Higgs boson: CERN scientists 99.999% sure new particle has been found

[Kuu]

The historic announcement came in a progress report from the Large Hadron Collider particle accelerator.

Professor John Womersley, chief executive of the Science and technology Facilities Council, told reporters at a briefing in London: "They have discovered a particle consistent with the Higgs boson.

"Discovery is the important word. That is confirmed. It's a momentous day for science."

Scientists say it is a 5 sigma result which means they are 99.999% sure they have found a new particle.

Finding the Higgs plugs a gaping hole in the Standard Model, the theory that describes all the particles, forces and interactions that make up the universe.

If the particle was shown not to exist, it would have meant tearing up the Standard Model and going back to the drawing board.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...-99.999-sure-God-Particle-has-been-found.html


Newly Discovered Particle Appears to Be Long-Awaited Higgs Boson

Today I'll be having a drink, for Science!

 

[Fukyo]

 

[Architect]

Yay.

18 years ago I quit physics because the U.S. killed the supercollider, knowing that it would take 15 years before CERN could look for the Higgs. I'm glad we found it, and glad I went off and did something else in the meantime.

Though Switzerland would have been a lovely place to live I'm sure.

 

[introverted_thinker]

Did any of you see the webcast?
When some of the old theorists started crying, I started crying. :'D
A room of happy physicists makes me happy.

 

[Cognisant]

Fukyo stop posting pictures of me!

 

[ApostateAbe]

 

[SpaceYeti]

Yay for science!

 

[ApostateAbe]

Since this is science, I will be waiting for the peer review before I drink my Dr. Pepper.

 

[Architect]

Since this is science, I will be waiting for the peer review before I drink my Dr. Pepper.

It's already been peer reviewed, there are a few thousand physicists behind this experiment. Further, anybody who is capable of peer reviewing the work is already on the project pretty much.

These big science projects operate a little differently from the 'two guys in the lab' approach (I worked on a few myself). Given the high profile nature of this finding you can be sure they are extraordinarily confident they found it (five sigma). Even at that they are hedging and saying it could be a Higgs look-alike.

 

[ApostateAbe]

It's already been peer reviewed, there are a few thousand physicists behind this experiment. Further, anybody who is capable of peer reviewing the work is already on the project pretty much.

These big science projects operate a little differently from the 'two guys in the lab' approach (I worked on a few myself)

Then I will wait for the publication in a journal of physics. Goddamnit, I will read the paper myself. I will check the math. I will check the spelling, too. Then I will drink Dr. Pepper.

 

[SpaceYeti]

What, exactly, would a Higg's look alike be, and why would we not simply treat it as the same thing if it has essentially the same properties? Or would it just be some other boson, nothing like Higg's? If so, how would it have gotten confused with the Higg's?

 

[EditorOne]

The media is predictably obscure, opaque, incomplete, confusing and uncertain in everything I've read about this in the last couple of days, predictability obsessed with the .0001 uncertainty factor so they can make this fit the paradigm of "two sides to every story." Meanwhile, they leave a lot out.

Architect, for the non-physicists like me, can you provide a reasonably concise explanation of 1. how this boson works 2. why it matters 3. why media keep referring to it as the "God particle" without a single word of explanation? Well, maybe not the media's reasoning, but why "the God particle?"

 

[SpaceYeti]

Yes, I very much dislike that name for it. It's going to give the quantum mystics more juice, when they're already making their loon ideas sound reasonable to the layman.

 

[Architect]

Architect, for the non-physicists like me, can you provide a reasonably concise explanation of 1. how this boson works 2. why it matters 3. why media keep referring to it as the "God particle" without a single word of explanation? Well, maybe not the media's reasoning, but why "the God particle?"

Calling it the God particle is really unfortunate, but you know how these things stick.

OK, well know that I'm 15 years out of touch, and I actively worked to purge my brain of the physics I learned so I could 'make room' for all the new things I needed to have at my fingertips in my new path through life. But I did work at Fermilab on quark discovery so know a few things from the inside.

Why is it important? Because now we know why things have mass - in the context of the Standard Model, which is the (hodge-podge^h^h^h) theory we have explaining matter. I make the hodge-podge joke because the Standard Model isn't very elegant - at least I don't think it is. It doesn't have the easy clarity and beauty of General Relativit (gravity) or even Quantum Mechanics. It's more of an experimentally derived series of discoveries with lots of theoretical work showing how the menagerie of particles (matter) hangs together.

