduate student I went to a research talk he gave to the theory side of our department, possibly in the context of TAPIR, that was both embarrassing and depressing, as it both felt like he really wanted to keep doing good research and very clearly couldn't manage to, and it seemed like everyone in the room knew it, including him). Einstein, despite having the ability to draw a public audience, arguably wasn't a great communicator.

                On the other side, while yes, NDT is problematic, I think there is a value to people who are great science communicators without being great scientists. Sagan was arguably a great science communicator and not a great scientist per se. But his communication to the public was inspiring and educational, with enough rigor but not too much complexity, with a sense of wonder but not too far into speculation presented as science, with intuitive explanations but without too disastrously overburdened metaphors. There's the view that his talent for communication and broad intuitive understanding was such that even his contributions to research came primarily from his ability to be, in Kuiper's words about him, a "liaison between sciences". But even when just to the public, someone devoted to that sort of work, and good at it, is not less valuable than a scientist.

                • sonofaragorn 1 year ago
                  I get your sentiment, but I think it's important for science communication to adapt to the times. Decades ago (and even as little as one decade ago), most scientists (maybe Hawking being the exception) who would dare appear in these 1hr documentaries would be belittled by the "hardcore" scientists with the same words you used "Science should not be over-simplified like that", "they are not real scientists, they just want to be on TV", etc.

                  The truth is that young people are mostly on TikTok et al, so this type of content needs to get there.

                  • wolverine876 1 year ago
                    > My parents had a hard time explaining my dad's job to me, so they just told me he was a scientist because he had a masters in physics (he was a diplomat).

                    I'm just curious about when you found out what he really did, and if you had known earlier if you would have been a diplomat today rather than a scientist.

                    • cdelsolar 1 year ago
                      how is ndt a fake/fraud?
                      • tunesmith 1 year ago
                        Great story! Thanks.
                    • amelius 1 year ago
                      Can you recommend any physics books that were of value to you as a kid and perhaps sparked your interest?
                      • dotnet00 1 year ago
                        As a 5-10 year old, the books I remember liking the most were on the outer planets, with high quality full page photos of the planets and their moons. Closer to photobooks than books on the solar system targeted at children. One book was just images of the moons, mainly focusing on Saturn, I used to just look at the images and admire them even if initially I didn't quite understand the details. Most of my physics reading came from random sources on the early internet.

                        As a 12-13 year old, Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time and The Grand Design were by far my most memorable reads, although I already had my developing interest in physics by then.

                      • cm2187 1 year ago
                        Did you succeed with your parents? It's hard to be excited about theoretical physics as a layman. It has been a long time since any of those theories had any practical application.
                        • dotnet00 1 year ago
                          They still aren't all that interested in this stuff, and on their advice I ended up studying computer engineering instead of physics, but I've still found myself working at one of the other labs with big particle accelerators, as a researcher who can link the computing side with enough of the physics side to work with physicists.

                          They don't fully understand what I do and don't really care too much about the details, but when they saw pictures of where I worked, they did immediately bring up that I used to go on and on about something that seemed similar, so they at least did understand what I liked.

                          I guess the closest they get to being interested in theoretical physics is that my Dad, having run through his stash of novels during covid, eventually read my left-behind copy of A Brief History of Time, and occasionally quotes it when he's in the mood to wax philosophical. My Mom instead tries to keep up with my other interest of space exploration/astronomy.

                          • mptest 1 year ago
                            Damn. Tell your parents you love them often. This comment made me deeply pine for parents that feigned even the tiniest bit of interest in what I'm interested in. Your folks seem wonderful.
                          • wolverine876 1 year ago
                            > It has been a long time since any of those theories had any practical application.

                            That's a cliche, not why people are ignorant of science (if it's even true, which it's not), IMHO.

                            When you kiss your spouse or watch a sporting event or (go bird watching / play D&D / play your trumpet / <your hobby>), does it have a pratical application? Practical applications tend to be kind of boring, actually.

                            If you can't get excited about the fundamental laws of nature and a person's actual discovery of one - the reason for mass (such an incredible concept that it would be absurd to say if it wasn't true) - then the issue isn't partical physics.

                            For the broader public, I think these things just aren't explained well, and now there's the anti-science mis/disinformation.

                          • rmbyrro 1 year ago
                            With a layperson in mind, curious about physics, do you recommend any resource (hopefully not too math-intensive) to learn how the higgs boson actually "gives mass" to stuff?
                          • lupire 1 year ago
                            What makes you think he wasn't born with it?

