Higgs Boson Discovered?!

[sol invictus]

Very droll, sol. Nice try. But it won't work because the mass of of body is a measure of its energy-content will never square with the mass of a body is a measure of its interaction with the Higgs field. It's one or the other.

Gibberish.

The energy of electrons at rest depends on the Higgs field. Therefore, so does their mass.

Yep. Take a look at Susskind's lecture. Two minutes fifty seconds in. He refers to Planck's constant of action, the h in E=hf. Action has the same dimensionality as angular momentum. And Susskind said angular momentum is quantized. Come on sol, this is kid's stuff.

It may indeed be kid's stuff, but you've got it wrong.

Tell us, Farsight - what's the angular momentum of a beam linearly polarized light? What's the angular momentum of a beam of unpolarized light? What's the angular momentum of two photons with equal momentum and equal and opposite helicity?

(The correct answer to all of the above is "zero".)

 

[Farsight]

It's a matter of historical record that Einstein near the end of his life was trying to formulate a unified field theory that would explain both gravity and matter. One of his primary goals? Understanding the origin of mass, so as to account for the electron/proton mass ratio (the other particles were just beginning to be discovered in the 20s and 30s when he started on this). Did Einstein's own ideas about the origin of mass also violate E=mc^2, Farsight?

No. His ideas about the origin of mass gave us E=mc². As far as I know he never worked out the proton/electron mass ratio, which is c^½ / 3π with a small binding-energy adjustment:

c^½ = 17314.5158177
3π = 9.424778
c^½ / 3π = 17314.5158177 / 9.424778
r = 1837.12717877
Actual = 1836.15267245

 

[Farsight]

Haven't caught up on the whole thread yet so forgive me if this is covered already. Momentum is conserved in the motion of the cannonball and the earth at all times. At no point is any of it "hidden". At the time it's fired it's momentum is X, at the top of the trajectory it's 0

At which point the cannonball isn't moving and its momentum is zero along with its kinetic energy. Conservation of energy tells you the energy-momentum you gave it hasn't just vanished.

...and when it gets back to the ground it's -X. And Earth's momentum (relative to the cannonball) starts at -X (recoil from the cannon), hits 0 along at the same time as the cannonball, and is X when the ball hits the ground. At all times, they add up to 0, and none of the momentum is "hidden" in the cannonball.

A 1kg cannonball fired upwards at 1000m/s has momentum of 1000 kg m/s. But at the top of its trajectory its momentum is zero along with its kinetic energy. So where has all that energy-momentum gone? Focussing on total vector momentum does not allow you to claim that the energy-momentum of the cannonball was always zero. You gave that cannonball energy-momentum, and regardless of whether it's blasting upwards at 1000m/s, or is at a great height momentarily motionless before falling back to Earth, it's got it.

 

[Farsight]

So, if momentum is the same thing as energy, and particles are made of energy, it stands to reason one could as easily say that particles are made of momentum. When a particle's momentum is measured to be zero, what is it made of then?

Momentum isn't the same thing as energy, it's a different aspect of energy-momentum, and we tend to say a particle is "made of energy" rather than is "made of energy-momentum". We don't say a particle is "made of momentum" even though the particle has spin angular momentum. If we consider a fast-moving electron, we say it has kinetic energy x and momentum y in addition to its rest-mass energy-momentum of 511keV. To slow down the electron and bring it to rest we have to exert a force on it. Its kinetic energy x is our force times distance measure of its energy-momentum on top of the 511keV. Its momentum y is our force times time measure of its energy-momentum on top of the 511keV.

Note that rather than exerting a force ourselves we can slow down the electron using a series of Inverse Compton scatters. The electron's kinetic energy-momentum is converted into the energy-momentum of photons. Photon energy is E=hf whilst momentum is p=hf/c, the former being a scalar and the latter a vector associated with direction.

Once we've got the electron at rest, we can annihilate it with a 511keV positron, which usually results in two photons. The electron and positron rest mass energy-momentum is converted into the energy-momentum of photons. It isn't very different to what happened to the electron kinetic energy-momentum. The electron at rest is made out of the same thing that makes an electron move fast: energy-momentum.

You can make an electron move fast using Compton scattering, whereupon the electron absorbs a portion of the photon energy-momentum. When you make an electron and a positron via photon-photon pair production, the electron and positron each absorbs all of the photon energy-momentum as they are created.

 

[Farsight]

You're talking to at least three at a minimum professional physicists here who do not hold that opinion of you and very probably a maximum of zero here that do (if its any more than zero they're staying extremely improbably quiet).

If people like ben can't put up a counterargument and instead offer only ad-hominem abuse, then I have to say that their opinion of me isn't that important. It's never important anyway. What's important is the scientific evidence.

