Higgs Boson Discovered?!

[Ocelot]

Interesting to note that it's just two pages and half a dozen or so equations. It's almost poetry.

 

[Tubbythin]

Interesting to note that it's just two pages and half a dozen or so equations. It's almost poetry.

Loads of the great historical papers are short. Maria Goeppert Mayer's paper explaining shell structure in nuclei is about a side and a half.

 

[ben m]

My favorite historical paper is Weinberg's 1967 paper on electroweak unification. That's a 2500x-cited paper that won a Nobel prize and so on. After going through the calculations that predict the W and Z-boson masses (correctly, as it turned out 10-15 years later) Weinberg says:

Of course our model has too many arbitrary features for these predictions to be taken seriously ...

Huh.

 

[Tubbythin]

My favorite historical paper is Weinberg's 1967 paper on electroweak unification. That's a 2500x-cited paper that won a Nobel prize and so on. After going through the calculations that predict the W and Z-boson masses (correctly, as it turned out 10-15 years later) Weinberg says:

Huh.

The antithesis of certain people on this forum who think that the "mainstream" have got it wrong and only they know the real truth about...

 

[kalen]

Like the electron, the Higgs boson is made of kinetic energy, and the inertia of a body depends on its energy content.

So the Higgs is made of photons, too?

 

[Perpetual Student]

Just in case anyone is interested in actual physics, here is Higgs' 1964 paper which was the first to predict a massive boson as the result of the incorrectly named Higgs mechanism. Any objections that do not directly address this at a similar level of mathematics are simply irrelevant. No amount of wordy analogies and pointless handwaving can compete with an actual theory.

Excellent. Thank you.

 

[Farsight]

Sorry to have been away, there was something I had to do then I got distracted by other physics.

Just in case anyone is interested in actual physics, here is Higgs' 1964 paper which was the first to predict a massive boson as the result of the incorrectly named Higgs mechanism. Any objections that do not directly address this at a similar level of mathematics are simply irrelevant. No amount of wordy analogies and pointless handwaving can compete with an actual theory.

This pompous Emperor's New Clothes line can be used to dismiss anything. It's the modern equivalent of you don't even speak Latin. You won't get away with that on a skeptics forum.

Will he, guys? Guys?

So the Higgs is made of photons, too?

No. Remember that what's actually been discovered is a bump on a graph, that Peter Higgs didn't say I predict a resonance at 125GeV, and we're calling this thing "the Higgs" for short. Assuming there's no event-selection issue, then whatever this might be, it's made of energy, mainly the kinetic energy which was given to the accelerated protons. It has mass by virtue of E=mc², it lasts for maybe 10^-24 seconds and can decay into two photons.

 

[xtifr]

Sorry to have been away, there was something I had to do then I got distracted by other physics.

Hahaha! Good one! Oh, wait, you were serious?

This pompous Emperor's New Clothes line can be used to dismiss anything. It's the modern equivalent of you don't even speak Latin. You won't get away with that on a skeptics forum.

Will he, guys? Guys?

Says the naked man. Sorry, but your ignorance of mathematics is not as widely shared as you seem to believe, and the flaws in your arguments are easy to spot even for non-physicists with a decent background in maths.

Mathematics is not Latin, and even if it were, trying to argue that mathematics can be ignored when studying physics, while trying to promote your own personal variant of relativity is about as close to wandering around naked, while telling everyone how beautiful your clothes are, as I have ever in my life seen.

I don't know if Cuddles or Ben are right about everything they say, but I would be a sorely failed skeptic if I thought anything you said was actual physics. If you actually tried answering some of the questions they asked, I might consider taking you seriously for at least a fraction of a second, but your continual sidestepping and ignoring direct and very relevant questions makes it clear your expertise is nil. Whether modern physics is right or not.

Cuddles pointed you to the actual math that's relevant to the topic under discussion. Either refute the math or admit you can't, and aren't qualified to opine on the Higgs.

 

[Farsight]

You assert this, and give an example of something else you consider to have this flaw. Can you explain why it's a non-answer?

