Blog Post Content

Somehow, this Higgs boson infatuation will get the better of me and I'll just stop trying to understand the complexity of it all. Until that day comes, I'll be watching great explainers like this one. The artist's comic sketches and way quantum physics is animated get me closer... I think.

Leave a Comment

Filtered HTML

  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><span><div><img><!-->
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Embed content by wrapping a supported URL in [embed] … [/embed].

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

6 Comments

I loved this style/presentation. I got the general idea the first time through. I'm 59 and have never had an interest in the sciences, but I was totally drawn in here. Thank you...I am curious to know more.

Love the simplicity of it all....

I prefer this explanation

I picture God grinning: "the god particle? They ain't seen nothing yet!"

The World show on PRI had a haiku "contest" on Higgs. I heard about it too late but did place mine on their website. Will share here too:

Eyes glaze as brain strains.
Sad. Matter and mass produce
only nothingness.

Still trying!

Hi Matt, I know you are trying to adedsrs the masses, and do not know what your feelings are about other theoretical physicsts on this site (I know some other bloggers do not want others stealing their thunder), but as far as I am aware there is no real public forum for professionals, apart from conferences which are themselves very limited . Anyway if you do not wish that kind of thing, please tell me. In regards to the no Higgs scenario on your other page, my view is that you missed one very likely possibility no Higgs, no technicolor, no supersymmetry all that stuff being wrong. And this is now not as outlandish now as it sounds. A low width SM Higgs is now very unlikely. With no supersymmetric particles seen, by all previous standards in physics, that theory deserves to be called a speculation. It is really very unlikely. Technicolor it has really had a tough time to get it not to disagree with experimental facts as they are known now, in which process it has lost much of its appeal. Sure one can say there are many variants of the above two theories according to which nothing should yet be seen. But the point is that as old frontiers fall (a metaphor for a theory version) one can always twist and turn and introduce new parameters to put up a new bastion. Really Feynman was right, when presented with a variant of superstrings, its not the desire of agree with experiment that should tell you how many dimensions to compactify, but the theory itself.