There are two separate questions here.

The first question, "is the Higgs mechanism how elementary particles get their mass?" is now essentially answered. Whether or not the Higgs boson is a single particle or part of a hierarchy of related bosons is almost irrelevant to the answer of this question.

The second question is "is there new physics at the TeV scale?" If there is, then there are additional bosons related to the Higgs in some models like supersymmetry. However, it is not required that there be additional bosons or that that they be easily measured. Other new particles might be more accessible. On the other hand, there might not be any new physics at LHC energies at all. This question is what will take time to answer.

You're misunderstanding the quoted passage. In either case it would be the Higgs that they were searching for.

The uncertainty is about the structure that exists beyond the standard model. Some sort of Higgs is still necessary in almost any extension to this model, which is why everyone was so damn certain it would be found.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson#Alternative_models

I am not a physicist, only someone who enjoys physics, so I may be. I would love to be enlightened if I did misunderstand.

My understanding from the statement is that they know there is the effects of a Higgs has been observed. But that this isn't necessarily the Higgs which fits into the Standard Model. I understand there are other models which may be considered but I thought that there were specific conditions which would satisfy the Standard Model.

>this isn't necessarily the Higgs which fits into the Standard Model

We know that the standard model is "wrong" -- it breaks down at high enough energies. But it's valid at lower energies; it works for the stuff we can actually observe. And it requires a Higgs field to make sense.

If they discover a particle that fills this role, that's discovering "the" Higgs. It doesn't matter if it turns out that the Higgs sector is more complicated; the fundamental prediction of the standard model has been vindicated. Even though everyone kind of expected this, its still a big deal!

So if a pop science article says that the Higgs has been discovered, they're not really being sensationalist in their wording. Working physicists would say the same thing.

(They might be a bit off in pointing to this particular announcement as the discovery, of course! The bbc seems to have the most sober coverage of this sort of thing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21785205)

Thanks! From your explanation, I guess I may have misunderstood the significance of observing a Higgs versus the Higgs when it comes to semantics. Maybe it's a case of me just being too specific and I should cool my jets. However, the swath of results stating "god particle found" across the board, when searching for the source, felt a bit much.

Do you know any specifics of how the standard model breaks down at high enough energies?

The one we know for sure about is related to gravity -- you normally ignore it in particle physics, but there's a point where you can't do that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_scale

Now, it's quite likely interesting stuff happens before that point! (Such as the extra Higgs suggested by supersymmetry.) And there are also other, complicated reasons to suspect that the Standard Model breaks down, to suspect that it is really what we call an "effective field theory".

That's all ignoring issues like dark matter or the neutrino mass, which are not predicted by the standard model. But it's kind of interesting that the model (in a certain sense) naturally limits its own predictions.

Science is pretty boring to most people, who aren't interested in science per se but only want news bites for use in casual conversation. Media distorts scientific claims in order to appeal to a wider audience and make more money.

God Particle Found! News at eleventy eleven!eleventy!

I find your statement regarding people wanting nothing more than news bites for casual conversation to be intriguing. I wonder how much consumption of information is for nothing more than to be able to converse about it.

When I was a bartender, I would often consume tidbits of popular sporting events or news just so I could hold conversations with my patrons. I had absolutely 0 interest in who crashed at Daytona that day.

I'm wondering whether some (or rather, how many) people will now conclude that there's a proof God exists, since scientists have found "God particle".

I predict roughly everyone who already believes in god and follows this kind of news (only half-jokingly).

In my experience most people don't form their opinions based on the totality of current knowledge and keep adjusting them in some Bayesian fashion as more info becomes known. Rather they make up their minds based on something (could be their knowledge of currently accepted facts, could be what they were taught growing up, could be just what they think makes sense, etc..) and then simply scan for confirmatory data, or simply don't pay any attention because they already have it 'figured out'.

Thus if you already believe in god and heard that scientists had discovered the 'god particle' you would likely say 'see, I knew it!', if you didn't believe in god and saw the same thing you would say 'I am skeptical, let me read this article', and you would walk away saying 'that is just a name, it has nothing to do with god, who still doesn't exist'. So really I guess both sides win, and we all lose, or maybe I am just too cynical.

Well, to be fair, does the sourced NYT article not say exactly what the quote indicates--specifically to the point of referencing the quote itself? Even the article's title says it is a, not the, Higgs boson that is found. Moreover, the article also says "it remains an "open question," CERN said in a statement, whether this is the Higgs boson that was expected in the original formulation, or possibly the lightest of several predicted in some theories that go beyond that model."

Sensationalism where?

I wasn't speaking directly to the NYT article. I was speaking to the multitude of sites that came up when I was searching for the source. Many of the headlines were along the lines of "god particle found."

At least the Oh-My-God particle has definitely been found:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oh-My-God_particle

Ugh, I hate the "god particle" name. I wonder if people called the atom that at first also.