                            I can see in own kids that each one is built differently, with different inmate propensities despite similar environment.

                            • dotnet00 1 year ago
                              Most childhood prodigies don't end up being all that different from the average person as an adult, and of course no one's born with the knowledge of some revolutionary discovery in their head.

                              While all of us have things we find easier to do than the average person, short of a literal mental disability, we can build up skills in things we are not good at through practice. I used to barely pass in math class and didn't even understand the concept of negative numbers until 8th grade. A year of practicing daily for 2 hours after school, and my fundamentals had gotten good enough that I unknowingly derived a calculus-based solution to some problems I was stuck at, 2 grade levels before when I'd actually start learning calculus and got to skip a year as a result.

                              Similarly, I've been teaching myself to draw despite having been pretty terrible at it and discovering how 'deliberate' most professional artists have to be with practice and building skills.

                              I think it's pretty common for people to write off their inability to do something as just a lack of innate ability, when it's really just that no one really sees the struggle anyone famous for their work/skill has gone through to get there.

                              • tgv 1 year ago
                                But there definitely is a wide variation in peak capability. I have been playing keyboard instruments almost my whole life, and while I can play relatively complex pieces, I've never gotten at the level of professional musicians, let alone the greats. It's true they wouldn't have gotten where they are without practicing, but practicing is just not enough.
                              • wpietri 1 year ago
                                I think the point is that if one aspires to be a figure like Higgs, one can't just coast on "innate propensities". It requires fiendishly hard work.

                                That really resonates with me. When I was a kid I got complimented a lot for being smart, especially when I did something quickly and easily. This trained me pretty well in seeming smart, but really discouraged me from things that required hard work or persistence through failure. It took me years to get over that.

                                • lupire 1 year ago
                                  The question wasn't whether hard work was needed. The question was whether genius was needed. Hard work is table stake.
                                • layer8 1 year ago
                                  Some have higher inmate propensities than others. ;)
                                  • wumeow 1 year ago
                                    People with innate ability almost always take it for granted.
                                  • lapetitejort 1 year ago
                                    Some of my professors during my physics BS worked with the LHC during the mad scramble to find the particle. I remember people saying tongue in cheek "The Higgs particle doesn't exist, but it's inside this energy range."
                                  • UncleSlacky 1 year ago
                                    Lame claim to fame: Higgs was the PhD supervisor of one of my university professors. He told us that Higgs left a message on his desk before going hiking one weekend to the effect that he'd had a great idea and would tell them all about it when he got back.
                                    • ColinWright 1 year ago
                                      I wonder if he got the idea from Hardy, who before undertaking a journey on a very small boat sent a postcard saying he had proved the Riemann Hypothesis:

                                      Hardy stayed in Denmark with Bohr until the very end of the summer vacation, and when he was obliged to return to England to start his lectures there was only a very small boat available…. The North Sea can be pretty rough, and the probability that such a small boat would sink was not exactly zero. Still, Hardy took the boat, but sent a postcard to Bohr: “I proved the Riemann Hypothesis. G.H. Hardy.” If the boat sinks and Hardy drowns, everybody must believe that he has proved the Riemann Hypothesis. Yet God would not let Hardy have such a great honor and so He will not let the boat sink.

                                      -- https://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~mcleod/Riemann/Hardy.html

                                  • pfdietz 1 year ago
                                    It was a success for particle physics that they found the Higgs, but it was also a tragedy. Discovering the Higgs and nothing else new was the nightmare scenario for the LHC, and so it has come to pass.
                                    • joshcryer 1 year ago
                                      It really damaged string theory which is by far the greatest thing to happen with the LHC.
                                      • pfdietz 1 year ago
                                        Ah, a glass is half full person! :)
                                      • vikramkr 1 year ago
                                        Calling it a nightmare scenario is quite the overdramatic description of a successful experiment that validated a core prediction of the standard model
                                        • pfdietz 1 year ago
                                          The scenario is a nightmare to people doing the work, since it seems to indicate there will be no new physics until energies at far beyond what can practically be reached. So, particle physics dies as an active field.
                                      • akumetsu 1 year ago
                                        Sad to hear, I remember the excitement over the experimental evidence once his particle was detected. I'm always amazed by theoretical predictions that can actually be verified plus it was interrsting to hear about the higgs boson as part of my studies shortly after it was detected. Nowadays it seems many theoretical predications are not even close to being verifiable in the coming years or with the current and planned tech. Unless we are talking about superconductivity at room temperature ofc
                                        • CapeTheory 1 year ago
                                          Massive in his field.
                                          • callumw13 1 year ago
                                            this is the kind of strong interaction I like to see on this website
                                          • hiddencost 1 year ago
                                            Glad he got to see the confirmation before he went.
                                            • silverfrost 1 year ago
                                              Proposed - not discovered. He put it forward as an explanation, he didn't make the actual discovery.
                                              • jaredwiener 1 year ago
                                                But will there be a funeral mass?
                                              • toomuchtodo 1 year ago
                                                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Higgs
                                                • neom 1 year ago
                                                  Just to add a couple more good Higgs resources courtesy of the fine folks at PBS Space Time:

