Higgs Boson Discovered?!

[Reality Check]

Farsight: What does Higgs mean by Lorentz-covariant and relativistic

A follow up to

.
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

Have you even read Higgs paper, Farsight?
BROKEN SYMMETRIES AND THE MASSES OF GAUGE BOSONS by Peter W. Higgs (1964)
Where the frst paragraph is:

In a recent note' it was shown that the Goldstone theorem, ' that Lorentz-covariant field theories in which spontaneous breakdown of symmetry under an internal Lie group occurs contain zero-mass particles, fails if and only if the conserved currents associated with the internal group are coupled to gauge fields. The purpose of the present note is to report that, as a consequence of this coupling, the spin-one quanta of some of the gauge fields acquire mass; the longitudinal degrees of freedom of these particles (which would be absent if their mass were zero) go over into the Goldstone bosons when the coupling tends to zero. This phenomenon is just the relativistic analog of the plasmon phenomenon to which Anderson' has drawn attention: that the scalar zero-mass excitations of a superconducting neutral Fermi gas become longitudinal plasmon modes of finite mass when the gas is charged.

Farsight: What does Higgs mean by Lorentz-covariant and relativistic?

 

[Farsight]

The momentum is transferrred to earth, via gravity.

No it isn't. There is no magical mysterious action-at-a-distance. There is no spring connecting the cannonball to the Earth. When you fired the 1kg cannonball upwards at 1000m/s it had its KE=½mv² kinetic energy of 500,000 kg-m²/s² and its p=mv momentum of 1000 kg-m/s. At the top of its trajectory it has retained this energy-momentum in the guise of potential energy. The cannonball has it. It hasn't handed it to the Earth. If we simplify matters by making the Earth airless, then we can launch the cannonball with angled rockets that don't push on the Earth at all. The work done on the cannonball is done on the cannonball, not the Earth.

It never disappears and is never converted to anything else.

Yes it does disappear. See this link. The cannonball gets to a height of 51,020 metres whereupon it's momentarily motionless. It hasn't got any momentum any more. Or any kinetic energy. See the bit in the link that says We also know that potential energy (due to altitude) is defined by the equation E_p = mgh. The m is the cannonballs's mass. The h is the cannonball's height.

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.

The Earth didn't gain any initial momentum when we fired the cannonball up with rockets. And when the cannonball is at its maximum height, we can't detect any motion of the Earth. We can't detect any spring, or any mechanism whereby the cannonball momentum or kinetic energy is transferred to the Earth. Like I said, you cannot remove kinetic energy from an object without removing the momentum too. There is no lightning-bolt of 500,000 kg-m²/s² whereby the Earth robs the cannonball of its kinetic energy and momentum. Instead it's converted into potential energy in the cannonball.

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.

Look it up.

The momentum (not energy-momentum) of the cannonball passes through 0 on the way from X to -X, but it is not always zero.

Don't be distracted by the vector aspect of momentum. A cannonball going up has momentum of 1000 kg-m/s. When it's at maximum height its momentum is zero. When it's falling down its momentum is not less than that. The cannonball is doing 1000m/s. The negative sign on its -1000 kg-m/s is just a convention for indicating direction. Like I said, a cannonball coming at you from the West at 1000m/s doesn't have zero momentum.

You seem to think that momentum and energy are the same thiing, but they are not.

They're two different aspects of the same thing called energy-momentum. You cannot take away a cannonball's kinetic energy without taking away its momentum.

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.

No it isn't. If you put that cannonball in a box bouncing back and forth at 1000m/s it's still got its kinetic energy and its momentum. The same is true of a light wave, where E=hf and p=hf/c. You can't reduce the p without reducing the E. And if you can't see that E or p you call it potential energy. Divide by c for momentum, but nobody ever calls it potential momentum.

It comes down to what you denied in the other thread, that gravitational potential energy is stored in an object.

Phunk, I'm not denying anything. Now go and do some research. Start with hyperphysics. Note this: Gravitational potential energy is energy an object possesses because of its position in a gravitational field. The object posesses it. The energy is in the object. It's merely that portion of its mass-energy that is converted into kinetic energy when the object falls down. Once the kinetic energy is radiated away, the mass-energy of the object is reduced. You reverse this when you lift the object up.

