Higgs Boson Discovered?!

[lpetrich]

Higgs-particle news!

Quantum Diaries - Latest news on the Higgs boson
Quantum Diaries - The Standard Model passes with flying colors
Moriond Higgs Update | viXra log
So far, the putative Higgs particle behaves much like the Standard-Model one. Its interactions are less than a factor of 2 from Standard-Model predictions, and it most likely has spin 0.

HiggsPublicResults < AtlasPublic < TWiki - scroll down to " Animations". There are 4 animated GIFs of graphs that show how the Higgs-particle bump emerged as the ATLAS detector collected more data.

To get to the source, you can check out Rencontres de Moriond EW 2013 (02-09 March 2013) It has collections of slides presented at that conference as PDF's. It may warn about an untrusted security certificate; you can go ahead anyway.

 

[Farsight]

Sorry to have negelected you guys, I've been busy and haven't got to JREF much. This one is interesting:

Why can't a 922 keV photon make an electron-positron pair? There's a perfectly good Special Relativity solution for this. A 922 keV passing a nucleus, could make a 411 keV electron and a 411 keV positron. This conserves energy, momentum, and charge; it obeys E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4, and so on..

Because c, h, ɛ, and μ take the values that they do. Remember I've referred to Percy Hammond and the ABB50/25 program about curved space and to TQFT about particles as knots? To make an electron and a positron you use the space-curve of one photon on another to bend them both into a closed path. For an analogy think of a long thin spring-steel rod. When you flick it, a wave runs down its length. The speed relates to c which also relates to ɛ and μ denoting how easy it is to bend and how well it recovers, and the amplitude relates to h because action is momentum x distance.

Electrons would obey SR (and E=mc^2) if they weighed 411 keV. Or 0 keV. Or 1000 GeV. But electrons have one particular mass, and it's the same mass every time, because of the Higgs mechanism.

Because of the properties of space signified by c, h, ɛ, and μ. You might like to assert that that's what the Higgs field or "Higgs substance" is all about, but if you do you then have to say that it's responsible for photon momentum as well as electron mass, or the mass that a photon adds to the mirror-box. We already know from atomic orbitals that electrons exist as standing waves, we know we can diffract electrons, and we know about pair production and annihilation to gamma photons. So saying an electron is a photon in a box of its own making gives us a nice symmetry between momentum and inertia and a better Standard Model. What's not to like?

Of course, you've heard this all before and failed to understand it.

Ditto. But you'll get there in the end.

 

[Farsight]

No, Farsight, that picture does not depict an electromagnetic field. We've already been through an entire thread devoted to the crackpot physics advocated by John Duffield of Poole. It would be hard to improve upon ben m's response to your picture and claim in post #3 of that thread: "No it's not."

For a picture of genuine magnetic fields, derived directly from Maxwell's equations and calculated by a simple computer program, see my web page discussing magnetic reconnection. Every graph and animation on that page shows a magnetic field B for which the accompanying E field is essentially zero. Please notice that only the simplest magnetic field on that page consists of "concentric circular field lines".

If you understood electromagnetism, you could check my calculations and graphs for yourself. Since you don't speak math, you can only huff and puff about how you're right and all the physicists and mathematicians in this forum are wrong. We respond to your advocacy of crackpot physics only to reduce the risk that someone other than yourself will fall for it.

Groan. Clinger, you still don't understand electromagnetism. Now stop all this huffing and puffing and crackpot naysaying, pay attention, and watch my lips: the field concerned is the electromagnetic field. Electromagnetic field interactions result in linear and/or rotational motion. When only linear motion is observed people speak of an electric field, when only rotational motion is observed people speak of a magnetic field, but these are not two different fields. They are mere ciphers for the force and motion that electromagnetic field interactions cause. Now please try to understand it instead of spouting pre-Maxwell garbage and trying to pretend you've shot me down when you haven't. This isn't crackpot physics. This is how it is.

Sheesh, somebody please save us from mathematicians who know ****-all physics trying to pretend that they do, and just getting in the way. Will nobody step up to the plate and say actually Farsight is right about this?

 

[edd]

Because c, h, ɛ, and μ take the values that they do.