                                                  How the Higgs Mechanism Give Things Mass - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0Q4UAiKacw

                                                  Could the Higgs Boson Lead Us to Dark Matter? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2yLMY6Mpw8

                                                  Where Is The Center of The Universe? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOLHtIWLkHg

                                                  (For me personally, I gave a massive sad sign when I saw this on the homepage. I really liked him a lot for a few reasons: He did his thinking in isolation, for a long period of time walking around the Scottish highlands . He was a keen disciple of interdisciplinary thought being pivotal to innovation. He appears to have imagined things and thought about things in a pretty weird way for his time, although that might seem obvious, how well he grappled with the reality of weirdness is exemplary. 힝)

                                                • brcmthrowaway 1 year ago
                                                  Does the Higgs detection have any economic value, like room tenperature superconductors would? Or is it a scientific curiosity
                                                  • openrisk 1 year ago
                                                    With the knowledge and technology of today there is arguably very little direct economic value to be had from this part of particle physics. One cannot preclude potential future implications though (it has happened many times in the past that understanding phenomena that were far removed from everyday experience created later the conditions for massive technological breakthroughs).

                                                    Particle physicists and other researchers in fundamental science are also typically keen to point out at indirect effects. E.g., building the massive accelerators to detect particles pushes forward more conventional technologies. The Web was famously invented to serve CERN collaboration needs.

                                                    • wavemode 1 year ago
                                                      It serves as an important confirmation of the Standard Model of particle physics, which is a foundational theory underpinning many other important discoveries. But the particle itself probably has no current practical application.
                                                      • godelski 1 year ago
                                                        > have any economic value

                                                        Don't downvote them! This is actually a good question! (and gives us a chance to talk about why we should pursue these things!)

                                                        It's also incredible difficult to answer! Can we define what it means? Direct or indirect?

                                                        === Indirect (LHC) ===

                                                        Well one of the reasons the LHC was built was to find the Higgs. To do so, we had to invent a lot of shit along the way. Thing is, when you're pushing the bounds of human knowledge, you don't exactly have all the devices you need to measure and test everything. The WWW[0] is famously one of such "spin-offs" as we needed to connect scientists from around the globe to distribute the data from this project. Remember that it is an international project[1*]. There is also a lot about superconductors and refrigeration, both of which significantly contribute to modern medical devices. A lot for magnets, vacuum devices, and electronics, all of which have permeated into industry.

                                                        These scientific projects also are a big political effort and demonstrate good will and can be grounds for collaboration and building democracies. The hosting countries also have a lot to benefit from as direct collaboration happens there. Just think of the force of putting a bunch of very smart people in a room together, especially when they are experts in very different things. It's difficult to predict the direct revenue, but at such a cheap cost, even small innovations can easily end up covering the costs. Certainly the internet has more than paid for CERN, in the form of tax revenues to each country compared to the cost they give, not to mention benefit to the public (especially considering other indirect aspects).

                                                        === Direct (LHC) ===

                                                        Maybe a bit harder. There's some slides here [2] that claim CERN nets 3.3bn for 1993 - 2038. You can find much more detail here[3] and another independent one here[4]. I'd just like to note [4]'s last line in their abstract:

                                                          We conservatively estimate that there is around a 90% probability that benefits exceed costs, with an expected net present value of about 2.9 billion euro, not considering the unpredictable applications of scientific discovery.
                                                        === Specifically the Higgs ===

                                                        That's unfortunately impossible to say. To make use of it technologically we're at least 50 years away, which is to say "who the fuck knows". But also remember the cost is almost nothing. If we speculate, it is not unreasonable that the technologies that could be enabled through the understanding of this science (and the requisite further knowledge we'll need) could be insurmountable. We're talking about understanding how mass works. So if we're ever going to invent things like inertial dampeners (which would make mass an irrelevant aspect of transportation), mass effect drives, gravity generators, and so on, knowledge of the Higgs would be essential. But don't hold your breath on seeing technologies any time soon.

