Thank you. Can I ask you what a Higgs boson (or field) is comprised of? Or is that an unanswerable question? (I presume it's not "turtles all the way down.)
What's a Higgs boson made of? Trivially you could say 'energy' but as far as the standard model goes it's an elementary particle like the more commonly known particles quarks, electrons, photons etc. and thus not reducible. That's not necessarily so, but it's the best model we have and it works very well, and if there are further layers of the onion to peel we probably won't find them for a long time to come yet.
As far as describing what a 'field' is made of, that's no more difficult to answer than what an electric or magnetic field is made of... unfortunately that's quite difficult. We conceptualise all of the elementary force fields (electromagnetism, strong+weak nuclear forces, gravity) as vector fields, influencing any susceptible particle within the field in a way determined by the magnitude and direction of the vector at that point in the field.
The Higgs boson is a gauge boson, a 'carrier particle' for the higgs 'force'. When a Higgs interaction occurs, the higgs boson as a necessity of quantum mathematics manifests to transfer energy, so in a way i suppose you could say that the higgs field is just 'made' of higgs bosons, if you need to consider a field to be comprised of physical objects. The same phenomenon occurs far more mundanely (to some) when photons, carrier particles of the electromagnetic force, are manifested in our fluorescent light tubes thanks to our relative electromagnetic prowess.
This should not be seen as the end of particle physics, by any means. We have a looooong, long way to go. For starters, the standard model does not even consider gravity. We will never be able to directly observe gravitons (theorised gauge bosons of the gravitational force) like we can the higgs boson, as a result of their comparatively extreme weakness; we would need a sun-sized detector.
Hopefully we can fit gravity into the standard model to complete it one day, perhaps in a similar way to how Electroweak theory was completed by the addition of the higgs boson, even though equations describing the weak nuclear force which were 'accurate and precise' existed prior to this and described weak nuclear interaction just fine without the addition of a higgs boson.
Getting back to the point, you wouldn't be too far off the mark if you considered a higgs field to be 'made' of potential energy, and a higgs boson to be 'made' of energy.
This infographical is non-sensical. The reason atoms form is due to the weak and strong forces which have nothing to do with the Higgs boson. The Higgs provides mass to the W and Z bosons. It is long story, but I'd be happy to give you an explanation (once i am behind my laptop and not typing on an IPad). Please for the sake of the internetz remove the picture from this post. I will return with a better one shortly.
The author had a half-decent idea for simplifying the concept: he wasn't meaning to suggest that the higgs boson is involved in the weak or strong forces, but that it allows matter as we know it to exist because of the trivial point that without it, mass would not exist and thus all matter would necessarily travel at 300,000km/s. His/her word choice was poor, though.
Bosons are elementary particles that do not follow the Pauli Exclusion Principle and have integer spin. Some may be force carriers... the photon, for example, is a force carrier for electromagnetic force. The Standard Model of physics suggests that there should be a boson that is the force carrier for gravity... the math suggests that its mass should be around 125GeV. That's what was detected, we think, at the LHC.
Not gravity. The standard model does not touch on gravity. The postulated carrier particle for gravity is the graviton, with a spin of 2 and mass of 0.
John scott - I'm fairly sure the mass generated by the Higgs field is inertial and not gravitational.
Basically, the Higgs particle is predicated by a modification to the original standard model field equations that automatically gives mass to particles (the original model was symmetric and mssless and the higgs field broke the symmetry but gives a mass term in the equation), and the Higgs particle is predicated by the existence of the Higgs field.
To be honest, I don't know how the Higgs particle was actually shown to be *the* Higgs, and not just some other massive boson of high energy.
To be honest, I don't know how the Higgs particle was actually shown to be *the* Higgs, and not just some other massive boson of high energy.
that still hasn't been worked out yet. Everyone is excited, and jumping to exciting conclusions, but time is still yet to tell whether or not it's confirmed as a higgs detection.
ignoring the spelling and grammar...
ReplyDelete"this is a molecule, everything in the universe exists out of these little things"
there are plenty of types of matter not made of molecules, whether baryonic or non-baryonic
"an atom exists out of a core and multiple electrons"
a hydrogen atom only has one electron. (core should also read nucleus if we're being sticklers)
"the higgs boson creates an energy field in the universe which acts like a syrup... "
the higgs boson is a manifestation of the higgs field, not the other way around.
Thank you. Can I ask you what a Higgs boson (or field) is comprised of? Or is that an unanswerable question? (I presume it's not "turtles all the way down.)