At any rate with the Higgs we know now that the Standard Model is probably our best theory/framework for explaining matter. So this is good. However we still don't know how to bring General Relativity and Quantum mechanics together, but perhaps with verification of Higgs and Standard Model we have a direction? I'm out of touch, but I would guess this doesn't help us (or somebody surely would have found a connection by now already). It's a pretty cool discovery, was what LHC was built for, so we've gotten our moneys worth out of it. In the grandest sense we know much more about the working rules of the universe, but there are many more questions to be answered. At least now we know that the Standard Model is probably our best bet.

To answer the question about Higgs look-alikes, think of these particles like people. We say it is probably Higgs because it has the weight and height of Higgs. But we haven't verified its drivers license number, number of children and favorite food. If it's not Higgs it would be a bit of a puzzler though (it really probably is Higgs - those guys are just wearing seat belts and suspenders)

EDIT: I realized I didn't answer the question of how it works. Well ... uh ... there's not an easy explanation of how it works. At least that I can make. I'd have to explain gauge invariance and symmetry invariance. Anyhow, think that the Higgs creates a 'Higgs Field' that gives particles mass, which is easy to grasp, since we live in a 'Gravitational Field' from the earth which gives us mass. It's not the same thing, but you get the idea.

 

[Architect]

Then I will wait for the publication in a journal of physics. Goddamnit, I will read the paper myself. I will check the math. I will check the spelling, too. Then I will drink Dr. Pepper.

Good luck with that. These kinds of papers pretty much just report the results. The only way to verify is to run the data (think tera or exa bytes) through sophisticated computer programs that only a handful of people know how to do (and those are the ones sitting in the paper masthead). You won't see much math, just some funny pictures (Feynman like diagrams) to illustrate the talking points.

Reminds me of when I was working in the field - turns out my team had made a mistake on a quark related result from some 10 years earlier. It was already published and reviewed, I'm not sure how they discovered the error. Anyhow they were 'shi**** bricks' if you know what I mean, but luckily it washed out in the final result so they didn't have to publish a retraction (and trash their careers)

 

[SpaceYeti]

To answer the question about Higgs look-alikes, think of these particles like people. We say it is probably Higgs because it has the weight and height of Higgs. But we haven't verified its drivers license number, number of children and favorite food. If it's not Higgs it would be a bit of a puzzler though (it really probably is Higgs - those guys are just wearing seat belts and suspenders)

No, I get that, what I don't understand is what it might be if not the Higg's boson. I imagine that it's either the Higg's Boson, similar enough that it's the Higg's Boson and some of it's qualities were simply hypothesized wrong, or it's dissimilar enough that it's a whole new can of worms and requires a reworking of particle physics.

 

[Architect]

No, I get that, what I don't understand is what it might be if not the Higg's boson. I imagine that it's either the Higg's Boson, similar enough that it's the Higg's Boson and some of it's qualities were simply hypothesized wrong, or it's dissimilar enough that it's a whole new can of worms and requires a reworking of particle physics.

Particle physics is already a can of worms, I would guess this wouldn't make it much worse but don't know. Well we should rule out sensor or algorithm ghost (five sigma means these guys are betting their kids on the results). Could be a new particle like you say, that might be interesting or really interesting as you say. Could be an intermediate path - like a heavier particle that decays to this transient and they didn't see that. Probably unlikely though as Higgs is already terrifically heavy and other factors (my work was in how a certain quark decays along various branches)

Just me blowing hot air as I'm not privy to this work. Like I say I would be extremely surprised if this wasn't Higgs. Some thousands of people are betting their careers, their country and institutions reputation and many billions of dollars that it is. The times you hear of a physics result retracted (like the FTL thing recently) it's always a few small time nuk-a-luks getting ahead of themselves.

 

[BigApplePi]

I have some mixed and embarrassing feelings about this.

1. Is 99.999% sure good enough? After all these are physical experiments. Run enough of them and won't you get what you want?

2. How independent are the judgments of the people involved if they all have a stake in this? Couldn't they unconsciously support each other possibly overlooking flaws knowing how hard it is to find them? It might be tough for a critic to get in there and criticize. Money, project continuance, reputations are involved. Think 99.999%.

