Higgs Boson Discovered?!

[Reality Check]

RC: don't be so dismissive. This is standard physics, but it is directly relevant to the Higgs mechanism.

Farsight: Don't be derailing the thread. It is the wrong standard physics to be directly relevant to the Higgs mechanism.

Your posts do not have anything to do with the Standard Model or QFT where the Higgs mechanism is described.

All we have is posts on standard physics that has nothing to to with the Higgs mechanism.
Starting with you writing this totally ignorant assertion : Two-photon physics, electron diffraction, and atomic orbitals. They provide clear evidence that the electron does not get its mass from the Higgs mechanism, meaning the bump can't be the Higgs boson
The fact is that the Higgs mechanism can give electrons mass. That is what the Higgs meachangsm does to all particles !
The fact is that a new boson has been discovered from a bump in data.
The fact is that this boson has the mass predicted for the Higss boson.
It is very probably the Higgs boson (I forget what else it could be - a light-weight SUSY particle?). More news to come in December:

So far the observations are consistent with the observed particle being the Standard Model Higgs boson. The particle decays into at least some of the predicted channels. Moreover, the production rates and branching ratios for the observed channels match the predictions by the Standard Model within the experimental uncertainties. However, the experimental uncertainties currently still leave room for alternative explanations. It is therefore too early to conclude that the found particle is indeed the Standard Model Higgs.[49]
Further confirmation will require more precise data on some of the characteristic of the new particle, including its other decay channels and various quantum numbers such as its parity. To allow for further data gathering, the current LHC proton-proton collision run has been extended by seven weeks, delaying the planned long shutdown for upgrades in 2013. It is hoped that this extra data will allow a more conclusive statement on the nature of the new particle in December.[72]

P.S.
Farsight: Can you cite the evidence for your unsupported assertions?
First asked 30 October 2012

 

[Farsight]

So your detailed scientific objection to the Standard Model of Particle Physics is "oh come on". Sorry, Farsight, that's not actually an objection.

My objection is to the Higgs sector of the standard model, and I've explained why the Higgs mechanism contradicts E=mc². Like the electron, the Higgs boson is made of kinetic energy, and the inertia of a body depends on its energy content. Not its coupling to the Higgs field.

 

[Farsight]

Too right. You implicitly accused CERN of scientific fraud. That requires some bloody good explanation.

Don't put words into my mouth Tubby. What's important is that I gave a bloody good explanation, which is why guys like ben and edd are stumped.

Maths is the formal application of logical rules. It forms the basis of scientific endeavour. It is you that is hiding behind a lack of maths.

I'm not hiding behind anything. I even gave you a bit of Einstein's very simple maths, only there's some kind of problem with the latex. Maybe I should have a word and tell them how to fix it.

Err. That is false. Edd made a post that just said "There might be just a teeensy problem with that very last scatter?" at exactly the same time (check if you don't believe me) that I pointed out that you were wrong about Compton scattering.

All you said was Typically (depends on the energy of course) a photon will scatter once or twice and then be absorbed. As ever you've explained nothing, and you try to pretend that you have. Nobody is fooled Tubby.

That's funny, you agreed with me at 10:05 PM yesterday.

I said nevertheless kinetic energy in space is essentially what the photon is. That's why it can be converted into electron kinetic energy.

Still nothing but blather and pretense.

I've given a robust explanation backed by references and simple logic that you can't refute. All you've done is make acerbic quips of no value.

 

[Farsight]

It's a weird objection If Farsight were saying "There must be more to physics than the standard model, because some of the parameters, like the mass of the Higgs boson, seem arbitrary, and I want a physics theory that is more elegant than that", well, I can at least see something in that (though personally I don't know how much that applies in this particular case).

I'm not saying that. I'm echoing what Giudice said in that the Higgs mechanism is the toilet of the standard model and the Higgs boson is in no way central to it. Only I'm explaining why.

But that's not what he's saying, he seems to be saying that the Higgs mechanism itself must not be correct, because the mass of the Higgs boson seems arbitrary.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying the Higgs mechanism contradicts E=mc². I'm saying the inertia of a body depends upon its energy content, just like Einstein said. That's what it depends upon, not on its interaction with the Higgs field. Look at what's happening in the LHC. We give protons huge kinetic energy, them smash them together to create something with a mass of 125GeV. It gets its mass from the kinetic energy.