It's not trivia. Your clarification has clarified little. You've just requoted exactly what I sought clarification upon. Do all transverse waves in your opinion carry angular momentum? Yes or no?

No. But they are all associated with angular velocity. And as I said to sol, take a look at Susskind's lecture. Two minutes fifty seconds in he refers to Planck's constant of action, the h in E=hf that applies to all photons. Action has the same dimensionality as angular momentum. And Susskind said angular momentum is quantized. Whether all transverse waves convey net angular momentum is trivia. You're trying to use it to distract attention from the point of discussion because you have no adequate counter to Einstein's the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content and his radiation conveys inertia between the emitting and absorbing bodies. Sorry edd, but it just won't work.

 

[Tubbythin]

No. His ideas about the origin of mass gave us E=mc². As far as I know he never worked out the proton/electron mass ratio, which is c^½ / 3π with a small binding-energy adjustment:

c^½ = 17314.5158177
3π = 9.424778
c^½ / 3π = 17314.5158177 / 9.424778
r = 1837.12717877
Actual = 1836.15267245

That's some nice numerology there. Shame one side of the equation has units and the other doesn't, rendering the whole thing absolutely meaningless.

 

[Tubbythin]

Photon energy is E=hf whilst momentum is p=hf/c, the former being a scalar and the latter a vector associated with direction.

Nope. The p in p=hf/c is the magnitude of momentum and is a scalar.

 

[Farsight]

Mindful of the above, the next post from ben appears to offer a counter-argument, so I'll address it and shoot it down in flames.

No one else caught this, but it's worth jumping in to say *how thoroughly contra-Einstein this is*.

It isn't contra-Einstein at all. See this section of the wikipedia Mass in general relativity page:

In special relativity, the invariant mass of a single particle is always Lorentz invariant. Can the same thing be said for the mass of a system of particles in general relativity?

Surprisingly, the answer is no. A system must either be isolated, or have zero volume, in order for its mass to be Lorentz invariant. While the density of energy momentum, the stress-energy tensor is always Lorentz covariant, the same cannot be said for the total energy-momentum. (Nakamura, 2005). Non-covariance of the energy-momentum four-vector implies non-invariance of its length, the invariant mass.

You just said that, if you fire a cannonball upwards, its rest mass will vary along with its distance from Earth.

Yes it will. See above. Its invariant mass varies by virtue of conservation of energy. When you fire a cannonball straight up at 1000m/s, the kinetic energy you gave to the cannonball is converted into potential energy in the cannonball. At the top of its trajectory the cannonball is momentarily motionless, at which point all of its kinetic energy has been converted into potential energy. In the cannonball. The cannonball at rest five miles up comprises more energy than the cannonball at rest on the ground.

Imagine an observer in a sealed capsule who comes along and finds that a cannonball has punctured their hull. "Either we just flew very fast past a stationary cannonball, or we're at rest and someone fired a cannonball at us," he says. "Although, since the capsule has no rockets, the only reason it would be moving fast would be if we're deep in a gravity well."

All they know initially is that the cannonball had relative motion compared to them.

The fundamental principle of GR is that they can't tell the difference. All of the laws of physics are invariant in all free-falling reference frames. That's why it's a problem when Farsigh beams aboard, saying, "No, I can tell you quite a lot about your reference frame. Using this specially-designed spring scale for moving objects, let's measure the mass of the cannonball as it flies by.

A spring scale doesn't work, because the mass/energy of the spring also varies with gravitational potential.

If the mass is large, we're deep in a gravity well. If the mass is small, we must be far from the well." Thus Farsight contradicts Einstein on the indistinguishability of free-falling reference frames.

No I don't. And what you've forgotten is that Einstein used infinitesimal reference frames. See this Einstein Online article on the equivalence principle:

"Realizing that what matters are the size of the region, and the duration of our observations, we are led to a formulation in which the equivalence principle is not just a useful approximation, but exactly true: Within an infinitely small ("infinitesimal") spacetime region, one can always find a reference frame - an infinitely small elevator cabin, observed over an infinitely brief period of time - in which the laws of physics are the same as in special relativity. By choosing a suitably small elevator and a suitably brief period of observation, one can keep the difference between the laws of physics in that cabin and those of special relativity arbitrarily small."

The principle of equivalence is only exactly true in a region of zero extent where measurements take zero time. And it's only a principle, not a golden rule. It doesn't actually say that if you're in a box you can never hope to find out whether you're in free space or in a gravitational field. If you can measure say tidal force or the fine structure constant with adequate precision you can tell the difference. Doing so doesn't mean general relativity is wrong, it just reminds you that the principle of equivalence is only exactly true in a region of zero extent where measurements take zero time.

Gotta go.

 

[edd]

If people like ben can't put up a counterargument and instead offer only ad-hominem abuse, then I have to say that their opinion of me isn't that important. It's never important anyway. What's important is the scientific evidence.