DeleteWhat's a Higgs boson made of? Trivially you could say 'energy' but as far as the standard model goes it's an elementary particle like the more commonly known particles quarks, electrons, photons etc. and thus not reducible. That's not necessarily so, but it's the best model we have and it works very well, and if there are further layers of the onion to peel we probably won't find them for a long time to come yet.
DeleteAs far as describing what a 'field' is made of, that's no more difficult to answer than what an electric or magnetic field is made of... unfortunately that's quite difficult. We conceptualise all of the elementary force fields (electromagnetism, strong+weak nuclear forces, gravity) as vector fields, influencing any susceptible particle within the field in a way determined by the magnitude and direction of the vector at that point in the field.
The Higgs boson is a gauge boson, a 'carrier particle' for the higgs
'force'. When a Higgs interaction occurs, the higgs boson as a necessity of quantum mathematics manifests to transfer energy, so in a way i suppose you could say that the higgs field is just 'made' of higgs bosons, if you need to consider a field to be comprised of physical objects. The same phenomenon occurs far more mundanely (to some) when photons, carrier particles of the electromagnetic force, are manifested in our fluorescent light tubes thanks to our relative electromagnetic prowess.
This should not be seen as the end of particle physics, by any means. We have a looooong, long way to go. For starters, the standard model does not even consider gravity. We will never be able to directly observe gravitons (theorised gauge bosons of the gravitational force) like we can the higgs boson, as a result of their comparatively extreme weakness; we would need a sun-sized detector.
Hopefully we can fit gravity into the standard model to complete it one day, perhaps in a similar way to how Electroweak theory was completed by the addition of the higgs boson, even though equations describing the weak nuclear force which were 'accurate and precise' existed prior to this and described weak nuclear interaction just fine without the addition of a higgs boson.
Getting back to the point, you wouldn't be too far off the mark if you considered a higgs field to be 'made' of potential energy, and a higgs boson to be 'made' of energy.
This infographical is non-sensical. The reason atoms form is due to the weak and strong forces which have nothing to do with the Higgs boson. The Higgs provides mass to the W and Z bosons. It is long story, but I'd be happy to give you an explanation (once i am behind my laptop and not typing on an IPad). Please for the sake of the internetz remove the picture from this post. I will return with a better one shortly.
ReplyDeleteThe author had a half-decent idea for simplifying the concept: he wasn't meaning to suggest that the higgs boson is involved in the weak or strong forces, but that it allows matter as we know it to exist because of the trivial point that without it, mass would not exist and thus all matter would necessarily travel at 300,000km/s. His/her word choice was poor, though.
Deletesilly me, the higgs field does interact with the W and Z bosons of the weak nuclear force:
Deletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_boson#Massive_gauge_bosons
Infographic image deleted.
ReplyDeleteThat brief venture illustrates the danger of blogging a topic one doesn't understand or doesn't have time to research.
Let me dust off my physics degree:
ReplyDeleteBosons are elementary particles that do not follow the Pauli Exclusion Principle and have integer spin. Some may be force carriers... the photon, for example, is a force carrier for electromagnetic force. The Standard Model of physics suggests that there should be a boson that is the force carrier for gravity... the math suggests that its mass should be around 125GeV. That's what was detected, we think, at the LHC.
Not gravity. The standard model does not touch on gravity. The postulated carrier particle for gravity is the graviton, with a spin of 2 and mass of 0.
DeleteJohn scott - I'm fairly sure the mass generated by the Higgs field is inertial and not gravitational.
ReplyDeleteBasically, the Higgs particle is predicated by a modification to the original standard model field equations that automatically gives mass to particles (the original model was symmetric and mssless and the higgs field broke the symmetry but gives a mass term in the equation), and the Higgs particle is predicated by the existence of the Higgs field.
To be honest, I don't know how the Higgs particle was actually shown to be *the* Higgs, and not just some other massive boson of high energy.
To be honest, I don't know how the Higgs particle was actually shown to be *the* Higgs, and not just some other massive boson of high energy.
Deletethat still hasn't been worked out yet. Everyone is excited, and jumping to exciting conclusions, but time is still yet to tell whether or not it's confirmed as a higgs detection.
You know what the last Higgs boson says right before it dies?
ReplyDeleteNo mas(s).
I rather liked this explanation. (nearly 8-minute video)
ReplyDeleteI second the video explanation. I also thought this article was pretty good for the layperson:
ReplyDeleteWOW,......you guys are smart....or something........?
ReplyDeletesorry I was late
ReplyDelete