This refers to Robo's post #298 where he said: "Without the Higgs we've got the masses of all massive fundamental particles to explain, with it, only one. Which is more elegant?" This is a false argument that dismisses Einstein's explanation of mass and plays the "elegance" card like a card-sharp. Look carefully and you will notice that the explanation of mass is being palmed off into something which in itself is not explained at all. Off the top of my head, another example would be to say "magnets attract nails and the Earth attracts nails because of force, and it is more elegant to to explain only one thing". But then this "force" is not explained at all.

You have? I must have missed that, could you quote the post where you did so?

I started in post 242 on page 7 where I pointed to Susskind talking about radiation in a box adding mass to the system. Then in posts 247 thru 249 I used a standing-wave to explain that inertia is the flip side of momentum. In post 255 I referred to a the original problem in QED and explained that the standing-wave adds mass because it's interacting with the box. In post 258 I referred again to Guidice and to the importance of symmetry and what's interacting with what. In post 262 I referred to electrons existing as standing waves in atomic orbitals. In post 274 I quoted Einstein's explanation of mass as the measure of a system's energy content. In post 275 I explained that the electron was literally made of kinetic energy. In post 282 I pointed out that the Higgs mechanism says that electron's mass doesn't depend on its energy content. In post 286 I threw down the challenge of how does the Higgs boson get its mass. The answer is from the kinetic energy given to the LHC particles. So its mass is a measure of its energy content. Like Einstein said. So the same applies to the electron. So it doesn't get its mass from the Higgs mechanism which contradicts E=mc².

This is assertion for which so far you've given no evidence.

The evidence is right there in what the LHC does. You start off with protons. You make them go very fast. Then you make them collide. The only things you've got in the mix are protons and kinetic energy, and the 937MeV proton rest mass is scant.

Mass is a form of energy (remember E=mc² that you keep mentioning?) so if mass is determined by "coupling to the Higgs field" then stronger coupling equates to higher energy content. Where exactly is the problem?

High-energy photons don't do it, but electrons & positrons made from them do. You can trace the problem right back to QED like I said. Photons do couple with photons, and light can bend itself into an arc. The standing wave in the box adds mass to the system because it interacts with the box, not the Higgs field. Those atomic orbitals tell us the electron is a standing wave. Electron diffraction confirms its a wave. A Penning trap confirms it's standing. We know it's got magnetic moment, so we know something is rotating in there. The Einstein-de Haas effect tells us that spin angular momentum is indeed of the same nature as the angular momentum of rotating bodies. Two-photon pair production tells us we can make the electron and the positron from photons. Annihilation tells us we we can reverse the process. All these things tell us that the electron is a standing wave that gets its mass not by interacting with a box, or the Higgs field, but by interacting with itself. That's why it's standing. That's why it's got mass. Mass is just the flip side of momentum, it's just resistance to change-in-motion for a standing wave whilst momentum is resistance to change-in-motion for a wave propagating at c. Simple. No magick required.

 

[Farsight]

Hahaha! Good one! Oh, wait, you were serious?

Yes, I was on a promise. I talk to a lot of people.

Says the naked man. Sorry, but your ignorance of mathematics is not as widely shared as you seem to believe, and the flaws in your arguments are easy to spot even for non-physicists with a decent background in maths.

What flaws? You haven't pointed any out.

Mathematics is not Latin, and even if it were, trying to argue that mathematics can be ignored when studying physics, while trying to promote your own personal variant of relativity is about as close to wandering around naked, while telling everyone how beautiful your clothes are, as I have ever in my life seen.

I'm not promoting my own personal variant of relativity. I'm referring to Einstein's E=mc² here. And I'm not saying mathematics should be ignored. I'm saying it shouldn't be used to dismiss scientific evidence and rational argument. That's what Cuddles tried to do.