I note in the very next post you're having to respond to one of his counterarguments. edit to add: I note you noted that! Never mind.

No. But they are all associated with angular velocity.

I'm not sure what that means.

Whether all transverse waves convey net angular momentum is trivia.

When you say something incorrect as part of your argument you'd expect someone to call you out on it, no?

You're trying to use it to distract attention from the point of discussion because you have no adequate counter to Einstein's the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content and his radiation conveys inertia between the emitting and absorbing bodies. Sorry edd, but it just won't work.

You still haven't grasped that noone here disagrees with relativity, have you? I don't need to counter what I agree with. We do need to counter incorrect statements you make and counter the idea that the Higgs mechanism is in disagreement with this.

 

[Tubbythin]

Random not-really-science question: will the Higgs boson continue to be called the Higgs boson? I was just thinking that the other fundamental particles aren't named after people - neither their discoverers nor the people that predicted their existence. Should the Higgs be any different in that respect?

 

[edd]

Fermions and bosons are both names derived from people, and many other classes of particles have names coming from people so I don't see why not.

 

[sol invictus]

No.

So you're denying history now as well as physics? Would it matter if I posted quotes from his papers on that?

His ideas about the origin of mass gave us E=mc².

Which doesn't explain where mass comes from - it simply says that mass is a form of energy, but not what the origin of that energy is.

As far as I know he never worked out the proton/electron mass ratio, which is c^½ / 3π with a small binding-energy adjustment:

c^½ = 17314.5158177
3π = 9.424778
c^½ / 3π = 17314.5158177 / 9.424778
r = 1837.12717877
Actual = 1836.15267245

You've got to be kidding. You've heard of "units", right?

 

[Tubbythin]

Fermions and bosons are both names derived from people,

True, somehow I managed to overlook that.

and many other classes of particles have names coming from people so I don't see why not.

None that are fundamental constituents in the Standard model though.

 

[phunk]

At which point the cannonball isn't moving and its momentum is zero along with its kinetic energy. Conservation of energy tells you the energy-momentum you gave it hasn't just vanished.

A 1kg cannonball fired upwards at 1000m/s has momentum of 1000 kg m/s. But at the top of its trajectory its momentum is zero along with its kinetic energy. So where has all that energy-momentum gone?

The momentum is transferrred to earth, via gravity. It never disappears and is never converted to anything else. Every bit of momentum the cannonball loses is gained by the earth. When the cannonball loses it's initial momentum X and reaches 0 speed, that's because the earth has gained exactly X momentum.

Focussing on total vector momentum does not allow you to claim that the energy-momentum of the cannonball was always zero. You gave that cannonball energy-momentum, and regardless of whether it's blasting upwards at 1000m/s, or is at a great height momentarily motionless before falling back to Earth, it's got it.

I never said that the energy-momentum of the cannonball was always zero. Mainly because "energy-momentum" isn't a phrase I would use, because it doesn't make sense. The momentum (not energy-momentum) of the cannonball passes through 0 on the way from X to -X, but it is not always zero.

You seem to think that momentum and energy are the same thiing, but they are not. Momentum is related to kinetic energy, but not potential energy. Potential energy is not hidden momentum, because that momentum is never hidden. It's only hidden in your mind because you only consider the cannonball and not the earth and the force of gravity between them.

It comes down to what you denied in the other thread, that gravitational potential energy is stored in an object. It is not, it is a property of a system of objects. GPE is relative. One object can have different amounts of GPE, depending on your frame of reference, just like it can have different velocities. This is because GPE is not a property of the object, it's a property of the relationship between multiple objects.

 

[Reality Check]

Farsight: Is the Higgs mechanism a relativistic quantum field theory

I answered your question here. ...

Once again you did not!
It was a repeat of you ignoring the Higgs mechanism and restating your fantasy (so far) that it is inconsistant with E=mc^2.
You then complain about putting relativistic in front of QFT !

There is nothing in that post about whether that Higgs mechanism is relativistic or not.


The answer is either

• Yes
  and you will show that you know a basic fact about the Higgs mechanism or
• No
  and the evidence to back it up.

Farsight: Is the Higgs mechanism a relativistic quantum field theory?
i.e. is it is based on special relativity and is thus consistent with E=mc^2.
First pointed out 1 November 2012

 

[edd]

You've got to be kidding. You've heard of "units", right?

Somehow I missed this. I expect bad physics from Farsight but this still made my jaw drop.

 

[Farsight]

So you're denying history now as well as physics? Would it matter if I posted quotes from his papers on that?

I'm not denying history or physics. It's me quoting from Einstein's papers here. I'd be only too pleased if you quoted some yourself.

Which doesn't explain where mass comes from - it simply says that mass is a form of energy, but not what the origin of that energy is.

