On Tuesday, teams working at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in Switzerland are expected to present evidence that the Higgs boson particle has been glimpsed. However, the evidence will not be conclusive according to an email sent to staff by Rolf-Dieter Heuer, CERN's director-general. University of Manchester professor Stefan Soldner-Rembold, calls the quality of LHC's results "exceptional" but cautions that we'll likely have to wait less than a year to find out if the Higgs particle has been discovered.
Two teams — Atlas and CMS — are sifting through billions of collisions looking for evidence of Higgs boson. Recent rumors claim that they have seen indications of a Higgs spike at 125 GeV within a 2.5 to 3.5 sigma level of certainty (where three sigma is an "observation" and five sigma is a discovery). Nevertheless, if the two teams at LHC announce a spike at the about the same place then physicists would be confident that they're close, but obligated to wait until they've reached a five sigma conclusion before announcing the discovery of Higgs boson.
The Higgs particle is a fundamental building block of the universe and helps explain why other particles have mass. Proof that the Higgs boson, or "god particle," exists would validate physicists' approach to understanding the universe and help justify the $10 billion spent constructing the 17-mile particle accelerator that tunnels beneath the Franco-Swiss border near Geneva.
Update: The official findings do indeed suggest the existence of the Higgs boson in the range of 116-130 GeV, as observed by the ATLAS experiment, and 115-127 GeV as seen by CMS, with "an intriguing excess of events in the mass range around 125 GeV." Both teams expect to have conclusive evidence in 2012.

There are 37 Comments. Add yours.
That would be amazing! Can’t wait to read more about the new discoveries they make at CERN!
Posted on Dec 12, 2011 | 6:14 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Was the “Large Hardon Collider” in the first line meant to be a joke or did somebody’s spell checker/autocorrect get it wrong?
Posted on Dec 12, 2011 | 6:17 AM EST reply Recommend (9) Flag actions
It’s a really easy mistake to make, I do it all the time :) they really should’ve reconsidered the name.
OT: This sounds amazing. As I understand it, finding this particle will help scientists explain gravity, or mass to be more precise, and take them one step closer to proving the string theory.
Posted on Dec 12, 2011 | 6:35 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Why should they reconsider the name? Look up ‘Hadron’ and you’ll understand why Large Hadron Collider is the best name to describe this machine.
Besides, misspelled ‘large hadron collider’ has no particular meaning amongst most of europe – or the world. Its juvenile slang, after all.
Posted on Dec 12, 2011 | 10:22 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Particle physics gives me a hadron
Posted on Dec 12, 2011 | 7:17 AM EST reply Recommend (14) Flag actions
^ This has to be on a t-shirt.
Posted on Dec 12, 2011 | 12:23 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
It would be even better if the sentence continued “have glimpsed the Higgs Bosom”.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 5:29 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Too little sleep Mr Ricker? Littered with typos, of which “hardon” is the funniest. Also note that Switzerland is next to France, not Fance…
Posted on Dec 12, 2011 | 6:32 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Maybe he meant fence? I’m pretty sure that there is at-least one fence near Switzerland.
Posted on Dec 12, 2011 | 12:57 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I’m still waiting on them to create a black hole.
Posted on Dec 12, 2011 | 6:48 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Keep on waiting. At least you’ll never hear about it. Just like the many natural micro-black holes generated by cosmic radiation within our atmosphere – or so the theory says.
Posted on Dec 12, 2011 | 10:25 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
If they say they have found it, who the hell can verify or dispute it? Let me go check on the particle accelerator in my backyard
Posted on Dec 12, 2011 | 7:17 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
That’s not really how Science works. Not finding something is just as important as finding something. The LHC is not just used to discover this one thing, it has value everywhere. Anything that we can find can change whole industries or build new ones over night. That’s because great achievement has no road map. The X-Ray is pretty good, and so is penicillin, and neither were discovered with a practical objective in mind. When the electron was discovered in 1897, it was useless. And now we have an entire world run by electronics. (Aaron Sorkin is my home boy.)
Posted on Dec 12, 2011 | 8:57 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
that’s not how science works..
an experiment is deemed successful not when it validates your understanding of the world, but when it provides proof either way, proving or disproving your hypothesis..
Posted on Dec 12, 2011 | 7:32 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
This goes to show that some people don’t learn from their mistakes.
Posted on Dec 12, 2011 | 7:53 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I wish everyone would stop calling the Higgs the god particle. It’s pandering.
Posted on Dec 12, 2011 | 7:50 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Ditto here.
Posted on Dec 12, 2011 | 7:51 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
what would God need with a particle?
Posted on Dec 12, 2011 | 8:05 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Check out wiki for awesome definition:
Pandering may refer to:
Pandering (politics), the expression of one’s views in a manner that appeals to voters
Procuring (prostitution), the facilitation of a prostitute
Posted on Dec 12, 2011 | 9:30 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Isn’t religion a base desire, hence pandering to it?