3. If this were an ESP (Extrasensory Perception) project I would demand a lot more than 99.999% surety as a 0.001% chance of error is quite possible.

4. My sympathies go to Architect as I never could get to base one in understanding how physical experiments verify theory. On reading popular science articles I read and say to myself, "How did they get that?" My Ti is ignorant and my Ne doesn't take it in.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I have some mixed and embarrassing feelings about this.

1. Is 99.999% sure good enough? After all these are physical experiments. Run enough of them and won't you get what you want?

If I dropped enough apples, would one eventually fall up?

 

[BigApplePi]

If I dropped enough apples, would one eventually fall up?

According to quantum theory the answer is "yes", but I think the odds go waaay beyond a mere .001 percent.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Quantum theory is inapplicable to large objects like apples. My point is that they were looking for very specific phenomena, not something that is at all likely to repeatably occur due to mere chance.

 

[BigApplePi]

Quantum theory is inapplicable to large objects like apples. My point is that they were looking for very specific phenomena, not something that is at all likely to repeatably occur due to mere chance.

Point taken. I wonder if they are going to put in the energy to repeat their experiment? They wouldn't put in all that expense and now come to a dead stop, would they? After all, science is all about repeatability of practice to verify.

 

[Cognisant]

Point taken. I wonder if they are going to put in the energy to repeat their experiment?

You're going to be really embarrassed when you figure out what a 5 sigma result is.

Oh fuck it I'll tell you, they did the same experiment, over and over, it's like flipping a coin, after the first flip you may think the chance of getting heads is 100% but with subsequent flips the data will statistically show a different, increasingly accurate distribution of probability, getting ever closer to 50/50, expect in this case they did the experiment over and over until the likelihood that their data was a depiction of the Higgs Boson got so close to 100% that any sane person would agree that it has to be it.

 

[SpaceYeti]

They have repeated the experiment. Plenty of times. That's how they can give a probability value.

 

[Architect]

1. Is 99.999% sure good enough?

Yes. The best experiemental evidence we have in anything is in QCD, which pushes that out 'only' another four or five digits. As far as humanity can be certain of anything we are certain of thse numbers.

After all these are physical experiments. Run enough of them and won't you get what you want?

You have to study some statistical theory to know what you are saying. These experiments produce quadrillions (exillions?) of events. We are more certain of this then we are of the fact that President Kennedy was assassinated, for example.

2. How independent are the judgments of the people involved if they all have a stake in this? Couldn't they unconsciously support each other possibly overlooking flaws knowing how hard it is to find them? It might be tough for a critic to get in there and criticize. Money, project continuance, reputations are involved. Think 99.999%.

No, no, no! You don't know how naive these statements are.

3. If this were an ESP (Extrasensory Perception) project I would demand a lot more than 99.999% surety as a 0.001% chance of error is quite possible.

Sigh ... the inherent contraction in your thinking. Quite possible? How possible? Give me the statistical analysis, I assure you they can give you exactly how sure they are of this result, and can prove it.

I'm not sure why I'm spending any time on this, but consider one aspect of it which is that they had a theory that said this would be there. Consider a theory that says Capt. Cook buried his treasure at such and such location. We check all the facts, they all lighn up, there's no better explanation, all the evidence points to X marks the spot. We go there, send down a pole camera into a underground cache, and can verify that to 99.9999% we see a treasure chest. Theory and experimental results, pretty conclusive, huh?

4. My sympathies go to Architect as I never could get to base one in understanding how physical experiments verify theory. On reading popular science articles I read and say to myself, "How did they get that?" My Ti is ignorant and my Ne doesn't take it in.

You seem to have trouble with written speech, apologies if you are ESL. I'm not sure what you are saying but I'm unsure if it will add to the discussion.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

The media is predictably obscure, opaque, incomplete, confusing and uncertain in everything I've read about this in the last couple of days, predictability obsessed with the .0001 uncertainty factor so they can make this fit the paradigm of "two sides to every story." Meanwhile, they leave a lot out.

I agree, the articles continue to mention the uncertainty while also giving a sense of valid conviction.

"99.999% sure"
"Scientists believe"
"Appears to Be "
"behaves similarly "
"99.999 percent confident"
"plugs a gaping hole"

Architect, for the non-physicists like me, can you provide a reasonably concise explanation of 1. how this boson works 2. why it matters 3. why media keep referring to it as the "God particle" without a single word of explanation? Well, maybe not the media's reasoning, but why "the God particle?"