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.

A cannonball way out in space doesn't have any gravitational potential energy, it just has its mass-energy. GPE is just a statement of how much of this can be wrung out of it and turned into kinetic energy when it falls down. I'm not kidding you about all this Phunk. Please go and ask around about it elsewhere, and do your own research. This website looks pretty good.

 

[Farsight]

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.

I answered your question here and you totally dismissed my answer.

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

I've answered your question. If I gave another answer you'd ignore that too and pretend I've ignored you. And meanwhile you dismiss all my explanations and all my references to Einstein, but can't explain the Higgs mechanism at all.

Next.

 

[Farsight]

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.

That's a bit of a shift isn't it? You've gone from the Higgs mechanism gives an electron its mass to the Higgs mechanism sets the 511keV level at which an electron can exist. That' wrong too. Apologise for calling me a crackpot and I'll explain why it's h that sets the level, not the Higgs mechanism.

 

[Reality Check]

I answered your question here and you totally dismissed my answer.

I dismissed it because you did not show that triggers mechanism violates E=mc^2.
Given that you seem nearly totally ignorant about the Higgs mechanism, this is not surprising !

The question remains: 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
Just learn about the Higgs mechanism and tell me yes or no Farsight!

And then there is:
Farsight: What does Peter W. Higgs mean by Lorentz-covariant and relativistic in his original 1964 paper?
First asked 19 November 2012

I wonder whether the authors who cite that paper call the Higgs mechanism relativistic or non-relativistic?
What about the other authors about the Higgs mechanism?
I guess if you continue to refuse to learn about the Higgs mechanism then we will find out !

ETA:

And meanwhile you dismiss all my explanations and all my references to Einstein, but can't explain the Higgs mechanism at all.

See above why all your explanations were dismissed because they do not address the Higgs mechanism at all.

And you are wrong: you have never asked for an explanation of the Higgs mechanism from me. My response would be: Higgs mechanism.
Asking for that explanasion though is yet another indactor of your ignorance about the Higgs mechanism - you cannot even understand the Wikipedia article!

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Note this: Gravitational potential energy is energy an object possesses because of its position in a gravitational field. The object posesses it. The energy is in the object. It's merely that portion of its mass-energy that is converted into kinetic energy when the object falls down. Once the kinetic energy is radiated away, the mass-energy of the object is reduced. You reverse this when you lift the object up.

Wait a minute, Farsight. So now you are saying that even though a body's mass depends on its energy content, it can also depend on how the body interacts with a field?

Doesn't this, according to you, violate E=mc^2?

If a cannonball's rest mass can depend on the interaction between the cannonball and the gravitational field, then why can't an electron's rest mass depend on the interaction between the electron and the Higgs field?

If the cannonball's rest mass can be different in a strong gravitational field than it would be if there was no gravitational field, then why can't an electron's rest mass be different in a strong Higgs field than it would be if there was no Higgs field?

Imagine for a moment that the Higgs field only existed in a small area of space. Outside of the region of space the electron has zero rest mass, just like the photon. A 1MeV electron enters the field. It suddenly slows down from c to about 0.8c, and in doing so 0.511MeV of its kinetic energy becomes rest energy. Another electron with only 0.1MeV of energy strikes the field, but does not have enough energy to penetrate the boundary, and reflects off, much as light can reflect off of a metallic conductor. And inside the field, a 1MeV electron (again moving at about 0.8c) exits the field. Its 0.511MeV of rest energy turns back into kinetic energy, and its speed returns to c. And of course inside the field you won't be able to make any new electrons without supplying enough energy to do so (the Higgs field does not provide the energy). So for example, outside of the field any two photons could combine to produce an electron-positron pair (since they have no rest mass). But inside the field the two photons must have at least 1.022MeV of energy between them, so that this kinetic energy can be converted into the rest energy of the electron and positron that the interaction with the field requires them to have.

Note, by the way, that all of this is exactly analogous to what happens to photons moving in and out of a superconductor. In fact, it's exactly the same type of phenomenon. If a particle with zero rest mass enters a Boson Condensate that interacts with the particle, then the particle acquires a rest mass that depends on the strength of that interaction. This has been known for decades, and has been repeatedly experimentally verified.

