In particle physics, elementary particles and forces

give rise to the world around us. Nowadays,

physicists explain the behaviour of these particles
and how they interact using theStandard Modela
widely accepted and "remarkably"
accurate[21] framework based on gauge
invariance and symmetries, believed to explain
almost everything in the world we see, other
than gravity.[22]
But by around 1960 all attempts to create a gauge
invariant theory for two of the four fundamental
forces had consistently failed at one crucial point:
although gauge invariance seemed extremely
important, it seemed to make any theory
of electromagnetism and the weak force go
haywire, by demanding that either many particles
with mass were massless or that non-existent
forces and massless particles had to exist.
Scientists had no idea how to get past this point.

In 1962 physicist Philip Anderson wrote a paper

that built upon work by Yoichiro
Nambu concerning "broken
symmetries" in superconductivity and particle
physics. He suggested that "broken symmetries"
might also be the missing piece needed to solve
the problems of gauge invariance. In 1964 a theory
was created almost simultaneously by 3 different
groups of researchers, that showed Anderson's
suggestion was possible - the gauge theory and
"mass problems" could indeed be resolved if an
unusual kind of field existed throughout the
universe; if this kind of field did exist, it would
apparently cause existing particles to acquire
mass instead of new massless particles being
formed. Although these ideas did not gain much
initial support or attention, by 1972 it had been
developed into a comprehensive theory and
proved capable of giving "sensible" results that
were extremely accurate, including very

accurate predictions of several other particles

discovered during the following years.[Note 7] During
the 1970s these theories rapidly became the
"standard model" favoured by physicists and used
to describe particle physics and particle
interactions in nature. There was not yet any direct
evidence that this field actually existed, but even
without proof of the field, the accuracy of its
predictions led scientists to believe the theory
might be true. By the 1980s the question whether
or not such a field existed and whether this was
the correct explanation, was considered to be one
of the most important unanswered questions in
particle physics, and by the 1990s two of the
largest experimental installations ever created
were being designed and constructed to find the
answer.
If this new kind of field did exist in nature, it would
be a monumental discovery for science and human
knowledge, and would open doorways to new

knowledge in many disciplines. If not, then other

more complicated theories would need to be
explored. The simplest solution to whether the field
existed was by searching for a new kind
of particle it would have to give off, known as
"Higgs bosons" or the "Higgs particle". These
would be extremely difficult to find, so it was only
many years later that experimental technology
became sophisticated enough to answer the
question.
While several symmetries in nature are
spontaneously broken through a form of the Higgs
mechanism, in the context of the Standard Model
the term "Higgs mechanism" almost always means
symmetry breaking of the electroweak field. It is
considered confirmed, but revealing the exact
cause has been difficult.
Various analogies have also been invented to
describe the Higgs field and boson, including
analogies with well-known symmetry breaking

effects such as the rainbow and prism,electric

fields, ripples, and resistance of macro objects
moving through media, like people moving through
crowds or some objects moving
through syrup or molasses. However, analogies
based on simple resistance to motion are
inaccurate as the Higgs field does not work by
resisting motion.