Higgs Boson Discovered?!
- Thread starter MattusMaximus
- Start date
-
- Tags
- cern higgs boson physics
RC: don't be so dismissive. This is standard physics, but it is directly relevant to the Higgs mechanism.
Ben: sure. See below.
All: so, does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content or not? Does it depend on something else? If we've got two 511keV standing waves in our box, you know that moving the box is a little bit more difficult because those waves offer resistance to any change in their state of motion. They're standing waves instead of free waves propagating at c, so we call their resistance to change-in-motion inertia instead of momentum.
OK, remember we were talking about two-photon physics? Those two waves could interact and result in pair production. Then we've got an electron and a positron in the box. We know they both have a wave nature. We can diffract electrons and positrons, and put them through the two-slit experiment, or use them in the Aharonov-Bohm effect. But now the mass of the body called an electron somehow doesn't depend on its energy-content, but instead on the electron's interaction with the Higgs field? When the only field we know about in that box is the electromagnetic field? And wait, after a nanosecond that electron and that positron annihilate, so now we've got two standing waves again. And the Higgs mechanism has switched off like a light? Remember that QED explanation of pair production, which said a photon fluctuates into an electron-positron pair? Imagine that photon is inside a box. Higgs on, Higgs off, Higgs on, Higgs off. Click, click, click, and all the while the mass of that box-system doesn't change one jot. Anybody smell a rat yet?
And anybody: how does the Higgs boson get its mass?
Ben: sure. See below.
Yes, in that Compton scattering only takes a slice off the photon rather than completely absorbing it. But it isn't a problem because as Tubby alluded to, you can absorb the last remnant of the photon with a bound electron.
We could talk about the nature of the photon at length. For example there's a little clue as to its nature in the "spiral starbust" of electron kinetic energy in the repeated Compton scattering gedankenexperiment. And we could call it "action in space going through space", or somesuch. We could even talk about how angular momentum is quantized, and the dimensionality of action being momentum x distance. But nevertheless kinetic energy in space is essentially what the photon is. Take a look at say the photo-electric effect on wikipedia and note how many references there are to kinetic energy.TubbyThin said:
Yes we can.Tubbythin said:
All: so, does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content or not? Does it depend on something else? If we've got two 511keV standing waves in our box, you know that moving the box is a little bit more difficult because those waves offer resistance to any change in their state of motion. They're standing waves instead of free waves propagating at c, so we call their resistance to change-in-motion inertia instead of momentum.
OK, remember we were talking about two-photon physics? Those two waves could interact and result in pair production. Then we've got an electron and a positron in the box. We know they both have a wave nature. We can diffract electrons and positrons, and put them through the two-slit experiment, or use them in the Aharonov-Bohm effect. But now the mass of the body called an electron somehow doesn't depend on its energy-content, but instead on the electron's interaction with the Higgs field? When the only field we know about in that box is the electromagnetic field? And wait, after a nanosecond that electron and that positron annihilate, so now we've got two standing waves again. And the Higgs mechanism has switched off like a light? Remember that QED explanation of pair production, which said a photon fluctuates into an electron-positron pair? Imagine that photon is inside a box. Higgs on, Higgs off, Higgs on, Higgs off. Click, click, click, and all the while the mass of that box-system doesn't change one jot. Anybody smell a rat yet?
And anybody: how does the Higgs boson get its mass?
Last edited:
edd
Master Poster
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 2,120
Why not just absorb it from the get go? Why go to the bother of scattering it so much!?
... I don't think that quite counts as a good argument.
So you're basically arguing that the Higgs mechanism can't work because energy is conserved? I'm not sure that's going to work out well either.
By the way ben, you should sit through Susskind's lecture. It isn't great, but he makes it clear that the Higgs field rather than the Higgs boson is said to form a "condensate". And he is emphatic that it's nothing like swimming through a thick liquid. Even Susskind will have no truck with the molasses aka cosmic treacle nonsense.
Wow, it sounds like Susskind is presenting the Standard Model of Particle Physics. Who'd have thunk?
Is there something specific in his lecture that I wouldn't have gotten from, e.g., Peskin and Schroeder?