 

[Reality Check]

Why has your "explanation by Einstein for the origin of mass" ben ignored for 107 yrs

And yet more questions come up, Farsight!
According to your fantasy, Einstein explained the origin of mass in his 1905 paper. But sceintists have continued to look for an answer to the origin of mass for 107 years !

Farsight: Why have scientists ignored your "explanation by Einstein for the origin of mass" for over 107 years?


Farsight: Where are the scientific papers expanding on your "explanation by Einstein for the origin of mass"?



Farsight: Where are the textbooks using your "explanation by Einstein for the origin of mass"?

 

[Farsight]

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.

Please do. I won't hold my breath, because I happen to know he explained the origin of mass in 1905, and spent years of his life trying to unify electromagnetism and gravity. Would you like to know how that works by the way? Maybe we should have a new thread for that.

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.

Huff puff. It would give a different result for E=mc² too. It isn't manifest nonsense, you just don't understand spin ½, or that c^½ and c^1½ equates to c², or that everything hangs off the motion of light. Again, that's new-thread territory.

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).

I demolished ben's counterargument in post #668. Are you going to step in to help the guy out by pointing out where I got it wrong? No. Are you going to contribute to what he said about the Higgs mechanism setting the mass levels? No. All you're going to do is pretend that nobody has any idea what I'm saying. It's spectacularly unconvincing sol. Especially when you don't have the grace to say to guys like Phunk that Farsight is right about that. You should try it, it improves your credibility. Or should I say this: once people spot that you aren't sincere, your credibility is shot to pot.

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

The total angular momentum is zero. Just as the total angular momentum of two opposite roundabouts is zero. Just as the total momentum of two photons going in opposite directions is zero. Just as the total momentum of two cannonballs going in opposite directions is zero. But momentum is an aspect of energy-momentum, and in all cases the energy-momentum is not zero. Momentum nets to zero because in an interaction I exert a force on you this way whilst you exert a force on me that way. For every action there is a reaction. But that doesn't mean there is no action. And action h is always there in E=hf, action has the same dimensionality as angular momentum, and like Susskind said at 2:50 it's quantized. LOL, sol, we're going round in circles here. And still nobody can explain the Higgs mechanism. Yawn. I'm off to bed.

 

[Reality Check]

I won't hold my breath, because I happen to know he explained the origin of mass in 1905,...

Farsight: Why has your "explanation by Einstein for the origin of mass" been ignored by scientists for 107 yrs?

Farsight: Where are the scientific papers expanding on your "explanation by Einstein for the origin of mass"?

Farsight: Where are the textbooks using your "explanation by Einstein for the origin of mass"?

I will address a bit of ignorance: h is not an action (this has a precise menaing in physics). h is Plank's constant.
The Higgs mechanism does not have anything to do with angular momentum (quantized ot not).


So what is so important about the trivial facts that

• h has the dimensions as angular momentum.
• In relativity, angular momentum is quantized.

And you are lying - everyone here can explain the Higgs mechanism: Higgs mechanism.
No one here is likely to try to dumb it down enough so that you would understand it because you have shown no signs of understanding either Higgs mechanism or Susskind's lectrure. You would probably just continue to deny basic facts about it like it is a relativistic QFT. And then there is your history of not being able to understand SR in other threads.

 

[Tubbythin]

Huff puff. It would give a different result for E=mc² too. It isn't manifest nonsense, you just don't understand spin ½, or that c^½ and c^1½ equates to c², or that everything hangs off the motion of light. Again, that's new-thread territory.

Nope. It was you Farsight, and you alone, that chose to present an equation which on one side had no units and on the other side had units of (ms^-1)^1/2. These two quantities can never ever ever ever ever ever ever be considered equal. This betrays such an atrocious understanding of the basics of physics - I don't mean the basics of quantum mechanics or the basics of relativistic quantum field theory, I mean the fundamentals of high-school level physics - that it beggars belief.

 

[ben m]

That's a bit of a shift isn't it? You've gone from the Higgs mechanism gives an electron its mass to the Higgs mechanism sets the 511keV level at which an electron can exist.

You're really going out of your way to find new things to misunderstand.