It looks like it requires a background in physics to really understand it in itself, but I found this while reading:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/07/higgs-boson-discovery/

Discovering the Higgs boson is not likely to radically change life for most people — it will not lead to better communications devices or fancy new electronics. But knowing its characteristics will bring physicists a better understanding of nature. The Higgs is important because it is the manifestation of the Higgs field, which is thought to permeate all of space and interact with all other subatomic particles. This interaction leads to the different mass for each elementary particle. Some particles, like protons, are slowed by this field, like a tennis ball going through molasses, and are relatively heavy while others, like electrons, shoot rapidly through like BB gun pellets, making them light.​

The importance of its application doesn't seem very significant to the non-scientific world.

 

[Architect]

They have repeated the experiment. Plenty of times. That's how they can give a probability value.

Yes, and the experiments aren't really discrete. They have 'runs', which just have to do with the logistics of running the accelerator. Basically they collected data for probably the last six months or so, and teams are continuously analyzing it looking for the Higgs signature. Back in the old days we used to have pallets of tapes that would get carted off with the data (oh my aching back! I remember feeding those horrible mag tapes), now we have wonderful computer tech that makes it all easier for them.

At any rate, what I'm really curious about is exactly how many events they saw. I haven't dug into the press releases but I bet they didn't say; it's probably not a lot. Seeing Higgs is an extremely rare event, I betcha they only caught it with it's pants down a dozen or so times. How they can say that is five sigma is an exercise for the peanut gallery.

Finally they are still taking data as we speak and will continue to refine the numbers going forward. You get pushed into making a press release a bit because there are so many people involved - and non rule following scientists to boot (and all the engineers, techs, mechanics, etc) that there comes a point when you have to let the cat out. If it was up to them they would prefer waiting until it is completely nailed.

 

[SpaceYeti]

When it comes right down to it, this is a problem with laypeople trying to understand how scientists speak. When they say they believe, or appears to be, or 99.999% sure, it's not because they're super doubtful of the results, it's simply that they're thorough and understand that no matter how much something seems true, it could always be false anyhow, they just haven't figured it out, yet.

Similarly, if you ask a scientist if he saw one of your friends at a certain event, and he vividly recalls seeing them, the scientist will reply something like "I'm pretty sure I did", not "I'm absolutely sure he was there". There's always the chance you're mistaken somehow, or there are applicable factors you were ignorant of. Your mind could be falsely recalling the event, that person may have an identical twin you never knew about, or any other imaginable thing that makes saying the friend was there an accidental lie.

 

[BigApplePi]

Hello Architect. I have to respect your background in physics. I am being the devil's advocate here. President Kennedy was NOT assassinated. It was his double. They had been using a double that day and all in the know were in on it except those who believed it was really Kennedy including his wife Jacqueline. Let anyone correct my errors in logic. Point is I can make it less than 100 percent with enough looking into it.

Let's say I'm ready to believe there is a Higg's Boson almost as much as I believe there are quarks.

Moving on, ... SpaceYeti asked you about finding a lookalike. Your response was

To answer the question about Higgs look-alikes, think of these particles like people. We say it is probably Higgs because it has the weight and height of Higgs. But we haven't verified its drivers license number, number of children and favorite food. If it's not Higgs it would be a bit of a puzzler though (it really probably is Higgs - those guys are just wearing seat belts and suspenders)

I don't follow that as a technical answer. Can you clarify? It is well known to psychologists that mistaken identities with people are quite common.

You said I was naive. I admit this. I've never worked in a physics lab. I don't have to apologize for it. This is a discussion about truth and doubts. The more important the topic, the more it helps to explain truth and doubts.

Re: Statistics. I am modestly familiar with Five Sigma. My interest is personal and philosophical. No one has to share this interest. INTPs know this about themselves.

Re: ESP, you said:

Sigh ... the inherent contraction in your thinking. Quite possible? How possible? Give me the statistical analysis, I assure you they can give you exactly how sure they are of this result, and can prove it.

I think this is partly an issue of language. We are not using the same meanings ... (My first language is American English). You can prove what? Prove? Are you referring to physics, ESP or something else?

