Higgs and what if?

[Noodles141]

I know this isn't to do with electronics physics but i'm sure a lot of you have become interested in the higgs and i would like to talk about it a bit as non of my friends are actually that interested in it, architect don't really understand physics and well don't get me started on psychologists,the people in my electronics course don't even know much about this.

what i want to pose is a question or two and you discuss what you think would happen or the correct answer is and we see where it goes.

first question. The supposed theory about the higgs field is that certain particles that move through this higgs field get what we call mass by the fact that the are slowed down in this higgs field and absorb some of the energy in the field? What if a particle that would normally interact with the higgs field when moving through it where to not move at all and be completely stationary in this higgs field. Could it become massless since it is not moving and therefore not absorbing any energy from the higgs field that slows it down?

my view is it could theoretically since my understanding is the particle needs to be moving in the field, think of an electron in a magnetic field, it is only affected when it is in motion. So therefore we could make a massless object by making it completely still even down to the particle level. Now this posses a second question.

If we were to create a massless object like stated above, would it be affected by earths gravity?

This one i'm not to sure about since I've had some difficulty with gravity when it gets beyond the norm. What i understand is that the law of universal gravitation only applies to objects with low values from the outcome of this equation. so on earth it applies. If we mad a massless particle somehow, then we threw it up, would it travel like light which has no mass even though this object has volume.

last question which is more about the theory itself and something i would like to know, How does the higgs boson and the higgs field relate to gravity and will it help explain gravity in any way or is that still a mystery to us?

 

[cowboybob]

First of all, it's my understanding that the Higgs Boson has yet to be definitively observed (just it's "presence", which has been presumed from the data thus far gathered). So, it still (again, my understanding) only exists as a math lover's wet dream.

So, to me, the effect that either of the Higgs permutations may have on gravity (or vice-versa) has yet to be discovered. So much of theoretical physics relies on a "willful suspension of disbelief" that I, for one, kinda lose interest.

There are, of course, many who think otherwise.

 

[Noodles141]

Your not entrirely right actually, they have confirmed on finding a higgs, wether or not its the the standard higgs or not is the real question and if it is then all that talk about the higgs field and what not will be true but if not i dont think the theory of the higgs field is not true as you need the higgs field to find the higgs particle which they have, proving the higgs field exists. Or at least that's what i understand. watch this video, very interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=649iUqrOKuE&feature=plcp

 

[MrAl]

First of all, it's my understanding that the Higgs Boson has yet to be definitively observed (just it's "presence", which has been presumed from the data thus far gathered). So, it still (again, my understanding) only exists as a math lover's wet dream.

So, to me, the effect that either of the Higgs permutations may have on gravity (or vice-versa) has yet to be discovered. So much of theoretical physics relies on a "willful suspension of disbelief" that I, for one, kinda lose interest.

There are, of course, many who think otherwise.

Hi,


Sometimes we, as humans with limited understanding, talk about things that we think might be true even though in the near future they may be disproved. That's because if we didnt talk about them at all we would never be able to prove OR disprove whether or not it actually exists or not.
Assume every physicist on the planet stopped talking about the Higgs boson, right NOW (9:17am EST). How would they ever find out it if really existed or not?
If they find out it exists, that's nice. But if they find out it doesnt exist, then many other doors of possibilities opens up which would really expand physics.
But without talking about it and doing experiments, there's no telling one way or the other. So we start to talk about what properties it might have and what it can and not do, and what it means for us living in this universe. It becomes part of normal conversation for many people and many begin to wonder about what it means.

I like the analogy of a fish swimming through the water. A more stream lined fish can swim through water easier than a fat fish with the stream lined fish requiring less energy because it interacts less with the water molecules. A less massive particle can travel through the Higgs field more easily than a more massive particle because the less massive interacts less with the Higgs bosons.

This could all change tomorrow, but the reason why Higgs came up with this idea in the first place was to patch a hole in the standard model, and the idea seems to fit well so we use it, at least for now. The alternatives i think are super symmetry breaking and multiple dimensions. So maybe you'd like to believe that instead (which might prove to be correct dont get me wrong).