I am baffled as to why you'd even pretend to think this is "a shift".

In the absence of the Higgs field, you can write a relativistic quantum field theory (notice "relativistic"?) including an electron-like object with zero mass. In this theory, the electron obeys all of the zero-mass equations of motion; it obeys the zero-mass equations of conservation of energy, momentum, angular momentum, etc.; it obeys E^2 = 0 + p^2 c^2; the electron-positron pair production threshhold is E_CM = 0; etc.

In the presence of the Higgs field, you can write a relativistic quantum field theory (notice "relativistic"? There it is again!) including an electron-like object which interacts with the Higgs vev. In this theory, the electron obeys all of the massive-particle equations of motion. It obeys the massive-particle equations for conservation of energy, momentum, angular momentum, etc; it obeys E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2; the electron-positron pair production threshhold is E_CM = 2mc^2; etc.

There are eighteen different ways to phrase this in English. You have now misunderstood approximately ten of them, claiming that each one contradicts the previous one. You know where there's only one way to phrase it? Equations. Write down the Standard Model Lagrangian and show me which term is Lorentz violating.

You'll have to invent something else to misunderstand. Go back to misunderstanding vectors and scalars, at least that one was funny.

 

[Tubbythin]

That's a bit of a shift isn't it? You've gone from the Higgs mechanism gives an electron its mass to the Higgs mechanism sets the 511keV level at which an electron can exist.

Erm. These are the same things.

 

[Tubbythin]

You'll have to invent something else to misunderstand. Go back to misunderstanding vectors and scalars, at least that one was funny.

I particularly enjoyed his recent, and apparently continued, misunderstanding of units.

 

[phunk]

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.

Sure you can, it's easy. A second is the time it takes for 9192631770 cycles.

 

[Roboramma]

If we simplify matters by making the Earth airless, then we can launch the cannonball with angled rockets that don't push on the Earth at all. The work done on the cannonball is done on the cannonball, not the Earth.

Why do you think this is useful? You either have a system of earth/cannonball with total momentum of 0, or you have a system of earth/cannonball/rocket exhaust of total momentum 0 It's still the case that in order to change the momentum of the cannonball something else's momentum has to change: that's what it means for momentum to be conserved

Here's a simple example of momentum and kinetic energy being different things: a bomb at t=0 the bomb is sitting somewhere out in space with nothing else around, at rest in our reference frame both it's kinetic energy and it's momentum =0

At t=1 it explodes, and pieces going flying off in various different directions The total momentum is still zero, but the total kinetic energy is certainly not zero

How is it possible that those two values are different?

 

[phunk]

No it isn't. There is no magical mysterious action-at-a-distance. There is no spring connecting the cannonball to the Earth. When you fired the 1kg cannonball upwards at 1000m/s it had its KE=½mv² kinetic energy of 500,000 kg-m²/s² and its p=mv momentum of 1000 kg-m/s. At the top of its trajectory it has retained this energy-momentum in the guise of potential energy. The cannonball has it. It hasn't handed it to the Earth.

How does the cannonball convert kinetic energy to potential energy? Via the force of gravity acting on the ball in the opposite direction of its motion. And what's on the other end of that force? Earth. How much does earth's momentum change when the cannonball slows down? By the exact amount the cannonball lost. It all adds up to 0 (well, to whatever the initial total was), always. Momentum is conserved.

If we simplify matters by making the Earth airless, then we can launch the cannonball with angled rockets that don't push on the Earth at all. The work done on the cannonball is done on the cannonball, not the Earth.

You don't know how rockets work, do you. If you use rockets, then whatever momentum you give the cannonball, you give the exact opposite to the exhaust gasses coming from the rocket. The total momentum of the Earth, cannonball, and exhaust gasses does not change. Momentum is always conserved.

Yes it does disappear. See this link. The cannonball gets to a height of 51,020 metres whereupon it's momentarily motionless. It hasn't got any momentum any more. Or any kinetic energy. See the bit in the link that says We also know that potential energy (due to altitude) is defined by the equation E_p = mgh. The m is the cannonballs's mass. The h is the cannonball's height.

It only disappeared because yet again, you're ignoring that the momentum was transferred to something else.