To get you used to the idea of scattering, to avoid getting into atomic orbitals and standing waves too soon, and to avoid getting sidetracked by things like binding energy and gyrating boxes. It neatly makes it clear that the photon is being sliced away into electron kinetic energy until there's (virtually) nothing left, and then pair production makes it clear that the electron is made of kinetic energy. We come back to standing waves later.
It's good enough, because the photon is a wave with a wavelength, and if you take all the kinetic energy out of the wave, the wave isn't there any more. By the way, the bound electron can absorb all the photon energy instead of just taking a slice because it's bound. It's a inelastic collision rather than an elastic collision. In simple terms, it can't skitter away.
No, not at all. I don't know why you thought that. Now, how does the Higgs boson get its mass?
Apparently so. And don't namedrop your textbook bible, ben. It cuts no ice. Now come on, how does the Higgs boson get its mass? Yes it's a trap, but not how you think, and you're already in it so save some grace by demonstrating your sincerity.
And the answer is... ?
So, as Edd said, Compton scattering is irrelevant.
There is a big clue to its nature in the thousands of studies that have been published in the last 107 years. There really is no need for thought experiments on this.
We could, but that would just be stupid.
Pardon?
No, no it isn't. It is as much "kinetic energy in space" as me spinning around on my computer chair.
Is that the best you can do?
This is sounding familiar. Oh yes, it is essentially the same argument you made about the strong force disappearing.
Oh Tubby. Words like irrelevant and stupid merely make you look like a naysayer troll dismissing the evidence that challenges his conviction. You bumped this thread, and now you can't take the heat, so go sling your hook. The big boys are talking physics.
Ben, edd: no answers yet? So come on, does the Higgs boson get its mass by virtue of E=mc², or by an interaction with the Higgs field? That would be an interaction between an excitation of the Higgs field and the Higgs field. Ben, what sort of interaction might that be?
With the exception of Tubby who bit off more than he could chew, is everybody happy so far? Can anybody point out any obvious errors? Can anybody point out any "crackpot" physics? Is everybody happy that the photon-photon interaction has been observed experimentally? And that light light can be "scattered" by any sort of electric charge or electric current? And does everybody know about displacement current along with spherical harmonics and standing waves?
If not there's a little reading for you, and meanwhile, I'm off to bed.
Ben, edd: no answers yet? So come on, does the Higgs boson get its mass by virtue of E=mc², or by an interaction with the Higgs field? That would be an interaction between an excitation of the Higgs field and the Higgs field. Ben, what sort of interaction might that be?
With the exception of Tubby who bit off more than he could chew, is everybody happy so far? Can anybody point out any obvious errors? Can anybody point out any "crackpot" physics? Is everybody happy that the photon-photon interaction has been observed experimentally? And that light light can be "scattered" by any sort of electric charge or electric current? And does everybody know about displacement current along with spherical harmonics and standing waves?
If not there's a little reading for you, and meanwhile, I'm off to bed.
Your politeness and humility is truly praiseworthy.
In the Standard Model, there's a direct mu^2 H term in the Lagrangian. The Higgs mass is the sort of mass you would have tried giving to the fermions---"hey, suppose energy is proportional to (Psi* Psi), with some constant"---if the rest of QFT didn't force those constants to be zero. For all of the non-Higgs particles, interactions with the Higgs vev generates a different (and QFT-allowed) sort of mass---a dynamical term that happens to be proportional to (Psi* Psi) and thereby looks like a mass, even in the absence of a static term.
For the Higgs boson, the basic, static sort of mass term is *not* forced to be zero, so it has some nonzero value---whose value, measured at 125GeV, is *presumably* a reflection of some (as yet inaccessible) higher-energy field theory. For the Higgs, uniquely, the mass is just a mass.
(Plus, there are loop corrections.)
That's what I was taught. But I'm not a theorist, I'm an experimentalist. If I am wrong, I would welcome correction by someone other than Farsight, because I don't have the patience.
edd
Master Poster
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 2,120
You might have noticed if you'd been paying attention that I preempted your little poser way back in post #30 of this very thread, although I was rather joking when I did so. Anyway, I'll let a proper particle physicist answer that one for you. The rest of your posts this evening have frankly just made me give up on you for now.