You are invited to express m_e in terms of c, h, ɛ, and μ. You can have a go at all the other particle masses too if you like, including that funny new spin-0 thing.

 

[Farsight]

What "cosmic-treacle nonsense"?

This cosmic treacle nonsense from a guy at DAMTP see slide 17, and this Fermilab article: "The Higgs field is like a giant vat of molasses spread throughout the universe". It's garbage.

Described by the "Faraday tensor" F with its 6 independent components. The E and B fields are its 3+1 decomposition, a result of decomposing space-time into 3 space dimensions and 1 time dimension.
F01 = E1, F02 = E2, F03 = E3, F10 = -E1, F20 = -E2, F30 = -E3, F12 = -B3, F23 = -B1, F31 = -B2, F21 = B3, F32 = B1, F13 = B2, F00 = F11 = F22 = F33 = 0
0 = time, 1,2,3 = space

As if that document is an inspired text, a revelation of Absolute Truth.

Oh look in the mirror, lpetrich. And just spit it out, tell Clinger I'm right about electromagnetism.

Which does not mean that electrons spin in classical-limit fashion.

They aren't spinning like planets, but that doesn't mean there's no rotation going on. The magnetic dipole moment isn't there for nothing.

The "spin" is built-in angular momentum, like the angular momentum carried by circularly-polarized electromagnetic waves.

It isn't the same. You can take those electromagnetic waves and make electrons and positrons out of them. Then they aren't going linearly through space at c any more. But you can still diffract them.

Why does it deserve to be taken seriously?

Because it's supported by scientific evidence like the Einstein-de Haas effect.

Can you show *mathematically* that one gets the Dirac theory from it in some reasonable approximation? Extra credit if you can get electromagnetic and weak interaction vertices from it.

Not offhand, it would take me months or years, and then it would be so complicated that you'd just claim it contained some error. It's a waste of my time, and I'd rather point out the scientific evidence and refer to work by others because I'm not some my-theory guy.

Every physicist who has tried to construct some superset of the Standard Model has recognized that this superset has to agree with the SM to the accuracy that the SM has been tested. Farsight, you must play by those rules in order to be taken seriously.

See above, it'll come, give it time.

 

[HighRiser]

(snip)

Sheesh, somebody please save us from mathematicians who know ****-all physics trying to pretend that they do, and just getting in the way. Will nobody step up to the plate and say actually Farsight is right about this?

Does this ever happen? That someone who knows physics comes along and says that? Ever?

What does anything you have posted in this thread have to do with disproving the Higgs in any reasonable manner?

You, Farsight, if you haven't noticed, pop into nearly every physics thread to peddle your unsubstantiated worldview, and in every case have that view disassembled by learned scientists who cite sources and show figures and experimental results that don't agree with your philosophy.

 

[edd]

This cosmic treacle nonsense from a guy at DAMTP see slide 17, and this Fermilab article: "The Higgs field is like a giant vat of molasses spread throughout the universe". It's garbage.

It's an analogy. A rather imperfect analogy, but it would be going quite far to call it garbage. I suggest we stop worrying about an analogy that no-one is trying to support completely.

 

[Farsight]

You are invited to express m_e in terms of c, h, ɛ, and μ. You can have a go at all the other particle masses too if you like...

Then we get into the howls of outrage against Andrew Worsley again, and another tedious deliberate distraction.

...including that funny new spin-0 thing

What funny new spin-0 thing? The electron is a spin-½ particle, the closed path is like a line drawn around a moebius strip. You need a photon-photon interaction to do pair production, then you need more of the same to maintain the electron structure. Something like the trivial-knot depiction on the left of this image. Like I said, the electron is like a photon in a box of its own making, hence the mass, which is a measure of the energy content, like Einstein said. Which is contradicted by the Higgs mechanism. See my post to ben m above re the symmetry between momentum and inertia. Both are measures of a wave's resistance to change-in-motion. One is for a wave in a linear path, the other for a wave in a closed path.

Neat stuff, thanks.

LOL, as if you understand it. Talk about Emperor's New Clothes. Oh and scroll up. See that word skepticism? You might try exercising some about the way the Higgs mechanism contradicts E=mc². Mass is a measure of energy-content, not something else.