The Earth didn't gain any initial momentum when we fired the cannonball up with rockets. And when the cannonball is at its maximum height, we can't detect any motion of the Earth. We can't detect any spring, or any mechanism whereby the cannonball momentum or kinetic energy is transferred to the Earth. Like I said, you cannot remove kinetic energy from an object without removing the momentum too. There is no lightning-bolt of 500,000 kg-m²/s² whereby the Earth robs the cannonball of its kinetic energy and momentum. Instead it's converted into potential energy in the cannonball.

Look it up.

Don't be distracted by the vector aspect of momentum. A cannonball going up has momentum of 1000 kg-m/s. When it's at maximum height its momentum is zero. When it's falling down its momentum is not less than that. The cannonball is doing 1000m/s. The negative sign on its -1000 kg-m/s is just a convention for indicating direction. Like I said, a cannonball coming at you from the West at 1000m/s doesn't have zero momentum.

Don't be distracted? You can't ignore the fact that momentum is a vector. It's the whole reason the concept of momentum exists.

They're two different aspects of the same thing called energy-momentum.

Except that they aren't the same thing, they have different units, and one is a scalar while the other is a vector.

You cannot take away a cannonball's kinetic energy without taking away its momentum.

No it isn't. If you put that cannonball in a box bouncing back and forth at 1000m/s it's still got its kinetic energy and its momentum. The same is true of a light wave, where E=hf and p=hf/c. You can't reduce the p without reducing the E. And if you can't see that E or p you call it potential energy. Divide by c for momentum, but nobody ever calls it potential momentum.

If you put that cannonball in a box bouncing back and forth, its momentum and the box's change places with every bounce. And I never said you can reduce p or E independently. But you can not reduce p without increasing it in something else by the same amount.

Phunk, I'm not denying anything. Now go and do some research. Start with hyperphysics. Note this: Gravitational potential energy is energy an object possesses because of its position in a gravitational field. The object posesses it. The energy is in the object. It's merely that portion of its mass-energy that is converted into kinetic energy when the object falls down. Once the kinetic energy is radiated away, the mass-energy of the object is reduced. You reverse this when you lift the object up.

A cannonball way out in space doesn't have any gravitational potential energy, it just has its mass-energy. GPE is just a statement of how much of this can be wrung out of it and turned into kinetic energy when it falls down. I'm not kidding you about all this Phunk. Please go and ask around about it elsewhere, and do your own research. This website looks pretty good.

Don't think you can dismiss me by condescendingly telling me to go study. You are making basic mistakes yourself, ignoring units and declaring different quantities as the same thing.

As long as it isn't the only thing in the universe, a cannonball way out in space has gravitational potential energy relative to every other thing in space. Gravity doesn't have a distance limit.

 

[sol invictus]

Huff puff. It would give a different result for E=mc² too.

No, it would not.

It's quite clear that you don't understand units, at all. Units are the first thing you study in an introductory course in any physical science.

All you're going to do is pretend that nobody has any idea what I'm saying.

No one has any idea what you're saying, Farsight. That's because what you're saying doesn't make sense.

The total angular momentum is zero.

So, you were wrong about that too. I asked you "Light waves always carry angular momentum, do they?". Your response? "Yep."

Light waves are composed of an enormous number of photons, the total angular momentum of which can be zero - as you have just admitted.

 

[Farsight]

Wait a minute, Farsight. So now you are saying that even though a body's mass depends on its energy content, it can also depend on how the body interacts with a field?

No. It depends on its energy content. When you raise a cannonball you do work on it. You exert a force for a distance. Force times distance equals energy. That energy is now in the cannonball. Its energy content is higher, so its mass has increased.

Doesn't this, according to you, violate E=mc^2?

No. E is greater and so is m. What's the problem?

If a cannonball's rest mass can depend on the interaction between the cannonball and the gravitational field, then why can't an electron's rest mass depend on the interaction between the electron and the Higgs field?

Because the cannonball's rest mass depends on its energy content. The gravitational field merely provides a way to increase it. You could take that cannonball way out in space where there's no detectable gravitational field. It isn't interacting with a gravitational field. But when you try to push it, it still resists your attempt to move it. It hasn't gone featherlight and massless.