That's weird. Without the Higgs we've got the masses of all massive fundamental particles to explain, with it, only one. Which is more elegant?

The former. Explaining something in terms of something you can't explain isn't elegant, it's a non-answer. Just as "God did it" is a non-answer.

He thinks it's not sufficiently elegant isn't much of an argument, particularly when it is so well tested experimentally, and all he has to offer in return is some vague ideas that don't seem related and don't make any quantitative predictions.

I've referred to Einstein and I've explained it clearly using a standing wave. There's nothing vague about it. And let's face it, the only experimental evidence is a bump on a graph.

It seems to me that most physicists expect that there is something going on beyond the standard model, but at the moment it's the best we've got and if we do find something beyond it, it will be connected to the standard model in so much as it will explain why it is so successful, and will reduce to it in most situations.

It's not a question of finding something beyond it, it's a question of replacing the "frightfully ad-hoc" Higgs sector (Giudice's words) with something better - a symmetry.

I'm no expert, and my physics knowledge is relatively minimal, this is simply the perspective of one bystander on this thread.

Go back to post #231 on page 6 where Tubby bumped the thread, and follow the argument closely. You don't need expert physics knowledge to understand what I've been saying. Contrast that with the way you've previously been suckered by Emperor's New Clothes non-explanations that you don't understand.

 

[Farsight]

You're assuming Farsight has a coherent objection.

I've given a coherent explanation, and you can't counter it. All you've ended up saying is that's what I was taught like some Sunday-school kid.

I think what he's actually saying is this:

• I have a mental picture of Relativity+! I proved it to my own satisfaction! It fills me with awe at my own genius, Einstein's genius, and the photon-based simplicity of nature!
  
• You're talking about something other than Relativity+! It fills me with a sense of ugliness and wrongness!
  
• I will pick something you've said, figure out whether it differs from Relativity+, and declare that difference to be a problem! Rather than clearly identifying the problem, I will steer the conversation back to Relativity+!

LOL. I haven't even mentioned relativity+, and I've steered clear of electron models. You're just throwing out vapid words-in-my-mouth accusations because you can't counter what I've said here.

In this case: the Higgs mechanism? Well, that sounds ugly, doesn't whatever you just said about it fill you with loathing? I can't explain why it does, but it should. Instead, brace yourself for the Relativity+ truth of a photon in a box, which is actually the electron mass, don't you see it yet, moron?

Ad-hominems are no substitute for a carefully laid-out rationale, ben. Especially when it's based on Einstein and E=mc². It might be an idea if you examined your adherence to what you were taught and your textbook bible and started thinking for yourself.

You forgot: bow to my greater knowledge for I am the one true disciple of Einstein, only I can understand what he really meant.

No, it's don't dismiss Einstein and simple logic because you'd rather believe in what you've been taught. It's pay attention and think for yourself instead of being a starry-eyed sucker who laps up non-answers. And as to my greater knowledge, I hope to share that with you, and educate you. Because right now it's as you are to people who believe in spiritualism and alternative medicine, so am I to you.

 

[Farsight]

Farsight: Don't be derailing the thread. It is the wrong standard physics to be directly relevant to the Higgs mechanism.

What, E=mc² isn't relevant to mass? Which the Higgs mechanism is supposed to account for? Only it only accounts for only 1% of the mass of matter, and the Higgs boson gets its mass from the kinetic energy given to the LHC protons? When the thread title is Higgs boson discovered?. Much as you might wish, that's no derail, RC.

Your posts do not have anything to do with the Standard Model or QFT where the Higgs mechanism is described.

All: have you ever had a conversation with a young-Earth creationist or the like? If you have you will appreciate that they're locked into a psychology that always finds a way to say "that's not evidence" or "that isn't relevant". You might think that that's because they're religious but it isn't. It's because they're convictional, because that's how people are. And here's RC being convictional. I give a rock-solid argument backed with impeccable evidence, and when he can't counter it, he falls back to the "not relevant" gambit. When you're used to this it gets easy to spot it, and it is pathetic.

All we have is posts on standard physics that has nothing to to with the Higgs mechanism.
Starting with you writing this totally ignorant assertion : Two-photon physics, electron diffraction, and atomic orbitals. They provide clear evidence that the electron does not get its mass from the Higgs mechanism, meaning the bump can't be the Higgs boson
The fact is that the Higgs mechanism can give electrons mass. That is what the Higgs meachangsm does to all particles !
The fact is that a new boson has been discovered from a bump in data.
The fact is that this boson has the mass predicted for the Higss boson.
It is very probably the Higgs boson (I forget what else it could be - a light-weight SUSY particle?). More news to come in December:

Spoken like an acolyte.

