On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>wrote:
> > I profoundly disagree. What was found was a curve when the raw data
> was graphed in a particular way. There is no proof that this curve is
> uniquely representational of some "particle".
The article certainly profoundly disagrees with your above statement:
"another equally likely option is that the data is evidence of a more
exotic theory in which the Higgs boson exists in several different forms.
So the new particle might be one of these, examples of these are a generic
Higgs doublet or a triplet imposter. A final option is based on the idea
that particles can exist in mixtures. So the new data does not show the
Higgs but a mixture of it and some other particle."
All these possibilities would be much more exciting than just the discovery
of the vanilla Higgs, and the evidence that a new particle of some sort has
been discovered is just about as close to a "proof" as evidence EVER gets
in physics which means the evidence is excellent even if a bit less than
Euclidean certainty. And if the particle is not the Higgs that would mean
it is the first unexpected particle discovered in the last 40 years, which
would new physics has been experimentally found, which would be huge.
John K Clark
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at