Also:
As the particle moves through the Higgs field it is said that it absorbs Higgs bosons. Does it have to move in order for this to happen?
Well, if it didnt move it would not be much good to us because movement is a very important aspect of everything we do. So whether or not it absorbs bosons if it doesnt move may not matter unless you can find an application that does any good when it only contains particles that dont move. Or perhaps you have something else in mind.
What else we might try to find out is if the Higgs field itself moves, ie the bosons.

 

[Noodles141]

Also:
As the particle moves through the Higgs field it is said that it absorbs Higgs bosons. Does it have to move in order for this to happen?
Well, if it didnt move it would not be much good to us because movement is a very important aspect of everything we do. So whether or not it absorbs bosons if it doesnt move may not matter unless you can find an application that does any good when it only contains particles that dont move. Or perhaps you have something else in mind.
What else we might try to find out is if the Higgs field itself moves, ie the bosons.

I like your explanation with the fish, that part where some objects absorbed i was a little uncertain about. but what you say here. You pose another question i actually had myself, what if the higgs field moved or changed. Just like magnetic fields that change, like the further from the source the weaker the force, so if there is a source would being further away mean less energy absorbed in the field and therefore less mass. If you adsorb bosons that somehow makes me think i little differently, i thought it was a transfer of energy, like how potential gets translated in kinetic with a falling object, but here its kinetic being transferred into mass isn't it? also my question about an object not moving at all is kinda pointless, but ya go back to the higgs field moving or changing, what if the relative motion between an object and the higgs field where zero then what?

 

[MrAl]

Hello again,


Well not everything requires movement though. An electrostatic field doesnt need anything to move for example. So what if a massless particle just happened to be close to a boson or two, perhaps it could still absorb, and maybe there is a chain reaction. And supposedly the bosons are everywhere in the entire universe.
The field gives the massless particle energy and that's how it gets it's mass. But again it's the energy itself that moves, that seems to be more important. It also makes sense because all it has to do is acquire something more than it had before and this could make the energy go from a place of higher potential to a place of lower potential which is also typical.
But perhaps at relativistic speeds there is a difference.

 

[Noodles141]

hey

Where you say it doesn't need movement. I kinda understood it at first like an electron in a magnetic field. no force is applied to it unless it has motion. Did you watch the video MrAl? They seem to imply some particles move through unaffected and others are slowed down in the higgs field and this is what is translated into mass energy.
When you say a massless particle goes from higher to lower potential, I'm familiar with this concept but i dont know how it would give off energy. Do you think this is related in any way to the theory of relativity E^2= (mc^2)^2 +(pc)^2 (think i got that right but dont take my word) or does this only apply in certain cases. If it were related i dont think the final value would actually change unless while absorbing a boson it releases another form of energy, is this what you mean when you talk about the particle going from a higher to lower potential. Say this massless particle goes through the higgs field slows down and gains "mass energy" would the gain in mass compensate for the loss in velocity and therefor the (pc)^2 would decrease a little and (mc^2)^2 would increase so that E^2 would remain the same.

 

[MrAl]

Hello again,


Well i havent actually tied all this together yet either. I've just read what i could find. The field supposedly gives energy to the massless particle and of course that means that's where it gets it's mass when it becomes a non massless particle. We might also ask why it doesnt keep picking up more mass as it travels...maybe it is related to the speed as in relativity. Or perhaps the acceleration because the particle doesnt actually keep picking up mass as it travels at a constant speed, it seems to get the mass all at once and then stays constant until it gets accelerated some more. And stuff that doesnt move much still has mass.
What isnt known yet is how the energy congeals into mass. I'll have to do some more reading.

Im not sure what you are implying here though either. Just because some particles are affected and other are not, that doesnt seem to imply that the speed is the biggest influence it seems to imply that the particle itself has something to do with it, that is a property of the particle makes it react the way it does not the speed. But, as we know, it could be the speed too once it gets moving, in that it contributes to the mass reaction more and more and maybe that's how we get the relativistic mass effects.