He did explain where mass comes from - from the kinetic energy of the body. When the body is at rest and emits kinetic energy in the form of radiation, its mass reduces and the radiation conveys inertia to the absorbing body, which gains mass. Don't forget that the "Higgs boson" has a gamma-gamma decay channel. Just think of it as a body. He didn't say where energy originally comes from, that we don't know. Energy is the one thing we can neither create nor destroy.

You've got to be kidding. You've heard of "units", right?

Sure. The c^½ / 3π expression sits on top of another expression λ = 4π / n c^1½ metres where n is a dimensionality conversion factor n with a value of 1. It's all to do with harmonics and ratios and spin ½, and everything is based on the motion of light. If you change your definition of c everything else changes too, but the sense of E=mc² and E=p/c still holds. It's the same for these expressions. The thing we call c isn't so much a speed as a conversion factor between our units of distance and time. They're both defined using the motion of light. Everything relates back to the motion of light. Check out the watt balance section of the wikipedia Kilogram article and note the bit that says this: "The Planck constant defines the kilogram in terms of the second and the meter. By fixing the Planck constant, the definition of the kilogram would depend only on the definitions of the second and the meter." The article goes on to say "the definition of the second depends on a single defined physical constant: the ground state hyperfine splitting frequency of the caesium 133 atom". However there's a little flaw in that in that you can't define the second using a frequency, which is cycles per second. Anyway, SI is the kilogram-metre-second system, and will end up being more of a metre-second system where everything relates back to the motion of light. Interesting stuff I think. A bit off topic mind, but I think we've almost exhausted it anyway.

 

[Farsight]

I missed this one:

Gibberish.

No it isn't. This is the heart of it. The mass of of body is a measure of its energy-content will never square with the mass of a body is a measure of its interaction with the Higgs field. Not when the Higgs mechanism is responsible for only 1% of the mass of matter and doesn't apply to a standing wave in a box. Not when the electron exists as a standing wave and the kinetic energy of the LHC protons was used to create the Higgs boson. Not when there's a gamma-gamma decay channel and it's a body too, just like the electron. Saying that the Higgs interaction is exactly proportional to energy-content is just a cop-out.

The energy of electrons at rest depends on the Higgs field. Therefore, so does their mass.

It doesn't. It depends on h.

It may indeed be kid's stuff, but you've got it wrong. Tell us, Farsight - what's the angular momentum of a beam linearly polarized light? What's the angular momentum of a beam of unpolarized light? What's the angular momentum of two photons with equal momentum and equal and opposite helicity? (The correct answer to all of the above is "zero".)

I haven't got it wrong. Anybody can look this up:

"The photon also carries spin angular momentum that does not depend on its frequency.[17] The magnitude of its spin is √2ħ and the component measured along its direction of motion, its helicity, must be ±ħ. These two possible helicities, called right-handed and left-handed, correspond to the two possible circular polarization states of the photon.[18]"

Also see this where you can read:

"We can therefore think of the spin angular momentum of the photon being quantized as well as the energy. This has indeed been experimentally verified.[2] Photons have only been observed to have spin angular momenta of ±ħ."

Saying the angular momentum of two photons with opposite helicity is zero is like saying the momentum of the Earth and cannonball is zero. Ergo the cannonball doing 1000m/s has no momentum.

 

[ben m]

No it isn't. This is the heart of it. The mass of of body is a measure of its energy-content will never square with the mass of a body is a measure of its interaction with the Higgs field.

Why is this so hard, Farsight? The presence of the Higgs field alters the allowable energies of Standard Model particles. Because it alters the energies, it alters the masses. There is no conflict between the Higgs mechanism and E^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^2. The Higgs mechanism just helps determine m.

 

[sol invictus]

I'm not denying history or physics. It's me quoting from Einstein's papers here. I'd be only too pleased if you quoted some yourself.

He did explain where mass comes from - from the kinetic energy of the body.

That's not what Einstein thought. He devoted years of his life to explaining the origin of mass. I'll look for excerpts of those papers when I have time.

Sure. The c^½ / 3π expression sits on top of another expression λ = 4π / n c^1½ metres where n is a dimensionality conversion factor n with a value of 1.

Measure c in units of feet/second or Smoots/century, and your expression would give a different result for the electron-proton mass ratio. Therefore, it's manifest nonsense.

No it isn't. This is the heart of it. The mass of of body is a measure of its energy-content will never square with the mass of a body is a measure of its interaction with the Higgs field.

You're wrong. And on top of that, after pages and pages no one has any idea why you think that (except ben, but even his take on your psychology doesn't really explain it).

Saying the angular momentum of two photons with opposite helicity is zero is like saying the momentum of the Earth and cannonball is zero.

So then answer my question: what is the angular momentum of two collinear photons with opposite helicity?