I don't know if Cuddles or Ben are right about everything they say, but I would be a sorely failed skeptic if I thought anything you said was actual physics. If you actually tried answering some of the questions they asked, I might consider taking you seriously for at least a fraction of a second, but your continual sidestepping and ignoring direct and very relevant questions makes it clear your expertise is nil. Whether modern physics is right or not.

I'm not sidestepping or ignoring direct and relevant questions. I'm talking physics here. Follow my references. It's plain-vanilla physics. You are a sorely failed skeptic for fooling yourself into thinking otherwise. And have you asked Cuddles to explain the Higgs paper? No. You're no skeptic, xtifr, you're an acolyte, one who fools himself into dismissing physics he can understand in favour of something he doesn't understand at all.

Cuddles pointed you to the actual math that's relevant to the topic under discussion. Either refute the math or admit you can't, and aren't qualified to opine on the Higgs.

No. You refute the evidence and logic instead of trying to hide behind mathematics you don't understand. Talk physics instead of playing the naysayer.

Oh, and do please note, even though my Latin is poor, I am qualified to opine on heaven.

 

[Farsight]

Did you mean photon or electron, an electron is a lepton. I think you meant photon which is a boson.

No, I meant electron. We can turn a photon into electron kinetic energy. Or we can turn a photon into an electron (and a positron) in pair production. So we can say the electron is made of kinetic energy. In the LHC we add kinetic energy to protons, then use that to make a "Higgs boson" which decays instantly into two photons.

 

[edd]

Just because you can use kinetic energy to make an electron positron pair doesn't mean they are physically constituted of kinetic energy.
And that's hardly the only thing I could take issue with.

 

[Roboramma]

I started in post 242 on page 7 where I pointed to Susskind talking about radiation in a box adding mass to the system.

Okay, E=mc²I was aware of that, but yeah cool

Then in posts 247 thru 249 I used a standing-wave to explain that inertia is the flip side of momentum.

I'm fine with that too

In post 255 I referred to a the original problem in QED and explained that the standing-wave adds mass because it's interacting with the box.

Okay, sounds reasonable

In post 258 I referred again to Guidice and to the importance of symmetry and what's interacting with what.

Okay, symetry is cool

In post 262 I referred to electrons existing as standing waves in atomic orbitals.

Okay

In post 274 I quoted Einstein's explanation of mass as the measure of a system's energy content.

Yeah, we got that: E=mc²

In post 275 I explained that the electron was literally made of kinetic energy.

You asserted that Personally that doesn't seem like a meaningful statement to me
An electron has kinetic energy, and it's true that the energy of its mass may have come from the kinetic energy of some other particle, but what does "made of kinetic energy" even mean?

In post 282 I pointed out that the Higgs mechanism says that electron's mass doesn't depend on its energy content.

You said it doesn't depend on it's energy content, but I don't see any evidence that that's the case: are you saying that the Higgs mechanism violates conservation of energy?

The fact that an electron's mass is determined by its coupling to the Higgs field doesn't mean it's mass doesn't depend on it's energy content: it requires a certain amount of energy to create an electron which is so coupled, so I really don't see your point here

In post 286 I threw down the challenge of how does the Higgs boson get its mass. The answer is from the kinetic energy given to the LHC particles. So its mass is a measure of its energy content. Like Einstein said. So the same applies to the electron. So it doesn't get its mass from the Higgs mechanism which contradicts E=mc².

I'm still not following the logic of the highlighted bit

 

[Farsight]

Nothing is made of kinetic energy. That is not meaningful English.

Take that up with Einstein, who said: "The kinetic energy of the body with respect to (ξ ɳ Ϛ) diminishes as a result of the emission of light". Then take a look at electron-positron annihilation. The kinetic energy of the body diminished as a result of the emission of light. Totally. And afterwards, there's no body left.

Yes you are. You're hiding behind meaningless phrases like "the Higgs boson is made of kinetic energy". Kinetic energy is the energy a body has due to it's motion.