Posted on Dec 12, 2011 | 9:41 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Wow an atheist saying something rude about religion, call the presses.
Posted on Dec 12, 2011 | 10:41 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Not atheist, and not trying to be rude. :|
Posted on Dec 12, 2011 | 11:48 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I suppose I should have said spirituality.
Posted on Dec 12, 2011 | 12:21 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
But the Earth hasn’t been destroyed by a black hole yet…
Posted on Dec 12, 2011 | 7:52 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Faster than light Neutrinoes and Higgs both cannot coexist — either one has to be wrong. It’s DCE research and superluminal speed which has the potential of breaking current scientific barriers, rather than finding a nebulous statistical dual peak for a Higgs, which well could be due to many other anomalies, one that LHC could not decipher is that of the UFOs.
Posted on Dec 12, 2011 | 8:37 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
They already said that the neutrinos were not going faster than light. It was an error in calculation or instrumentation.
Posted on Dec 12, 2011 | 9:28 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Actually the neutrinos has yet to be proven or disproven.
Posted on Dec 12, 2011 | 10:22 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/nov/18/neutrinos-still-faster-than-light
Not what I heard.
Posted on Dec 12, 2011 | 11:37 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
They corrected their correction :P
Posted on Dec 12, 2011 | 12:59 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It would also explain my suggestion on multiple dimensions and the reason why we will be unable to travel in time.
If anyone is interested, I wrote to Brian Greene to open a debate.
Hi Brian, I’ve watched your TED show a couple of times and read what I could understand about the subject and it all left me with a big question.
Why only 1 dimension of time? – As you said.
It left me with thinking up other ideas.
I know very little about time and space but from a purely logic standpoint it seems to me, that we would have 3 dimensions of space and having 3 dimensions of time, one for each dimension of space laying on top of them. Then give them each their respectively anti dimension and you got 12 states/dimensions.
But, as far as I understand, we assume that space and time themselves are dimensions as well, giving you 4 dimensions of space and 4 of time. Again from a logic standpoint they would all have an anti part leaving you with 16 dimensions.
I remember some mathematical paradox where a barber was wondering if he was a part of the men in town or not.
This logic idea of weather or not to count the value of space and time themselves into account seems to make sense when putting them into perspective of the found amount of fermion and bosons.
So I guess I wanted to ask you, could that make sense?
If I am not rambling to much, it would also explain why you can’t move in time as the value of time in this case is present.
Best regards,
Samuel Hauptmann van Dam.
Posted on Dec 12, 2011 | 9:28 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I made a slight change for The Verge that I want to take back – the notion of traveling in time, I want to change that back to the original phase of traveling back in time.
best regards,
Samuel.
Posted on Dec 12, 2011 | 9:42 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Of the dimensions that we do know and can objectively quantify without the higgs, the four basic dimensions are pretty well proven and not up for debate any longer. Read a little bit about Relativity man. There is only one dimension of Time. That is it boss.
The paradox in reference is that the barber shaves only guys in town that do not shave themselves. The barber then cannot be part of either set. It was used to prove contradictions in a particular version of Set Theory, not Space/Time.
Posted on Dec 12, 2011 | 9:40 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I am not 100% sure what you mean when you say that there is only one dimension of Time, we might agree, though a layer of such dimension, can not exist unless a specific dimension of space is present. Which is why I suggest more dimensions of Time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySBaYMESb8o&feature=fvwrel
Fx, such as it is describe in this clip about 4th, 5,th and 6th dimension. I suggest that Time is also a value and that the value can not be present for a dimensions unless a specific dimension is present. If a new dimension is “available”, a layer of time with a specific value on top. Higgs suggests that there is a value (not by itself) by showing that it gives value to matter, ergo something from a logic standpoint also gives value to Time.
You find that paradox in all places of math. Even in quantum physics when you have to suggest if an atom is in a fixed location or not.
The reason why the paradox can be applied is because of the fundamental idea of set theory. Time as a value, a dimension etc etc. It suggests that you can apply the paradox to time as well. To count time as well as to count it in reference to other times and dimensions.
Best regards,
Samuel.
Posted on Dec 12, 2011 | 10:03 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
So what happens if they don’t find it? NASA has recently proved to their discredit their willingness to stretch the truth in order to obtain more funds for it’s space program. Lets hope these scientists can still think objectively apart from the funding aspect.
Posted on Dec 12, 2011 | 11:04 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This type of stuff is pretty well peer-reviewed across the globe, plus this isn’t NASA. RTFA.
Posted on Dec 12, 2011 | 11:22 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
But what about the stability of the vacuum?
http://blog.vixra.org/2011/12/04/what-would-a-higgs-at-125-gev-tell-us/
Posted on Dec 12, 2011 | 12:31 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I bet we don’t truly exist!
Posted on Dec 12, 2011 | 4:02 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.