Past tense? Photons? This article really needs a revamp from someone.
References to "it"[change source]
These references to "it" need cleaned up for the average reader.
I'm not the scientific expert though, but it seems it should read:
The Higgs Field is a possibly-discovered invisible field of energy that exists throughout the entire universe. The field is accompanied by a fundamental particle called the Higgs Boson, which IS USED BY THE FIELD to continuously interact with other particles.
Although apparent, mass is not generated by the Higgs Field, as THE creation of matter or energy would conflict with the laws of conservation; MASS is, however, transferred to particles from the field, which contains the relative mass in the form of energy. Once the field has endowed a particle WITH MASS, THE PARTICLE slows down because it has become heavier, therefore giving other particles the chance to latch onto THE FIELD using electromagnetic force.
I think this article should also reference the mass/energy equivalence. The Higgs Field and Boson converting energy to mass like Einstein explained is important.
Treacle Analogy[change source]
Something is wrong here:
"....much like how an object could pass through treacle (or molasses) and become heavier, and consequently, slower"
Things don't get 'heavier' in treacle. Friction increases,slowing them down. I am not sure this is not a good analogy to the Higgs effect. A better example might be,say,a plane flying through very cold damp air,icing up as it gathers frozen water vapour,and thus slowing down or even being unable to fly due to the weight. Or can anyone thing up something else?
But congratulations to the simple English writers of this article,actually producing something understandable!
~~frglee 22 April 2013~~
Extent of the universe[change source]
This article says that the Higgs Field exists throughout the Universe. I think that description is too universe-centric. The Higgs Field predates the Universe and the Universe exists within the Higgs Field. Who's to say how many universes have been sparked within the Higgs Field or what the extend of the Higgs Field is. It's on the back of the turtle, on the back of the turtle, on the back of the turtle, on the back of the turtle...
Nature does not "want" anything[change source]
I have changed "... nature wants to be at the lowest energy sate" to "nature tends towards the lowest energy sate". I hope that's acceptable.
UNITS OF MEASURE[change source]
Is this simple English?[change source]
Is endowed simple English, really? What about "imparted"? Wow.
- No, editor, it is not Simple English. Sometimes, we get articles here which are mostly simple, but have parts which people find difficult to understand. We can mark these using a special template, Template:Complex. This template puts a message on the page which says that some of the English used might not be easy to understand. Users then come along and change that language, to make it easier. I will read this article now, and if I think it needs that template adding, I'll do it. Thank you for pointing this out. DaneGeld (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Violates Conservation of Mass[change source]
The article says that the idea of the Higgs field giving mass to particles violates the laws of conservation; however, the laws of conservation only apply to chemical reactions and this certainly isn't a chemical reaction.
infinite fields[change source]
In the intro we need to compare and contrast the different types of fields. "The Higgs field is an energy field that is thought to exist everywhere in the universe." But is the Higgs field unique in existing everywhere? Does the gravitational field exist everywhere, but at a value of zero except around masses? Or does the electromagnetic? Or is the Higgs the only infinite field?
Best written science/tech article[change source]
Wow! Brilliant! I'm impressed with the simple language clarity of this article and it's accessibility to the layman. It's what Wikipedia should strive for in all the articles on topics of mathematics, electricity, biology, chemicals, etc.
There was very little in the way of obscure terminology that led to often hopeless loops of references that plague most people attempting to gain a foothold of understanding. So many pages on Wikipedia are useless because in order to understand them one would need a deep familiarity with the topic already, basically already know the information. This isn't new information to most people but I'll keep whining until it's fixed.
I've done some editing when an obscure term is used that is easily defined or replaced on the page. Also, I've looked on youtube and elsewhere to find chalkboard explanations and wonder how these might be incorporated or transcribed. Not everyone has sufficient basis to search youtube themselves and sort through the results to find a reasonably simple explanation to define a term or concept they are unfamiliar with **while in the middle of an article about something else**.
I don't know what Wikipedia does to reach out to physicists, for example, or the really good explanations on electronics that are currently available elsewhere but may be lost over time and lead to dead links. Is there an **invitation** that can be given to such sources so that the content is available within an article or mirrored on Wikipedia servers lest they be lost? Whinestein (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)