Not when that "body" is a photon. It isn't some billiard-ball thing. It's got a wavelength. It's a wave. When you take all the kinetic energy out of that wave, it doesn't exist any more. Like I was saying you can convert the photon kinetic energy into electron kinetic energy, whereafter there is no photon. Or you can convert it into an electron (and a positron). That's why we have the phrase "matter is made of energy". What else do you think it's made from? Cheese?

It's as meaningless to say the Higgs boson is made of kinetic energy as it is to say an elephant is made of grey.

No it isn't. grey is a colour, it's a quale, something that only exists inside our heads. It's how we perceive light of a given frequency. Energy isn't like that, it's the one thing you can neither create nor destroy. Matter really is made of energy. And that "Higgs boson" was quite literally made of the kinetic energy that we put in.

I explained that you were wrong because the photoelectric effect dominates over Compton scattering at lower energies. I may not have given you a detailed explanation of this but told you where you were wrong and gave you a link to a source that would give you more details. I see you've backed down from your previous claim that I was "claiming a point edd raised as [my] own".

I haven't backed down. Edd made the point, you hitched a ride on it.

You are familiar with the first law of thermodynamics right? The high school level version of that usually goes along the lines of "Energy can be transferred from one form to another but never created or destroyed". On its own, the fact that a photon's energy can be converted to the kinetic energy of an electron tell us two basic things: 1) Electron and photons interact; 2) photon-electron interactions obey the first law of thermodynamics. Well blow me Sherlock! And now because you've told us two facts about photons that I learnt when I was at school, we are meant to be impressed and believe everything you say about the Higgs boson.

And blow me Sherlock, that photon doesn't exist any more. Take its kinetic energy away, and it isn't just sitting there. It's gone. That's why it is kinetic energy. And you can make matter out of it.

You haven't given a rock solid argument. You've given a nothing argument. Nobody except you thinks you've given a rock-solid argument. The fact that you think you've given a rock-solid argument is entirely tied to your own convictions that you are right. Alanis Morissette would probably have something to say about that.

You can't point out where I'm wrong, all you can do is go into denial and resort to dissmissal and abuse. I'm with Einstein here Tubby. Don't forget that.

You've given evidence that electron-photon interactions obey the first law of thermodynamics. You have not given evidence for anything else.

Spoken like a creationist.

 

[DSo]

Originally Posted by Tubbythin
Nothing is made of kinetic energy. That is not meaningful English.

Take that up with Einstein, who said: "The kinetic energy of the body with respect to (ξ ɳ Ϛ) diminishes as a result of the emission of light". Then take a look at electron-positron annihilation. The kinetic energy of the body diminished as a result of the emission of light. Totally. And afterwards, there's no body left.

So I go to the supermarket and buy dinner. My bank account diminishes as a result. Therefore my dinner is made out of money??

 

[W.D.Clinger]

So I go to the supermarket and buy dinner. My bank account diminishes as a result. Therefore my dinner is made out of money??

You may be taking Farsight too literally. His argument is metaphorical, not mathematical.

To deal with his argument on its own terms, you have to think metaphorically. Like this:

Photons do couple with photons,

So that's where baby photons come from?

All these things tell us that the electron is a standing wave that gets its mass not by interacting with a box, or the Higgs field, but by interacting with itself.

That's not where baby electrons come from.

 

[Roboramma]

So I go to the supermarket and buy dinner. My bank account diminishes as a result. Therefore my dinner is made out of money??

The lhc is powered by electricity, some of which comes from hydroelectricity, therefore the Higgs boson is made of gravitational potential energy

 

[Perpetual Student]

Originally Posted by Farsight

Originally Posted by Cuddles
Just in case anyone is interested in actual physics, here is Higgs' 1964 paper which was the first to predict a massive boson as the result of the incorrectly named Higgs mechanism. Any objections that do not directly address this at a similar level of mathematics are simply irrelevant. No amount of wordy analogies and pointless handwaving can compete with an actual theory.

This pompous Emperor's New Clothes line can be used to dismiss anything. It's the modern equivalent of you don't even speak Latin. You won't get away with that on a skeptics forum.