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
Agreed.
And if Farsight's posts spur the big boys to talk physics, then Farsight's posts may also have value.
I'm such a dismissive troll that I explained to you how your description of Compton scattering was wrong in a way you now admit was entirely correct.
LOL. You bumped the thread and challenged me to give an explanation, then starting ducking and diving saying it was vague when it wasn't, then you tried to hide behind mathematics, and now you're claiming a point edd raised as you're own. You've explained nothing Tubby, everybody can see that, just as they can see your patent insincerity.Tubbythin said:
I did edd. You're not the first person to have asked this question, and ben isn't the last person to have given a cop-out non-answer as he attempts to squirm away from an uncomfortable truth.
I don't need a "proper" particle physicist to answer that one for me. I already know that the inertia of a body depends upon its energy content. That's what E=mc² is all about. And like I said, the Higgs mechanism contradicts it.
What you really mean is you give up. Suit yourself.
ben: the answer you gave leaks like a seive. For the Higgs, uniquely, the mass is just a mass. Oh come on. Doesn't that remind you of pair production occurs because pair production occurs? But you believe in it because that's what you've been taught. To hell with Einstein, logic, and a rational argument that you can't show to be wrong? Doesn't that kind of thing ever bother you? On a skeptics forum?
Anybody else like to have a stab at explaining how the Higgs boson gets its mass? Because if you can't, and if you can't show where my argument is flawed, you're a bit stuck, aren't you?
ETA: And can I just mention that a collider like the LHC accelerates particles to close to the speed of light before slamming them together. Those particles have a lot of... kinetic energy.
Last edited:
So your detailed scientific objection to the Standard Model of Particle Physics is "oh come on". Sorry, Farsight, that's not actually an objection.
Too right. You implicitly accused CERN of scientific fraud. That requires some bloody good explanation.
It was very vague.
Maths is the formal application of logical rules. It forms the basis of scientific endeavour. It is you that is hiding behind a lack of maths.
Err. That is false. Edd made a post that just said "There might be just a teeensy problem with that very last scatter?" at exactly the same time (check if you don't believe me) that I pointed out that you were wrong about Compton scattering.
That's funny, you agreed with me at 10:05 PM yesterday.
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,852
Still nothing but blather and pretense.It's a weird objection If Farsight were saying "There must be more to physics than the standard model, because some of the parameters, like the mass of the Higgs boson, seem arbitrary, and I want a physics theory that is more elegant than that", well, I can at least see something in that (though personally I don't know how much that applies in this particular case).
But that's not what he's saying, he seems to be saying that the Higgs mechanism itself must not be correct, because the mass of the Higgs boson seems arbitrary. That's weird. Without the Higgs we've got the masses of all massive fundamental particles to explain, with it, only one. Which is more elegant? That he thinks it's not sufficiently elegant isn't much of an argument, particularly when it is so well tested experimentally, and all he has to offer in return is some vague ideas that don't seem related and don't make any quantitative predictions.
It seems to me that most physicists expect that there is something going on beyond the standard model, but at the moment it's the best we've got and if we do find something beyond it, it will be connected to the standard model in so much as it will explain why it is so successful, and will reduce to it in most situations.
I'm no expert, and my physics knowledge is relatively minimal, this is simply the perspective of one bystander on this thread.
You're assuming Farsight has a coherent objection. I think what he's actually saying is this:
- I have a mental picture of Relativity+! I proved it to my own satisfaction! It fills me with awe at my own genius, Einstein's genius, and the photon-based simplicity of nature!
- You're talking about something other than Relativity+! It fills me with a sense of ugliness and wrongness!
- I will pick something you've said, figure out whether it differs from Relativity+, and declare that difference to be a problem! Rather than clearly identifying the problem, I will steer the conversation back to Relativity+!
You forgot: bow to my greater knowledge for I am the one true disciple of Einstein, only I can understand what he really meant.