Gotta go. You know guys, I've missed our little chats.

 

[godless dave]

Like I said, the electron is like a photon in a box of its own making, hence the mass, which is a measure of the energy content, like Einstein said. Which is contradicted by the Higgs mechanism.

No, it isn't. Not in the slightest.

 

[edd]

Then we get into the howls of outrage against Andrew Worsley again, and another tedious deliberate distraction.

So you still support Worsley and his hilariously not-even-wrong formulae?

What funny new spin-0 thing?

I was referring to the subject of the thread.

 

[Perpetual Student]

...
Like I said, the electron is like a photon in a box of its own making, hence the mass, which is a measure of the energy content, like Einstein said. Which is contradicted by the Higgs mechanism.
...

And the charge just pops into existence, violating charge conservation?

 

[ben m]

Sorry to have negelected you guys, I've been busy and haven't got to JREF much. This one is interesting:

Because c, h, ɛ, and μ take the values that they do. Remember I've referred to Percy Hammond and the ABB50/25 program about curved space and to TQFT about particles as knots? To make an electron and a positron you use the space-curve of one photon on another to bend them both into a closed path.

Ding ding ding ding! Congratulations! You are the 1,000,000th person to daydream that the electron mass can be predicted from fundamental constants, plus some sort of geometry! Please pass through the first door into the Vestibule of Amateur Mass-Spectrum Prediction!

Here is your numerology wand! Keep it close, it is your only weapon. You will be confronted with enemies bearing Differential Equations, Linear Algebra, and Experimentally Verified Predictions. The wand is activated by chanting, "Pi equals 22 over 7!" You must chant this pi times.

Please pass through this door and choose your wizarding robe. Would you like the black robe, giving you the power to ignore dimensions and units? The blue robe gives you the ability to inscribe and circumscribe polygons. If you add the blue hat to the blue robe, your ability will expand to mentioning advanced mathematics, including topology, knots, but not to the extent of doing actual calculations. The beige robe carries all the numerical properties of the Pyramids of Egypt ... oh, no, sir, you're not a beige-robe man. Let's stick with the blue.

Here is the first gate! Beyond it is the Hall of Electrons. Many have entered! Geometers! Sphere-packers! Amateur knot theorists! Circle-squarers! Rationalists! Irrationalist! The entire on-line encyclopedia of integer sequences! None have proceeded to the Hall of Muons beyond, nor, of course, to the Quark Galleries, nor ... well, let me not scare you with talk of neutrinos. The knights of Amateur Mass-Spectrum Prediction need not concern themselves with the neutrino.

This is your path. Raise your wand! Clasp your hat! Make sure your educational copy of Mathematica is connected to the license server! Only a geometric prediction of 510.998 keV can protect you! Go!

 

[lpetrich]

(Why the electron mass?)

Because c, h, ɛ, and μ take the values that they do. ...

Let's do some dimensional analysis. I'll use 3+1 separation with space (L) and time (T) as separate. I'll also make mass (M) and charge (Q) sort-of fundamental.

c = L/T
h = M*L²/T
ɛ = (Q²*T²)/(M*L³) (Coulomb, Lorentz)
μ = (M*L)/Q2 (Biot-Savart, Lorentz) Let's see what various unit combinations give you. h*c = M*L ɛ*μ*c² = (dimensionless) -- in fact, its vacuum value is 1. h/μ = Q² So one can set c = h = ɛ0 = μ0 = 1 without loss of generality, since they are essentially relativistic, quantum-mechanical, and electromagnetic units factors. In fact, that's what's done in theoretical work. In effect, T = L M = 1/L Q = dimensionless However, one can't get the electron's mass out of these numbers, because they don't set a length or mass scale.

Remember I've referred to Percy Hammond and the ABB50/25 program about curved space and to TQFT about particles as knots?

What makes Percy Hammond a Prophet of Revealed Truth?

Sheesh, somebody please save us from mathematicians who know ****-all physics trying to pretend that they do, and just getting in the way. Will nobody step up to the plate and say actually Farsight is right about this?

Farsight, you need to recognize that your Prophets of Revealed Truth had had used much of the mathematics that you disdain so loudly. Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Minkowski, Feynman, ...