It's really quite simple. Some of us laymen have studied enough physics to have a general understanding of the Higgs paper. Since it has been accepted for several decades as standard physics, anyone refuting that paper should present specific arguments against the mathematically developed conclusions in that paper. Anything else is sophistry! Are you capable of finding any flaws in Higgs' paper or not? If not, you are nothing more than another crackpot populating the Internet.

 

[Farsight]

You asserted that. Personally that doesn't seem like a meaningful statement to me.

You've missed something somewhere along the line. The photon has a wavelength, it's a wave, and when you take all the kinetic energy out of the wave it doesn't exist any more. It isn't like some cannonball where you steal all its kinetic energy and you've still got a cannonball. So you can say the photon is kinetic energy. You know this is reasonable because you can convert a photon into electron kinetic energy in Compton scattering with a final bound-electron absorption like edd said. The photon has totally gone, and all you've got to show for it is electron kinetic energy. Alternatively you can use pair production to convert the photon, which is kinetic energy, into an electron. So the electron is made out of the same thing that makes an electron move. Kinetic energy. This is what E=mc² is all about. Read what Einstein said: "The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content". That's what it is, not the measure of how strongly it couples with some cosmic treacle.

An electron has kinetic energy, and it's true that the energy of its mass may have come from the kinetic energy of some other particle, but what does "made of kinetic energy" even mean?

See above. Matter is made of energy. That's the whole point of E=mc².

You said it doesn't depend on it's energy content, but I don't see any evidence that that's the case: are you saying that the Higgs mechanism violates conservation of energy?

No. I said the electron's mass depends on its energy content. Like Einstein said. The Higgs mechanism doesn't, it says it depends on how much it couples with an-all pervasive field. It ignores the wave nature of matter and it contradicts what Einstein said.

The fact that an electron's mass is determined by its coupling to the Higgs field doesn't mean it's mass doesn't depend on it's energy content: it requires a certain amount of energy to create an electron which is so coupled, so I really don't see your point here.

The point is that the electron is a body, and the inertia of a body depends on its energy content, not on something else. If you trap a photon in a box, the added mass is nothing to do with the Higgs mechanism. If you trap a photon in a box of its own making because photon-photon coupling and photon self-coupling really does occur despite what QED says, the added mass is again nothing to do with the Higgs mechanism. It's just the flip side of momentum. It's the resistance to change-in-motion for a standing wave propagating round and round at c and getting nowhere, rather than the resistance to change-in-motion for a wave propagating linearly at c. It's that simple, and it's a symmetry. Again look at atomic orbitals which says the electrons exist as standing waves, and look at electron diffraction. Electrons aren't cannonballs, they're waves, made from photons in pair production. They have spin angular momentum and magnetic moment so something really is going round and round in there.

I'm still not following the logic of the highlighted bit

See above. The inertia of a body depends upon its energy content, just like Einstein said. Not on something else.

I've got to go. I'll look at other posts I've skipped such as RC's another time.

 

[Farsight]

It's really quite simple. Some of us laymen have studied enough physics to have a general understanding of the Higgs paper.

So explain it then. In your own words. And while you're at it, do mention why the inertia of a body doesn't depend upon its energy content.

Since it has been accepted for several decades as standard physics, anyone refuting that paper should present specific arguments against the mathematically developed conclusions in that paper. Anything else is sophistry! Are you capable of finding any flaws in Higgs' paper or not? If not, you are nothing more than another crackpot populating the Internet.

Well, that's one way to dismiss patent scientific evidence along with plain-vanilla physics and a straightforward explanation that even a child can understand. And Einstein to boot. Hide behind mathematics, like a witch doctor hides behind incantations when a pharmacologist shows up. Like a medieval bishop hides behind Latin and says "you're not qualified to speak of such matters". Nobody falls for it on a skeptics website. Do they?

Perpetual Student, explain the Higgs paper in your own words. When you can't, it will be a nice demonstration of Emperors' New Clothes. Cue ducking and diving and a few more outraged "crackpot" squawks. Bah.

Now I really must go.