See, because I don't know much about physics, I mistakenly assumed it was already discovered back when they were theorizing about it.

Higgs Boson probably discovered. The question now is, what kind of particle is it. Does it work the way we theorised it will, or is there new things to discover?

This is one case where the scientists might like to be wrong, especially if the particle explains anything about Dark Matter.

Probably discovered my ass, it was pretty much a sure thing back in December already.

Actually I think your ass was discovered before that mate... ;P Joking.

While impressive, isn't it just a little disappointing? I like mysteries in the universe. Surely this discovery will only lead to more mysteries, but I was hoping that the Higgs proved illusionary just to stimulate further thought. Now, on to String Theory, I suppose.

Was the Higgs Boson really that exciting a mystery? We thought it was probably there, and now we've found evidence to suggest it very likely is. Whoopy do! The biggest mystery is how they managed to keep the mind control rays they used to convince politicians to plough billions into this project secret!

I'll admit to some bias. At uni the particle physics guys were always the small, scary ones who spent hour after hour in dark basement labs doing god knows what. They are a sub species of physicist, little better than chemists if truth be told, and yet they suck up stupid amounts of funding.

The experiments are severely lagging behind hep-th for quite some (it's been almost 50 years since Higgs was postulated for instance) so they definitely do not suck up stupid amounts of money, otherwise they would not need to use Tevatron until last year.

Really, calling one of the most fundamental physics discipline "little better than chemists" is more than somewhat biased. Especially when it just confirmed a prediction so qualitatively different from what was known decades ago (first spinless elementary particle) that not many other disciplines would not even dream of it.

Well, they deserve the money and lots more. Go Physics.

To go where no one has gone before. ( this leaves the door wide open for humorous responses)

@ smc

No they don't. They've spent billions and they haven't really achieved anything. Once the parties have finished, the hangovers have been recovered from, and the embarrasing memory of the time they spent explaining the link between quarts and quarks to a girl who couldn't care less during said party has been repressed, they're going to have lots of fun explaining to people how nothing remotely useful is going to come from the discovery any time soon. Finding the HB is an important step in human understanding, but it's a step that should really have had a much lower priority. It's like inventing the jet engine before the aeroplane.

When you think of all the other things we could have done instead...

That was quick, resorting to a non-argument almost immediately. Keep thinking about the dynamics of public financing. Meanwhile, I'll wait whether LHC finds something about SUSY and if not, then wait for an upgrade and further research ;)

Do explain how it's a non argument. There is a limited amount of public money, and only a small percentage of which makes its way to scientific research. A big chunk of money going to a glorified underground cycle path is a damned good excuse for politicians not to fund something else.

Octavius, did your project lose funding because of LHC or are you just generally against it? This is not sarcasm, I am genuinely curious.

@Oct

What would you like to have seen funded instead? Fundamental research is incredibly important because it paves the way for more practical discoveries.

@ Octavious, stop behaving like a cork brained clown
" a glorified underground cycle path " haha, if thats your attempt at comedy, keep your day job is what I can say to that.
and calling particle physicists " little better than chemists" is insulting to chemists as well as particle physicists
Look at all the excellent DRUGS those hardworking chemists come up with

and you quibble about money spent on R&D you clown and call it a waste
you have no idea. Look at all the ways we waste resources on self indulgent consumption, and you have the stupidity to question funding of R& D

It's a complete non-argument because

a) It can be used to counter anything. Why do you do X instead of feeding the hungry, educating the poor and healing the sick? And when you in fact do feed the hungry, someone says "gosh, why don't you educate the poor instead?" It is just a lazy refutation stemming from personal objections that can never bear the brunt any argument. To even give such call to arms some substance, you have to prove a causal link where X siphons money from Y or how the money from X could actually find a way to Y.

b) LHC is a united effort. Even the single biggest contributor, CERN, doesn't add more than 20% of the funding. Then you may add individual country donations, worldwide university donations, private donations... good luck coordinating that money to any other project, nevermind the fact that most of those contributions would never go to anything else. CERN is all about particle physics. Companies like Alstom are into physics. Physics departments on universities as well. A significant part of the budget is not redirected from other branches of science, it is available precisely because it is LHC. The money snowballs since it's a trendy project and attracts money that wouldn't have to land in science anyway.

c) The law of diminishing marginal utility. Some people think that if we threw billions into the research of AIDS, we would find a cure in no time. Wrong. There is already a substantial amount of money in that research. What would increased funding accomplish? It would attract more scientists. The bad ones. The passionate and those with expertise are already doing research in that field. Attracting those with passing interest and borderline insufficient expertise only leads to duplicity of research and plumetting marginal utility of research, i.e. inefficient use of public money. On the other hand, Tevatron clearly reached its boundaries and could not serve further in the research at cost-effective pace. If you have a discipline where you need only 1 main project to do the heavy work, it's damn clear that if you have 0, you are in fact underfunded. That doesn't mean the project is perfect - I would eliminate the Chinese wall between CMS and ATLAS teams since they are pretty much separately duplicating research while the accuracy boost in their findings is marginal and the cross-checking doesn't need two separate teams - but it's necessary for particle physics. It is also well-designed, with clear goals, strategy and long-term planning including future upgrades. Can't say that about "shovel-ready" project the money could potentially flow into should LHC be shut down tomorrow.

I don't get it, is this the particle that made Jesus able to perform miracles?

Nope, it's the one that stimulated Zombie Jebus' body into the undead state so he could terrorize a bunch of people who saw him died.

I know I'm going to get zapped for that one. :-)

Evidently nobody got the memo that there was no confirmation of the Hoggs Boson, only that a new particle was found. The problem for me is that this discovery will cause people to overlook the many flaws of the Standard Model.

I've never heard of the Hoggs Boson? Is that the particle that makes magic work at Hoggwart's?

LOL, Higgs.

Actually, 125 GeV Higgs reinforces Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model at the expense of Standard Model (oh, what a surprise) so no, it won't make people overlook the problems of Standard Model.

Pardon my ignorance, but what is known about this particle anyway? I honestly don't know anything than that it is probably sub-atomic.

Isn't Higgs necessary to explain the rate of 'inflation' which is imperative for the Standard Model?

If you the proposition of Bezrukov and Shaposhnikov, no it is not, The 125 GeV one cannot serve as inflaton under SM, that would require something along the lines of 230 GeV Higgs.

@ulytau you seem to know quite a bit about the subject. Professional or personal interest?

Isn't the 125 mass too high for the MSSM?

Personal interest. I think I have a passing knowledge of the trends in the field but definitely cannot appreciate all the finer points let alone replicate the math. Plenty of times I go through a paper of arXiv and say to the author "OK, man, I don't exactly follow but I'll trust your word" and move on. An acceptable attitude for a layperson in my eyes, I wouldn't do that in my economics of course.

Usually, the border separating Higgs favorable to MSSM and to SM is viewed as around 135 GeV, lower values favor MSSM and vice versa.