This cosmic treacle nonsense from a guy at DAMTP see slide 17, and this Fermilab article: "The Higgs field is like a giant vat of molasses spread throughout the universe". It's garbage.

He was making an ANALOGY. If one chooses to disdain the mathematics of electroweak symmetry breaking, then one's stuck with analogies like these.

You can take those electromagnetic waves and make electrons and positrons out of them.

It doesn't happen that way. Instead, the photons disappear and make the electrons and positrons appear as they do so. Let's see what an electron-positron collider does. The electron and positron collide and make a virtual photon, a virtual Z, and a virtual Higgs particle all together. The virtual Z only gets prominent for collision energies around its rest mass or more, and likewise for the Higgs particle. Even then, the Higgs particle is suppressed by its VERY weak interaction with the electron. This combined virtual particle then decays into a pair of particles -- electrons, muons, taus, up quarks, down quarks, strange quarks, charm quarks, bottom quarks, though no existing electron accelerator has accelerated electrons and positrons to make top quarks. The virtual Z can also make a pair of neutrinos, and also a real Z and a Higgs particle.

Because it's supported by scientific evidence like the Einstein-de Haas effect.

Yawn. (Me on working out the mathematics of getting the Dirac theory of the electron out of the circling-photon theory...)

Not offhand, it would take me months or years, and then it would be so complicated that you'd just claim it contained some error. It's a waste of my time, and I'd rather point out the scientific evidence and refer to work by others because I'm not some my-theory guy.

Farsight, that sort of attitude will is NOT going to get you taken seriously by other physicists. Seriously. They use math to make predictions and they use math to test predictions against observations. So if the numbers don't work out, they don't work out, and one ought to accept that. Disdaining math is sort of like changing the rules in the middle of the game. Furthermore, Farsight, you've been pushing your theories for several years now, enough time for you to learn the mathematics. Claiming that you are too busy to do so is no excuse, because you are not too busy to push your theories. Whether you invented them or not is irrelevant, because you are advocating them.

 

[Mister Earl]

Just want to pop in here to ask a question: What is spin, exactly? I've heard various ways of explaining it, but they're not really doing it for me. Something that must rotate 720 degrees to again face in the right way? Does this mean the particle is rotating through other dimensions or something? What about spin zero?

Confused armchair physics enthusiast, signing off

 

[edd]

Spin is a type of angular momentum. It also has the connections to symmetry you mentioned. So spin 0 means the particle has no intrinsic angular momentum, and it means it is perfectly symmetrical rotationally. If you turn it, it doesn't change state at all.
Spin 1/2 where it has to rotate 720 degrees to return to the same state is intuitively odd. I can't think of a good way to explain it to be perfectly honest. Integer spins are more straightforward (something that returns to the same state in 360 degrees is obvious, and 180 or 90 degrees or whatever shouldn't be considered too unusual either).

 

[Mister Earl]

Hrm. But what is the point of reference? I don't think there's any sort of obvious topology involved, of course. Spin a baseball, and you can tell by the laces. Spin a particle and... ?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Spin 1/2 where it has to rotate 720 degrees to return to the same state is intuitively odd. I can't think of a good way to explain it to be perfectly honest.

Isn't it accurate to say that it happens that way because something else is changing as you "turn it"? And that "something else" changes once each "turn".

 

[Mister Earl]

Hrm. But what is the point of reference? I don't think there's any sort of obvious topology involved, of course. Spin a baseball, and you can tell by the laces. Spin a particle and... ?

Wait. Wait. Would spin have anything to do with the path of the particle after a collision? I recall seeing graphic representation of collisions, where certain particles' paths would curl up, almost as if it were swirling down a drain.

 

[edd]

You're probably thinking of charged particles in a magnetic field, Mister Earl. Particle physicists apply magnetic fields to make them do that so they can determine the charge.

 

[Mister Earl]

Ah, that makes perfect sense. Thank you, edd! Ok, so curly-que paths nailed down... just gotta figure out spin.

#EDIT: Ah, I shouldn't bother you folks with this. I'll just dig around Wikipedia a bit and follow tons of links until it sinks in. Hehe.