Energy always travels from a higher potential to a lower potential, so i thought that might have something to do with it. If the Higgs is mass energy, then it would naturally flow from a higher energy level to a lower energy level, and there is nothing lost there it's just a good ol' transfer of energy again that we see all over the place.

 

[Noodles141]

Ok I'm gonna have to read a bit more but i think i may have an answer for the way it "congeals", as you put it , into mass energy. Also this may clear something up if I am correct about it. You say the particle absorbs Higgs bosons when it moves through the field. I haven't read anything about that but the best i've gotten is Virtual Higgs boson. Let me explain comparing it to a EM field. We know all about these and a lot of article seem to compare the two so i think they are very similar mathematically. In and EM field a particle interacts by absorbing "virtual photons" which are just a mathematical representation, nothing real or physical. Also we know that the particle related to an EM field is a Photon. So Photons are to "virtual photons" as higgs are to "virtual higgs". A particle gains its "mass energy" by absorbing "virtual higgs" in the higgs field not actual higgs particles just like a electron gains energy in an EM from absorbing "virtual photons".

And as for the velocity factor, maybe it may be in the basic explanation of the fish in the stream. Think of terminal velocity and this might explain it, if the object reaches a constant velocity because it just cant move any faster. The way i see it is particles are always spinning around in the atoms, even if the object is not moving. So this spin is slowed by the higgs field like a fish in water. If this bit about the velocity is a bit of nonsense ignore it, this is more my speculation than anything. This is the part i need to read up on more.

 

[MrAl]

Hi,

Yes ok, and i'll try to do some more reading today too. This is pretty interesting because what this is is really the basis for all of reality as we know it. Everything we see around us and in space is there because of this mechanism. That has to say a lot about the true profoundness of this topic, and how the particle earned it's truly unique name, "The God Particle".

I've also been interested in explaining inertia from a particle point of view rather than a simple mirrored definition that basically just says that it works because it happens to be there working The Higgs presumably gives the stuff it's mass so that has to explain inertia too from a more fundamental viewpoint.

 

[Noodles141]

Been doing a little more reading will post later but found a quote that i think relates to our topic here and one you will like MrAl "A fish probably cannot understand the existence of water; he is too deeply immersed in it." just give a thought about what we are talking about and this, made me laugh.

 

[cowboybob]

Been doing a little more reading will post later but found a quote that i think relates to our topic here and one you will like MrAl "A fish probably cannot understand the existence of water; he is too deeply immersed in it." just give a thought about what we are talking about and this, made me laugh.

My point, exactly.

Meaningful work, I'm sure. But on that note, it mightily annoys my wife when having asked for the time, I choose to explain to her how a watch works...

And I have this nagging sense that no matter how deeply they delve into the basic substance(s) and composition of the universe, there will be (not unlike the value of pi) no definitive, final answer.

They (the remarkably inventive math guys) will just declare it to be √-∞.

Only to discover that (OMG) there is also a √-∞...

 

[Noodles141]

@cowboybob
I know how you feel, this is just one of those things we need to find out though, it brings us closer to understanding gravity which is still one of the fundamental forces of the universe. Knowing more about mass even if there is no exact answer may get us closer to the answers of what makes gravity "actually" work. What i think will happen is in trying to find the higgs they will open the theoretical Pandoras box of physics since it wasn't what they actually thought and so a hole set of new physics will be needed and this Pandoras box affect will keep on happening cause your right there is no way we will ever truly understand anything. Or at least thats is my opinion. Try explain particle theory to your wife next time she asks you whats in her food or what something is made of haha

@MrAl
I'm not too sure what you mean by defining inertia from a particle view. I could probably give a definition in term of energy transfer which i understand and doesn't break any laws of physics and could probably be used as a formal definition. Give me a day or 2 to make it proper. Also if this isn't what your looking for say so i don't want to set you off the path your on with the one i'm currently on if they conflict.

