Higgs Boson Discovered?!

[edd]

The Higgs field is everywhere according to that article: "The solution hit upon by Higgs and others was a new field that filled space..."

Sounds suspiciously like some aether theory, lol. So the Higgs field is an absolute reference frame... Hmm... Doesn't fit well with Einstein's relativity. Or?

Or the Higgs field is Lorentz invariant.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Or the Higgs field is Lorentz invariant.

I looked that up:

"The big difference is that the background value of the Higgs field is Lorentz-invariant — it doesn't define any absolute standard of rest. This is difficult to explain to somebody who doesn't know what a Lorentz transformation is, but it must be possible. Even without knowing mathematics, it is at least plausible that there could be a 'substance' which appears exactly the same to any two observers, regardless of their relative velocity. In fact, this applies to empty space, and it is not unreasonable to say that the value of the Higgs field is just a property of empty space. The problem, of course, is that none of this gives people any idea of what the Higgs field has to do with mass (but in my opinion, neither does the molasses analogy)." -- http://x-sections.blogspot.se/2012/04/how-to-explain-higgs-mechanism.html

Ok, the Higgs field is not an absolute frame of reference.

 

[Farsight]

The Higgs field is everywhere according to that article: "The solution hit upon by Higgs and others was a new field that filled space..." Sounds suspiciously like some aether theory, lol. So the Higgs field is an absolute reference frame... Hmm... Doesn't fit well with Einstein's relativity. Or?

It is a bit like some aether theory, particularly since some CERN physicists refer to the Higgs substance. But that doesn't cause an issue for general relativity. Check out Einstein's 1920 Leyden Address where he was talking about the aether of general relativity, and arXiv for papers with aether in the title. Aether isn't the problem. See Einstein's 1905 E=mc² paper where he said the inertia of a body is a measure of its energy-content, and that the electron is a body. Saying that the inertia of some bodies is down to something else is the problem.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

Anders, you probably should not listen to anything that Farsight says on these forums. As you can see from other responses, Farsight has a history of presenting inaccurate, false, and insulting statements about science, scientists, and other members of this forum.

His last post provides a great example of his inability to understand the issue at hand. He writes that, "the inertia of a body is a measure of its energy-content," and he imagines that this is somehow a problem for the Higgs theory. However, as you can read from other sources, the Higgs theory is that some of the energy content of some particles is due to this Higgs field. Thus the inertia of some particles is measuring, in part, the energy contributed by the Higgs field. That Farsight continues to miss this point (or that he consciously misrepresents this point) is a mark against trusting him.

 

[Anders Lindman]

It is a bit like some aether theory, particularly since some CERN physicists refer to the Higgs substance. But that doesn't cause an issue for general relativity. Check out Einstein's 1920 Leyden Address where he was talking about the aether of general relativity, and arXiv for papers with aether in the title. Aether isn't the problem. See Einstein's 1905 E=mc² paper where he said the inertia of a body is a measure of its energy-content, and that the electron is a body. Saying that the inertia of some bodies is down to something else is the problem.

Since the Higgs field is Lorenz invariant, I guess it could explain inertia, IF it could explain all mass. The problem is that the Higgs field can only explain some of the mass for particles.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Anders, you probably should not listen to anything that Farsight says on these forums. As you can see from other responses, Farsight has a history of presenting inaccurate, false, and insulting statements about science, scientists, and other members of this forum.

His last post provides a great example of his inability to understand the issue at hand. He writes that, "the inertia of a body is a measure of its energy-content," and he imagines that this is somehow a problem for the Higgs theory. However, as you can read from other sources, the Higgs theory is that some of the energy content of some particles is due to this Higgs field. Thus the inertia of some particles is measuring, in part, the energy contributed by the Higgs field. That Farsight continues to miss this point (or that he consciously misrepresents this point) is a mark against trusting him.

I just posted a reply about that. Yes, the Higgs field could explain inertia I suppose (I'm not an expert), but as you say, it can only explain some of the inertia.

 

[Farsight]

Since the Higgs field is Lorenz invariant, I guess it could explain inertia, IF it could explain all mass. The problem is that the Higgs field can only explain some of the mass for particles.

