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 everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