 

[BigApplePi]

When it comes right down to it, this is a problem with laypeople trying to understand how scientists speak. When they say they believe, or appears to be, or 99.999% sure, it's not because they're super doubtful of the results, it's simply that they're thorough and understand that no matter how much something seems true, it could always be false anyhow, they just haven't figured it out, yet.

Similarly, if you ask a scientist if he saw one of your friends at a certain event, and he vividly recalls seeing them, the scientist will reply something like "I'm pretty sure I did", not "I'm absolutely sure he was there". There's always the chance you're mistaken somehow, or there are applicable factors you were ignorant of. Your mind could be falsely recalling the event, that person may have an identical twin you never knew about, or any other imaginable thing that makes saying the friend was there an accidental lie.

Your post reminds me of a theorem in mathematical analysis about perfect sets and accumulation points I once proved. We were given one week to prove the theorem as homework. (I was the only one in class in two years to prove the theorem and was quite proud of that.) If I told you it was true, you wouldn't know what I was talking about. But you would have the right to doubt its truth and what would I be obligated to say? The answer is too technical for you or should I break it down so you would know what I was talking about?

 

[legwork]

Found this today: The Higgs Boson explained by PhD Comics ..explains it really well.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Found this today: The Higgs Boson explained by PhD Comics ..explains it really well.

Thanks it was pretty straightforward.

The site itself seems cool too.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Your post reminds me of a theorem in mathematical analysis about perfect sets and accumulation points I once proved. We were given one week to prove the theorem as homework. (I was the only one in class in two years to prove the theorem and was quite proud of that.) If I told you it was true, you wouldn't know what I was talking about. But you would have the right to doubt its truth and what would I be obligated to say? The answer is too technical for you or should I break it down so you would know what I was talking about?

Try me. What theorem? Even if I don't understand it, I'm interested in which it is.

 

[BigApplePi]

Try me. What theorem? Even if I don't understand it, I'm interested in which it is.

SpaceYeti. I will try and get back to you. The notes are in another location and I will be back there Monday or Tuesday. The theorem is about "perfect" sets. I googled the definition but don't recall that particular def. Was decades ago.

 

[intpz]

Goes into bookmarks for when I'll like reading. I've heard something about "God Particle" a couple months ago though.

Though Switzerland would have been a lovely place to live I'm sure.

It's cold there during the winters.

The media is predictably obscure, opaque, incomplete, confusing and uncertain in everything I've read about this in the last couple of days, predictability obsessed with the .0001 uncertainty factor so they can make this fit the paradigm of "two sides to every story." Meanwhile, they leave a lot out.

*claps* Wow, couldn't put my dissatisfaction with the media better. Good job.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

 

[EditorOne]

"I would demand a lot more than 99.999% surety as a 0.001% chance of error is quite possible."

No, it's only .001 percent possible, and besides they dropped a nine, so it's .0001 percent possible. When error is .0001 percent possible, or .001 percent possible, it is for all practical purposes nonexistent.

What, besides maintaining bragging rights to the annual Doubting Thomas award, is the down side of accepting 99.9999 as "more than good enough to base decisions upon."

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

If they did not use Bayesian statistics, I ain't believing them!

 

[BigApplePi]

"I would demand a lot more than 99.999% surety as a 0.001% chance of error is quite possible."

No, it's only .001 percent possible, and besides they dropped a nine, so it's .0001 percent possible. When error is .0001 percent possible, or .001 percent possible, it is for all practical purposes nonexistent.

What, besides maintaining bragging rights to the annual Doubting Thomas award, is the down side of accepting 99.9999 as "more than good enough to base decisions upon."

E1. Who is bragging? Say that to my face.

Think one chance in 100,000. That is the one time things go wrong. You are absolutely right about decisive actions. We base our actions on probability. Please keep in mind we want to know the penalty for being wrong. If there is no penalty, go right ahead and believe.