If the Higgs field explained photon momentum and electron mass it would be more reasonable.

Remember that both the photon and the electron have a wave nature because you can diffract them. Now check out Light is Heavy by van der Mark and 't Hooft (not the Nobel prizewinner 't Hooft). Light is "heavy" in that it causes gravity and has an active gravitational mass which is equivalent to inertial mass, but it doesn't have rest mass. However if you trap light as a standing wave in a mirror-box, it adds to the mass to that system, and as a result the box is harder to move. If you were to open the box the photon would come flying out at c, but until you do so, it's effectively at rest so rest mass does apply. The higher the photon frequency the more the mass, and E=hf and m=E/c² but the Higgs mechanism is not involved in the slightest.

Note that you can make an electron (and a positron) out of a photon in pair production, and in atomic orbitals (see wiki) "electrons do not orbit the nucleus in the sense of a planet orbiting the sun, but instead exist as standing waves". When you say an electron exists as a standing wave even when it's not in an orbital, the situation is just like the photon in a box, where the mass depends on how much energy is there. It's like the electron is a photon in a "box" of its own making. Then when you do electron/positron annihilation it's like opening one box with another. Two 511keV photons fly out as per Einstein's a radiating body loses mass, only afterwards there's no boxes left.

He writes that, "the inertia of a body is a measure of its energy-content," and he imagines that this is somehow a problem for the Higgs theory.

That's what Einstein said. See above.

However, as you can read from other sources, the Higgs theory is that some of the energy content of some particles is due to this Higgs field. Thus the inertia of some particles is measuring, in part, the energy contributed by the Higgs field. That Farsight continues to miss this point (or that he consciously misrepresents this point) is a mark against trusting him.

This is totally wrong. In electron-positron pair production you start with a photon of over 1022keV and "split it" over a nucleus to end up with an electron and a positron of 511keV apiece. Some energy goes into moving the nucleus and on the motion of the electron and the positron, but not that much. None of the energy is contributed by the Higgs field. Absolutely none.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

He writes that, "the inertia of a body is a measure of its energy-content," and he imagines that this is somehow a problem for the Higgs theory.

That's what Einstein said. See above.

Are you claiming that Einstein wrote about the Higgs field?

This is totally wrong. In electron-positron pair production you start with a photon of over 1022keV and "split it" over a nucleus to end up with an electron and a positron of 511keV apiece. Some energy goes into moving the nucleus and on the motion of the electron and the positron, but not that much. None of the energy is contributed by the Higgs field. Absolutely none.

You seem not to realize that energy can be transferred from one form to another. You really should take the time to learn physics before you attempt to correct it.

 

[ben m]

This is totally wrong. In electron-positron pair production you start with a photon of over 1022keV and "split it" over a nucleus to end up with an electron and a positron of 511keV apiece. Some energy goes into moving the nucleus and on the motion of the electron and the positron, but not that much. None of the energy is contributed by the Higgs field. Absolutely none.

Why can't I start with a 1022 keV photon and produce a 100 keV electron, and a 100 keV positron, flying apart with 411 keV of kinetic energy?

Why can't I start with a 1022 keV photon and produce a zero-mass electron with 511 keV kinetic energy, and a zero-mass positron with 511 keV kinetic energy?

Heck, why can't I start with a 100 keV photon, and produce zero-mass electrons/positrons with 50 keV kinetic energy?

Because the Higgs field, by interacting with the electron, forces the electron to have a 511 keV rest mass. That's what it does. That's all it does.

The rest mass obeys all of the previously-known energy/momentum conservation laws. The rest mass is determined by the Higgs mechanism. There is no conflict between these two statements.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Light is "heavy" in that it causes gravity and has an active gravitational mass which is equivalent to inertial mass, but it doesn't have rest mass. However if you trap light as a standing wave in a mirror-box, it adds to the mass to that system, and as a result the box is harder to move. If you were to open the box the photon would come flying out at c, but until you do so, it's effectively at rest so rest mass does apply. The higher the photon frequency the more the mass, and E=hf and m=E/c² but the Higgs mechanism is not involved in the slightest.