If the cannonball's rest mass can be different in a strong gravitational field than it would be if there was no gravitational field, then why can't an electron's rest mass be different in a strong Higgs field than it would be if there was no Higgs field?

Because the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. It isn't a measure of its interaction with a field. All a field does is give you a mechanism by which to vary that energy content.

Imagine for a moment that the Higgs field only existed in a small area of space. Outside of the region of space the electron has zero rest mass, just like the photon. A 1MeV electron enters the field. It suddenly slows down from c to about 0.8c, and in doing so 0.511MeV of its kinetic energy becomes rest energy. Another electron with only 0.1MeV of energy strikes the field, but does not have enough energy to penetrate the boundary, and reflects off, much as light can reflect off of a metallic conductor. And inside the field, a 1MeV electron (again moving at about 0.8c) exits the field. Its 0.511MeV of rest energy turns back into kinetic energy, and its speed returns to c. And of course inside the field you won't be able to make any new electrons without supplying enough energy to do so (the Higgs field does not provide the energy). So for example, outside of the field any two photons could combine to produce an electron-positron pair (since they have no rest mass). But inside the field the two photons must have at least 1.022MeV of energy between them, so that this kinetic energy can be converted into the rest energy of the electron and positron that the interaction with the field requires them to have.

Electrons can't travel at the speed of light. And the cannonball's rest mass is greater when its out in free space where there's no detectable gravitational field. You're clutching at straws Stimpson.

Note, by the way, that all of this is exactly analogous to what happens to photons moving in and out of a superconductor. In fact, it's exactly the same type of phenomenon. If a particle with zero rest mass enters a Boson Condensate that interacts with the particle, then the particle acquires a rest mass that depends on the strength of that interaction. This has been known for decades, and has been repeatedly experimentally verified.

It's called effective mass, and it backs up what I've been saying. When you slow down a photon to below c you say it has an slight effective mass, the ratio of effective mass to energy-momentum depending on how much you've slowed it down. When you slow it down to zero by trapping it in a box as a standing wave, 100% of the energy-momentum is effective mass. And it is indeed effective. The box is now harder to move. That's why the mass of a body is a measure of energy-content. But note that the photon is interacting with the box, not with some Higgs field. The electron is similar but it's like a photon in a box of its own making. Ditto for the positron. You made them both in two-photon physics, where light interacted with light. Go and look at light bends itself into an arc. Imagine what would happen if it was a tight arc, that went all the way round in a circle. You'd have a standing wave, wouldn't you? And in atomic orbitals, "electrons exist as standing waves". The electron is like the standing wave in a box, minus the box. It still offers to resistance to change-in-motion, only now you call it inertia instead of momentum. Annihilation is like opening one box with another, only afterwards there's no boxes left. Because there weren't any boxes in the first place. Just the standing waves.

 

[Tubbythin]

Because the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. It isn't a measure of its interaction with a field. All a field does is give you a mechanism by which to vary that energy content.

And if the field is a constant?

 

[Farsight]

And yet more questions come up, Farsight! According to your fantasy, Einstein explained the origin of mass in his 1905 paper. But sceintists have continued to look for an answer to the origin of mass for 107 years !

No they haven't. They've known about E=mc² for 107 years. They've know that mass is a measure of system energy content for all that time. You however have only recently learned that the Higgs mechanism is said to be responsible for only 1% of the mass of matter.

Farsight: Why have scientists ignored your "explanation by Einstein for the origin of mass" for over 107 years?

As above. They haven't. E=mc² isn't on the T-shirts for nothing.

Farsight: Where are the scientific papers expanding on your "explanation by Einstein for the origin of mass"?

There's loads of them. Go find them. Do your own research, think for yourself. Here's one I've plucked out of arXiv for you: On the Origin of Elementary Particle Masses by Johan Hansson. Here's an excerpt:

"A more promising way could be to assume that the stable elementary particles of the first generation are exact soliton solutions to the relevant quantum field theory, or its dual [15], whereas unstable higher generation elementary particles would be solitary wave (particle-like, but not stable) solutions to the said quantum field theory."

Farsight: Where are the textbooks using your "explanation by Einstein for the origin of mass"?

Buried under an avalanche of popscience woo.