Now I ask you this:
1. Would you cross a street intersection on foot blindfolded? There is an excellent change you will make it without injury. Why don't you?
2. Every night you go to sleep you won't worry about waking in the morning. Yet one day will come the day you WON'T wake in the morning. Odds you will live are excellent, but odds your time will run out are certain.
3. Would you double down on red at the roulette table and win a dollar knowing the odds of losing red versus black seventeen times in a row are in 1 in 131,072?
4. Many scientists do not believe in ESP. One can run an experiment where the odds in favor of ESP appear to be a billion to one. Yet one flaw in the experiment blows this to smithereens.
5. Lots of peoples at one time believed in Newton's Laws and the Earth is flat. Would you care to bet with them at the time because they outvoted you 100,000 to 1?
6. Peer review says the Higgs Boson is found. Who says the odds are 99.xxxxx percent in favor? What about a peer peer review? Is that allowed? There is no need. It's been proven. Right?
7. I trade in the stock market. One happening in 100,000 is a common occurrence. Easy. Very common. Would you bet General Motors would go bankrupt in 1970? Never. Yet it did.

Ever read "The Black Swan" by Nassim Taleb? I haven't. I don't have to. I know what it says.

 

[BigApplePi]

If they did not use Bayesian statistics, I ain't believing them!

You get a lot of points for that one Proxy!

 

[SLushhYYY]

"I would demand a lot more than 99.999% surety as a 0.001% chance of error is quite possible."

Im pretty sure 5 sigma means that the probability of success is 99.9767%.

 

[Architect]

Actually this discussion of the math is pointless, how they arrived at that number is much more complicated then any of us can know. I don't even remember how we did it back in the day (part of the mental purge no doubt), but its difficult and you have to be a current practicing particle physicist to understand how they got there. This is a very specialized field that only the practitioners really know the score.

That's OK though, we trust more important things - like our lives - to experts in the field (such as airplane designers, mechanics and pilots) all the time.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

You get a lot of points for that one Proxy!

(I just learned Bayesian Statistics last week. As in a studied a text book and population a programming language's library.)

 

[Architect]

Yeah, only 'several dozen' (twice than I had thought) of the event, out of 500 trillion total

Out of some 500 trillion collisions, just several dozen produced "events" with significant data, said Joe Incandela of the University of California at Santa Barbara, leader of the team known as CMS, with 2,100 scientists.

http://news.yahoo.com/eureka-physicists-celebrate-evidence-particle-100214540.html

Interesting they had two groups independently find it. I wonder why the two groups, and what each is specifically hunting for?

 

[BigApplePi]

I will ramble on below, but am looking for the right question. Don't think I've found the right question.

This bozo would like to know what the Higgs boson is. I'm glad it has been found, but what is it that was found? If we are talking "Higgs field", what is a field?

It is said to be a particle that gives mass to other particles. What kind of particle is it and why is it so heavy? What does heavy mean? Massive? Is it divisible or is that irrelevant? Does it occupy all of space like the ether was supposed to? Note that this "ether" was discarded eventually. Why would it give mass to other particles? Because it is a "field" of something molasses-likeness and pulls on or obstructs other objects with mass? How could it do that? Because it's everywhere and thus in the way? Is it really everywhere or does it have holes? Another way of saying this is it distorts space. How so? What would give it such ability?

Knowing how something affects other things is one thing. HOW it does it and what it is is another. It's like saying, "You bug me. You are an annoyance." That may be true but it doesn't say what you are or how you accomplish that or what's inside of you to do that.

 

[scorpiomover]

Well, the posts here made interesting reading. Don't know how much of a deal the Higgs makes, though.

AFAIK, it just means that the anomaly in the Standard Model about why some particles have mass, and others are only energy has been experimentally resolved, and so the theory has not had to be replaced by doing something like adding like a Technicolor force.

Of course, I could be talking out of my backside again. That will only be the 3rd time this week.

 

[Architect]

If we are talking "Higgs field", what is a field?

A word which signifies a space time phenomenon, that is something which can be described as a continuous function over X, Y, Z and t.

What kind of particle is it and why is it so heavy?

Have to dig into a lot of heavy specifics for that.

What does heavy mean? Massive?

Yes, around 130Gev if I recall (Giga Electron Volts, an eV being the energy an electron gains by going through a 1 volt EM field. Massive in this sense being energy (which equals mass)

Is it divisible or is that irrelevant?

Bosons break down into quarks. Leptons (like electrons) do not.

Does it occupy all of space like the ether was supposed to?

Sure, but don't fight the inverse square law.

Why would it give mass to other particles?

I don't know the specifics on this one, and it might be hard to explain anyhow.

Because it is a "field" of something molasses-likeness and pulls on or obstructs other objects with mass? How could it do that? Because it's everywhere and thus in the way? Is it really everywhere or does it have holes? Another way of saying this is it distorts space. How so? What would give it such ability?