                                                        Remember that we're playing the long game with science. It is good to think about short term, but never forget the long game. If you forget you may win battles but will lose the war.

                                                        === Side Note About Money ===

                                                        The LHC is actually one way I like to think about the ultra billionaires (like Musk, Bezos, Gates types). The reason being that with that level of wealth we cannot ignore the effects of compound interest, as this plays a significant role. Let's take Bezos, the #2 on the list (behind Bernard Arnault) with $203.3B. We can ask, how many LHCs could Bezos make? We assume 10 years to build at 0.5B/yr and then 1B/yr to operate. We'll assume a 7% interest rate, compounded yearly, which means 14.231B/yr! So clearly Bezos is worth at least 14 LHCs! We could get more precision and actually compound, but the quick version gives us a sufficient lower bound to really put into perspective either the wealth of Bezos or how cheap the LHC is. However your want to frame it. FWIW, with the same lazy analysis we get Forbes top 10 as: Arnault @ 15.2 LHCs, Bezos @ 14.2 LHCs, Musk @ 13.72 LHCs, Zuckerberg @ 12.7 LHCs, Ellison @ 10.7 LHCs, Buffett @ 9.6 LHCs, Gates @ 9.2 LHCs, Page @ 9.1 LHCs, Ballmer @ 8.8 LHCs, and Brin @ 8.8 LHCs.

                                                        I'm just saying, we could afford a lot of LHCs...

                                                        [0] https://www.home.cern/science/computing/birth-web

                                                        [1*] I wanted to take a minute to mention the cost, so we can better guestimate the ROI. The project took 10 years to build and cost about $5bn and costs about $1bn/yr to operate, with Germany being the largest contributor and only contributing 21%[1^]. I'm not sure how it works, but the Federal budget is about 370B euros but total gov spending was 1.76T for 2021. That would be 0.065% of the federal budget or 0.014% of the total spending. Pretty fucking cheap if you ask me!

                                                        [1^] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CERN#Participation_and_funding

                                                        [2] https://fcc-cdr.web.cern.ch/webkit/press_material/Brochure_A... (site: https://fcc.web.cern.ch/society)

                                                        [3] https://indico.cern.ch/event/760053/contributions/3152652/at...

                                                        [4] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00401...

                                                      • sohkamyung 1 year ago
                                                        I read "Elusive: How Peter Higgs Solved the Mystery of Mass" by Frank Close and I found it an excellent read on the elusive Higgs Particle and the elusive Peter Higgs himself (Higgs went for a walk to hide from people on the day the Nobel Prize was announced).
                                                        • jszymborski 1 year ago
                                                          This has given me a case of the Higgs boson blues

                                                          https://youtu.be/1GWsdqCYvgw

                                                          • hobo_mark 1 year ago
                                                            He didn't discover the Higgs, but he formulated it (along with other people) in 1964. Its discovery was not until 2012.
                                                            • empath-nirvana 1 year ago
                                                              Discovery can happen in a purely mathematical/theoretical context, too.
                                                              • hbrav 1 year ago
                                                                I think it's fair to say the 'discovery' that this boson exists came with the LHC experiments. But Higgs did discover in 1964 that the Higgs boson could explain why particles have mass. His paper couldn't say "this is definitely the way the universe is", but rather "if the universe plays by the rules we think it does, this is a relatively simple way to explain this thing we see".

                                                                And in my mind, both of those achievements are awesome.

                                                                • godelski 1 year ago
                                                                  It's definitely semantics and I'm not sure it is worth arguing if we understand what one another means. Unless we're clarifying.

                                                                  But I do think it is good to discuss the role that others have played in the discovery. After receiving the 2017 Kip Thorne said (Weiss and Barish were the other two)