 

[MrAl]

Hi again,

CowboyBob:
Well see, one of the questions is to answer first the question of whether or not the universe is VERY complicated or just a a LITTLE complicated. If it is just a little complicated then the Higgs boson (or similar) explains it. If it is more complicated then we need to look at more complex theories.
So one of the key points is to first find the Higgs and see if the universe is not too very complicated. If it does not exist, then yes we will have a much harder time explaining the universe. But we dont give up so easy as your wife

Noodles:
I'd like to see your work too even if it isnt exactly the same as what i am looking at.
BTW i re-read your other post and i wanted to clear up something. I didnt say a massless particle going from higher to lower (at least i hope i didnt) i said that the massless particle goes from having no mass to gaining mass as it absorbs energy from the Higgs field. This is unlike the fish that just has to swim through it.
Yes that quote about the fish makes sense, but we arent fish we have bigger brains so maybe we'll get somewhere somehow. We've done pretty well so far so well have to see what the future brings. The fish has little memory, but we even have the ability to think about what we are thinking about so we're a bit better off (i hope).

 

[Noodles141]

I don't think it is gonna fit the standard model. In the video i posted earlier you can see them actually hinting towards it. They say the results they are getting have too many photons and other small things so i think its gonna be the complicated way. I should have an answer to the inertia definition by Wednesday. Just have my last exam tomorrow and then a little celebration so won't be close to my computer at all tomorrow.

 

[cowboybob]

Noodles and MrAl,

I've never successfully been able to seperate Physics from Philosphy (same first two letters, good enough for me). They strike me as inextricably connected.

As such and in that vein, knowing the "E" and "H" fields, magnetism and gravity, male and female and Yin and Yang are seperately identifiable, yet do exist one without the other, I can't help but feel that in the end there will never be a unified, single, explanation for the basis of the universe.

So, as to the current discussion, as I understand it, under the current SM a Higgs Boson cannot exist without "passing" (or just being in) a Higgs field, which in turn gives meaning to the Higgs field, which I take as nothing more than energy. Is that right?

If it is, does that then mean that pure energy, not in the presence of anything, really cannot exist without something to act on? Or is it that pure energy will, if need be, spontaneously become "something else" to merely fill an unacceptable, non-sustainable unity??

 

[MrAl]

Hi again,

Well, if you had an ordinary flashlight and aimed it at the wall and turned it on, you would be transmitting the electromagnetic field to the wall via the photons and that would cause the wall to light up (at least at the surface).
If you had a very special flashlight that could shoot Higgs bosons and aimed it at a special massless wall and turned it on, you would be transmitting the Higgs field to the wall via the Higgs bosons and that would cause the wall to have mass but not just at the surface but through the whole wall.

Energy is often stored in fields. The field is said to be an "influence" which means that it's always there but it wont cause anything to happen unless something enters inside it's range of influence. The range of influence tells us that it is truly localized which proves something must really be there. Think of an electrostatic field.
The Higgs field is supposed to be everywhere and supposedly comes into existence just moments after the big bang. Because it is everywhere it is harder to observe (think of Noodles reply about the fish in the water). This is like the hole in the ground idea in philosophy, where we can say the hole is an entity in itself even though there is nothing there, or we can say it is not there simply because there is nothing there. If we could find a 'hole' in the Higgs field we'd have it made

There are going to be contradictions out there though so i guess nobody is sure of anything just yet. This is just some of the current theory.

 

[cowboybob]

Hi again,

If you had a very special flashlight that could shoot Higgs bosons and aimed it at a special massless wall and turned it on, you would be transmitting the Higgs field to the wall via the Higgs bosons and that would cause the wall to have mass but not just at the surface but through the whole wall.

I'm under the impression that the Higgs Boson is massless until in the presence of a Higgs field. Am I wrong?