You're trying to peek behind the curtain which isn't something physics will help you with. We say EM fields exist. Because it's a field its a continuous varying function over space time. We can describe it, manipulate it, theorize how it is before measuring and find that it is what we described, but we don't try to understand what 'it' really is. See below.

Knowing how something affects other things is one thing. HOW it does it and what it is is another. It's like saying, "You bug me. You are an annoyance." That may be true but it doesn't say what you are or how you accomplish that or what's inside of you to do that.

Yes, but physics is only interested in the 'how'. 'What' a Higgs is, in the sense you mean, isn't something that can be measured so we don't touch it. What is all about interpretation.

Well, the posts here made interesting reading. Don't know how much of a deal the Higgs makes, though.

It means that in 100 years we went from understanding about atoms to their constituent parts and behaviors. This has been a remarkable run for science, the scope of what we know about matter now is really remarkable. To be able to peek into the quantum world, as impossible seeming and as strange as it is, to this degree of sophistication is wonderful. And it means that mankind, despite budget cuts and other priorities, is still pushing the limits of our knowledge and scope.

On the face of it, it doesn't seem that grand. But you have to put it in a little context and step back to understand how remarkable this is and how far we've come.

 

[NinjaSurfer]

we are the 99.999%!

 

[BigApplePi]

First of all Architect, thank you for putting up with me. My original interest as a student was pure mathematics, never applied. Pure is to applied as fine art is to a sidewalk painter I used to feel. Now I have to learn that isn't quite fair to others. It's the curse of an INTP, lol.

A word which signifies a space time phenomenon, that is something which can be described as a continuous function over X, Y, Z and t.

A continuous function (that includes functions in four dimensions) has no holes. Zero holes. To talk about something which might have holes as if it had no holes is like ... I can't finish this sentence ...

Bosons break down into quarks. Leptons (like electrons) do not.

So a boson is far from an elementary particle. If you've had experience with quarks, can you say what they are, besides being part of a proton among others? I'm wondering if they are only theoretical particles because they seems to reveal some fundamental forces which are either measured or give visual symptoms. Kind of like theorizing a pocket watch has a spring inside with ever having taken one apart.

You're trying to peek behind the curtain which isn't something physics will help you with. We say EM fields exist. Because it's a field its a continuous varying function over space time. We can describe it, manipulate it, theorize how it is before measuring and find that it is what we described, but we don't try to understand what 'it' really is.

May I provide an alternative phraselogy? Electomagnetic fields seem to behave like continuous functions. For all we know they pulsate but we never detect that. It's like watching a video. That gives the appearance of continuity.

It means that in 100 years we went from understanding about atoms to their constituent parts and behaviors. This has been a remarkable run for science, the scope of what we know about matter now is really remarkable. To be able to peek into the quantum world, as impossible seeming and as strange as it is, to this degree of sophistication is wonderful. And it means that mankind, despite budget cuts and other priorities, is still pushing the limits of our knowledge and scope.

On the face of it, it doesn't seem that grand. But you have to put it in a little context and step back to understand how remarkable this is and how far we've come.

I say bravo for experimental physics. Theoretical physics has gone one further step out of many more unknown steps.

 

[Architect]

So a boson is far from an elementary particle. If you've had experience with quarks, can you say what they are, besides being part of a proton among others? I'm wondering if they are only theoretical particles because they seems to reveal some fundamental forces which are either measured or give visual symptoms. Kind of like theorizing a pocket watch has a spring inside with ever having taken one apart.

Quarks are quite real, I've seen their track in a multi-million dollar calorimeter.

May I provide an alternative phraselogy? Electomagnetic fields seem to behave like continuous functions. For all we know they pulsate but we never detect that. It's like watching a video. That gives the appearance of continuity.

No, a static field does not pulsate. Ever used a compass? Played with a magnet? Used anything with an electric motor in it? Magnetic fields can also pulsate, which my wife appreciated as she needed an MRI scan. Luckily the machine behaved as physics predicted it would.

I'm sorry but you're obfuscating and making simple things opaque. Physics is what we can measure and I've spent my life making measurements, and all a measurement tells us is what it is measuring. Everything else is interpretation. An activity not without some rewards, but a rather low calorie one at that.