Doesn't the mirror-box experiment prove that photons indeed have rest mass? And that the Higgs field should interact with photons just like the other particles? If a similar experiment was done where an electron is trapped in a magnetic field inside a box, what's the difference between the electron and the photon except how large the rest mass is?

"The invariant mass, rest mass, intrinsic mass, proper mass, or (in the case of bound systems or objects observed in their center of momentum frame) simply mass, is a characteristic of the total energy and momentum of an object or a system of objects that is the same in all frames of reference related by Lorentz transformations." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariant_mass

 

[Anders Lindman]

Now check out Light is Heavy by van der Mark and 't Hooft (not the Nobel prizewinner 't Hooft).

Even I can tell that the article is wrong. This is what it says:

"In the case of light, the rest mass is zero, but the gravitational mass equals the inertial mass, which is identical to the relativistic mass."

As an example, two photons are sent parallel to each other at the same time in air, so the relative velocity of the photons is slightly less than c. If, as the article claims, the photons have gravitational mass, then that would pull the photons closer together! And relative to the first photon, the second photon is at rest! Hence, the gravitational pull would prove that the photons have rest mass.

 

[Reality Check]

Since the Higgs field is Lorenz invariant, I guess it could explain inertia, IF it could explain all mass. The problem is that the Higgs field can only explain some of the mass for particles.

Hi Anders Lindman, Farsight has retained a fantasy that the Higgs mechanism violates SR for some time. That means that Farsight will never accept that the Higgs field is Lorenz invariant.
From 19th November 2012: Farsight: What does Higgs mean by Lorentz-covariant and relativistic?
as 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

 

[ctamblyn]

Even I can tell that the article is wrong. This is what it says:

"In the case of light, the rest mass is zero, but the gravitational mass equals the inertial mass, which is identical to the relativistic mass."

Not to mention it's speculations, boldly presented as fact, that "rest mass never applies to a system at complete rest, because such systems do not exist; there will always be internal dynamics" (implying that electrons somehow have stuff whizzing around inside them) and the claim that elementary particles all have non-zero spin (implying that the Higgs observed by CERN cannot be spin-0 like the standard model Higgs).

 

[Anders Lindman]

Not to mention it's speculations, boldly presented as fact, that "rest mass never applies to a system at complete rest, because such systems do not exist; there will always be internal dynamics" (implying that electrons somehow have stuff whizzing around inside them) and the claim that elementary particles all have non-zero spin (implying that the Higgs observed by CERN cannot be spin-0 like the standard model Higgs).

But here is a curious quote that also claims that photons have gravitational mass:

"Since light has energy, it is also a source of gravitational effects on other objects, although not a very strong one under ordinary circumstances." -- http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=19800

If that is true, then photons must also have rest mass, as I showed with the example: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8899249&postcount=811

 

[ctamblyn]

But here is a curious quote that also claims that photons have gravitational mass:

"Since light has energy, it is also a source of gravitational effects on other objects, although not a very strong one under ordinary circumstances." -- http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=19800

If that is true, then photons must also have rest mass, as I showed with the example: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8899249&postcount=811

Firstly, photons are indeed deflected by, and are a source of, gravitational fields. However, like anything that goes at c they have zero rest mass (indeed, they cannot even be brought to rest). Going back to your thought experiment above, and keeping it reasonably simple, bear in mind that the objects involved are not just photons, but photons interacting with gas molecules. If you move to what you're calling the "rest frame" of a photon moving through air, what you'll see is not a bare photon at rest but a photon jiggling around in an extremely high speed wind. As such you can't draw the conclusion that you've observed the photon's rest mass.

(As an aside, here's something that might amuse you: in a vacuum, light beams going in parallel directions do not interact gravitationally, while those going anti-parallel do.)

Going back to the first article, briefly, they say:

In the case of light, the rest mass is zero, but the gravitational mass equals the inertial mass, which is identical to the relativistic mass.

That's not actually inaccurate, given their definitions. Where they head to after that point, i.e. the stuff I objected to earlier, is speculation presented as fact.