Energy is often stored in fields. The field is said to be an "influence" which means that it's always there but it wont cause anything to happen unless something enters inside it's range of influence. The range of influence tells us that it is truly localized which proves something must really be there. Think of an electrostatic field.

This would imply areas where there is NO energy, right?

The Higgs field is supposed to be everywhere and supposedly comes into existence just moments after the big bang. Because it is everywhere it is harder to observe (think of Noodles reply about the fish in the water).

Does any of this have anything to do with the "background" energy that was observed as a 4 degrees above Kelvin omnipresent temperature (which I'll take as energy) througout the observable universe?

And with regard to your second quote parcel, how do areas of no energy (or it's absence, a philisophical "hole in the ground" conumdrum) occur?

This is like the hole in the ground idea in philosophy, where we can say the hole is an entity in itself even though there is nothing there, or we can say it is not there simply because there is nothing there. If we could find a 'hole' in the Higgs field we'd have it made ...

A classic egg/chicken posit, to me.

So, if the SM and the role(s) of the Higgs variants somehow present themselves and can be quantified (and, I suppose, qualified), Where does that leave us? Does that mean that there will be no questions left to be asked?

 

[MrAl]

Hi,

Im not sure if you can separate the Higgs boson from the Higgs field that way.
Can we separate a photon from the electomagnetic field? I think they are
intrinsically tied together.
The Higgs however is said to be able to give itself mass probably through
the field. It has quite a large mass actually. I'll have to read more on this too.

I dont see why there could not be areas with no energy, or at least less
energy. But the Higgs is supposed to be everywhere at all times, so
unless we found a way around this we cant experiment with an area with no
Higgs influence.
The current technique involves designing experiments to indirectly observe
the Higgs, based on something else actually happening which has a relationship
to the Higgs, which would occur less often if there were no Higgs, and more
often if there was a Higgs. So if it regularly occurs more often we might
say that there was a Higgs as the cause. That's like turning on a light
bulb and seeing photons and saying that it must have been initially caused
by electrons but also that there is little else that could have caused it.

Yes it does have something to do with the background microwave radiation, but
i cant remember the tie here. I'll have to do more reading.

Areas of no energy or less energy occur as simply as having less energy
there due to less excitation by some means that causes energy to be stored
as a field. A capacitor has energy stored in it's field, and an inductor
has energy stored in it's magnetic field and classical mechanics has it that
the field decreases as the never ending distance increases to some small
quantity and quantum mechanics has it that there is an end when we get down
to the smallest quanta. So outside that range there is no energy at least from
that source.
Since the Higgs is supposed to be everywhere though we cant see a difference
where there is no energy but i guess we can cause more energy to occur using
a high energy collision. A high energy collision seems to be able to break
the Higgs from the proton via other particles and then itself decay into
other particles. I dont have a huge amount of information on hand about this
however.

The hole in the ground thing is not really a chicken and egg thing, i really just
brought that up to show how we distinguish things. If we only had one type of
particle in the universe we'd never be able to distinguish it from anything else because
there would be nothing else. But given air and earth, we can see a hole in the
ground because "it's there" even if there is nothing in that hole (if you have a
problem with the 'air' in the hole then picture a planet with no atmosphere that
has a hole in it's surface ground, we can still say the hole is "there" and not
somewhere else). It gets more complicated with quantum particles but we can
still distinguish different types of particles from one another.


The Future...

The Higgs fills a void in the standard model that unifies some
interactions. But questions still come up about the origin of the theories
in how they depend on other things like from what i have read, massless
neutrinos. Unfortunately, in 1998 there was an experiment that showed that
neutrinos have oscillations which means they have mass.
To some this is a big letdown, but to others it means more exciting
experiments to find new theories and how amazing the universe really is.
So to some physicists they will be happy if it doesnt all work out because then
they still have a job and at that job doing what they like to do
Correction: Doing what they LOVE to do!

 

[cowboybob]

So, perhaps there is some validity to the appelation given the Higgs Boson: the "God" particle (wave, field, "thingy", ...).

Thanks, MrAl. I know more now than I did .