                                                                    It is unfortunate that, due to the statutes of the Nobel Foundation, the prize has to go to no more than three people, when our marvelous discovery is the work of more than a thousand.
                                                                  Even discoveries of the past were due to the efforts of many. Einstein's shoulder's of giants, which I jokingly refer to as "3 scientists in a trench coat, all the way down". But with modern science, the problems are more difficult and the effort to make these breakthroughs more clearly depends upon the work of hundreds or thousands. It is good to promote these ideas and this recognition. I think it can also help motivate us to better work together, and not letting us think we are a lowly unimportant cog in a giant machine. Because while we may be small cogs, our work is still important (even if not as important as others).
                                                                  • zelphirkalt 1 year ago
                                                                    Exactly. Give the countless engineers behind LHC some of the credit as well!
                                                                  • nilkn 1 year ago
                                                                    I still wouldn’t use the word “discover” in this context. Physics is not pure mathematics. There are many theories that just do not correspond to reality. Would you say that strings and extra dimensions have been discovered? No, we’d say they’ve been predicted by a certain theory, but not discovered yet — the prediction may not even be right!
                                                                  • ayakang31415 1 year ago
                                                                    Precisely, he predicted it.
                                                                    • freddealmeida 1 year ago
                                                                      [flagged]
                                                                      • icepat 1 year ago
                                                                        It sounds like this comes from a misunderstanding of probability and how it applies to physics. Can you explain what you mean?
                                                                        • T-A 1 year ago
                                                                          https://medium.com/@chris.m.pease/the-higgs-boson-and-5-sigm...

                                                                          https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04892-x

                                                                          • ajross 1 year ago
                                                                            The same is true of every other boson, except arguably photons in the classical limit (e.g. you can put a multimeter on an antenna and detect them "non-probabalistically"). The Higgs detection is sound. A quick check of wikipedia says 5.9 sigma. Good enough for me, anyway.
                                                                            • bee_rider 1 year ago
                                                                              > e.g. you can put a multimeter on an antenna and detect them "non-probabalistically"

                                                                              I think I get what you mean, but we should be clear—every measurement is probabilistic, right? We can measure photons with low enough inaccuracy that we don’t bother quantifying the probability that they might not exist. But, it is actually on some philosophical level a difference of degree, not type. I’m pretty sure.

                                                                              • dguest 1 year ago
                                                                                I don't know where you get 5.9 sigma but that might have been the confidence at the time it was discovered in 2012. Since then the LHC took a lot more data and the confidence is more like 20 sigma.

                                                                                That said, these days it's harder to find a paper that gives a confidence for discovery, since they are all quoting the signal strength with respect to the standard model prediction. They generally measure this within about 5%, see for example

                                                                                https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.05498

                                                                              • golergka 1 year ago
                                                                                Any evidence of any physical phenomena is probabilistic. And with Bell's inequalities, we know that for a fact.
                                                                                • BobaFloutist 1 year ago
                                                                                  Any evidence of any physical phenomena is probablystic? Maybe this is true of you go deep enough into mathematical/philosophical/quantum rabbit holes, but it doesn't pass the intuitive smell test - I could off-hand name tens of physical phenomena that will perform as expected 100% of the time, deterministic physics (on the macro scale, at least) are like the entire basis for the scientific method.
                                                                                  • eigenket 1 year ago
                                                                                    This doesn't follow from Bell's inequalities. There are deterministic models of quantum mechanics which are compatible with Bell's theorem.
                                                                                    • marblar 1 year ago
                                                                                      > We know that for a fact

                                                                                      Probably.

                                                                                    • AnimalMuppet 1 year ago
                                                                                      "Probabilistic evidence" != "no evidence".

                                                                                      > The error rate is very high.

                                                                                      Citation needed. More citation needed to show that it's high enough that it invalidates the evidence.

                                                                                  • taylorbuley 1 year ago
                                                                                    BBC version https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-68774195
                                                                                    • santbo 1 year ago
                                                                                      RIP.

                                                                                      Lucky who is born in an English-speaking country with a short name easy to remember by other English monolinguals. The "Higgs boson" has many fathers, but his name got attached to the concept for simplicity, giving him world fame and, ultimately, a Nobel prize when he likely didn't contribute significantly more than others, cf. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson#History or https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_controversies#Ph...

                                                                                      • bdjsiqoocwk 1 year ago
                                                                                        Just keep in mind that if this way present day, the Sabine hosenfelds of the world would be saying iTs NoT eVeN tEsTaBlE, and HN would be cheering her for fighting the evil corrupted mainstream academia.
                                                                                        • trashface 1 year ago
                                                                                          Higgs' bosons return to the universe
                                                                                          • robblbobbl 1 year ago
                                                                                            Condolences.
                                                                                            • crypto_mogul 1 year ago
                                                                                              [dead]
                                                                                              • adif_sgaid 1 year ago
                                                                                                [dead]
                                                                                                • runnr_az 1 year ago
                                                                                                  [flagged]
                                                                                                • freddealmeida 1 year ago
                                                                                                  [flagged]
                                                                                                  • archgoon 1 year ago
                                                                                                    I believe that several citations of your assertions is in order.