 

[Anders Lindman]

If you move to what you're calling the "rest frame" of a photon moving through air, what you'll see is not a bare photon at rest but a photon jiggling around in an extremely high speed wind. As such you can't draw the conclusion that you've observed the photon's rest mass.

There is ALWAYS jiggles at small scales because of the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics, so I don't see how that would make a difference. With your claim, then, NOTHING can have rest mass.

 

[ctamblyn]

There is ALWAYS jiggles at small scales because of the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics, so I don't see how that would make a difference. With your claim, then, NOTHING can have rest mass.

I did a poor job of explaining myself. The point is that you are not observing the behaviour of free photons, you are observing the mean behaviour of a photon+gas system over the course of many, many interactions. So although you might be able to observe an attractive force (perhaps the photons' paths converge in the long term) it would not be due to the gravitation caused by free photons alone. In fact, free photons moving in parallel do not interact gravitationally (as I mentioned earlier).

Let me try a different angle, comparing electrons with photons without the complicating factors of moving through air.

Go into the vacuum of deep space, and you find that you can move to the rest frame of any free electron. You will also find that an electron's energy E at any momentum p follows a simple law,

E = √(m²c⁴ + p²c²).

where m is a parameter called the rest mass, or often simply the mass.

If you try the same trick with a free photon, you find that you cannot move to its rest frame. Free photons in a vacuum always whiz around at c, as judged by any observers in uniform motion. What's more, the law relating energy to momentum is different:

E = pc.

Note that this can be obtained from the previous one by setting m to zero, and so photons have zero rest mass (and are often just called "massless").

............

On a technical note: I suppose we don't really know for certain that photons have zero rest mass, though there are very compelling theoretical and empirical reasons to believe they do. According to the standard model, they are indeed exactly massless, while the best experimental upper limit I know of is m < 3 × 10⁻²⁷ eV/c², some 2 × 10³² times lighter than the electron.

 

[Anders Lindman]

In fact, free photons moving in parallel do not interact gravitationally (as I mentioned earlier).

Then your claim is different than the article I quoted:

"So light is definitely affected by gravity. Since light has energy, it is also a source of gravitational effects on other objects, although not a very strong one under ordinary circumstances." -- http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=19800

 

[edd]

Then your claim is different than the article I quoted:

No, it's just more detailed.

 

[Farsight]

Doesn't the mirror-box experiment prove that photons indeed have rest mass?

No. They don't have rest mass in the normal sense because you can't make a photon go faster or slower. Trapping a photon in a box is just a trick way to change its speed from c to an effective speed of zero, even though inside the box it's still going back and forth at c.

And that the Higgs field should interact with photons just like the other particles?

No.

If a similar experiment was done where an electron is trapped in a magnetic field inside a box, what's the difference between the electron and the photon except how large the rest mass is?

Nothing really. That would be like trapping a photon inside a box, then putting that inside another box.

"The invariant mass, rest mass, intrinsic mass, proper mass, or (in the case of bound systems or objects observed in their center of momentum frame) simply mass, is a characteristic of the total energy and momentum of an object or a system of objects that is the same in all frames of reference related by Lorentz transformations." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariant_mass

Yep. The system is the box, and mass is a measure of how much energy-momentum is there.

Even I can tell that the article is wrong. This is what it says:

"In the case of light, the rest mass is zero, but the gravitational mass equals the inertial mass, which is identical to the relativistic mass."

It isn't wrong. Active gravitational mass is always identical to inertial mass. The amount of gravity the photon causes depends on how much energy its got, and relativistic mass is just a measure of energy.

As an example, two photons are sent parallel to each other at the same time in air, so the relative velocity of the photons is slightly less than c. If, as the article claims, the photons have gravitational mass, then that would pull the photons closer together! And relative to the first photon, the second photon is at rest! Hence, the gravitational pull would prove that the photons have rest mass.

The huge active gravitational mass of the Sun can only manage to pull photons towards it a tiny bit. One photon has such a slight effect on another that we can never hope to measure it. When a photon travels at less than c it has a slight "effective mass", but it's energy that causes gravity, not just mass. The effective mass doesn't change the active gravitational mass.