P.S.
Farsight: Can you cite the evidence for your unsupported assertions?
First asked 30 October 2012

All: Oh boy. It's as if I hadn't posted anything at all. I give evidence galore and logic that even a child could understand, and it's all totally in line with Einstein and known physics, and RC repeats his unsupported assertions mantra. I don't if you've ever heard me say this: the shutters are down and there's nobody home. That's exactly what it's like. Honesty, I really do recommend you go find some creationists to talk to, note their convictional traits, and then note the selfsame traits in people who talk about speculative physics. They talk about many-worlds just like some religious guy talks about heaven, and there's no shaking either of 'em.

Gotta go. Meanwhile, anybody care to look up the given reason why the Higgs boson gets its mass? Then I can give you the coup-de-grace.

 

[Reality Check]

Farsight, what does relativistic mean

My objection is to the Higgs sector of the standard model, and I've explained why the Higgs mechanism contradicts E=mc². Like the electron, the Higgs boson is made of kinetic energy, and the inertia of a body depends on its energy content. Not its coupling to the Higgs field.

Wrong: You have not explained why the Higgs mechanism contradicts E=mc² - you have asserted that.

And the worst bit of ignorance that you are still displaying, Farsight: the Higgs mechanism is baed on relativistic quantum field theory.

Farsight, what does relativistic mean?

Hint: It means that it includes special relativity (it includes E=mc² ) and so it is very ignorant to state that the Higgs mechanism contradicts E=mc².

 

[Reality Check]

What, E=mc² isn't relevant to mass?

What? You do not know that E=mc² isn't relevant to mass.
It is relevant to the ability to treat energy as mass or to treat mass as energy. It states nothing about the origin of mass.

All: have you ever had a conversation with a young-Earth creationist or the like?
...

All: have you ever had a conversation with an Internet physics crank or the like?
If you have you will appreciate that they're locked into a psychology that always finds a way to say "that's not evidence" or "that isn't relevant". You might think that that's because they're religious but it isn't. It's because they're convictional, because that's how people are. And here's Farsightbeing convictional. He lies about giving a rock-solid argument backed with impeccable evidence, and when he can't support it, he falls back to the "not relevant" derails (like this one about creationists ). When you're used to this it gets easy to spot it, and it is pathetic.

Spoken like an acolyte.

Spoken like someone who knows the actual science like

• what quantum field theory means
• that the Standard Model (including the Higgs mechanism) is a relativistic quantum field theory.
• that relativistic means E=mc²!

All: Oh boy. It's as if I hadn't posted anything at all. I give evidence galore and logic that even a child could understand, and it's all totally in line with Einstein and known physics, and RC repeats his unsupported assertions mantra.
...

All: Oh boy. It's as if Farsight hadn't learned anything at all. I give evidence galore and logic that even a child could understand, and it's all totally in line with Einstein and known physics, and Farsight repeats his Higgs mechanism contradicts E=mc² fantasy (see above). mantra. You have defintitely never heard me say this but: the shutters are down and there's nobody home. That's exactly what it's like.

Meanwhile, anybody care to look up the given reason why the Higgs boson gets its mass?

You shoud learn to read the thread Farsight:

In the Standard Model, there's a direct mu^2 H term in the Lagrangian. The Higgs mass is the sort of mass you would have tried giving to the fermions---"hey, suppose energy is proportional to (Psi* Psi), with some constant"---if the rest of QFT didn't force those constants to be zero. For all of the non-Higgs particles, interactions with the Higgs vev generates a different (and QFT-allowed) sort of mass---a dynamical term that happens to be proportional to (Psi* Psi) and thereby looks like a mass, even in the absence of a static term.

For the Higgs boson, the basic, static sort of mass term is *not* forced to be zero, so it has some nonzero value---whose value, measured at 125GeV, is *presumably* a reflection of some (as yet inaccessible) higher-energy field theory. For the Higgs, uniquely, the mass is just a mass.
...

Or if you want a really simple answer: How does the Higgs Boson gain mass itself?

The mass is generated by the Higgs field. See the Wikipedia article on the Higgs mechanism for details. To (over)simplify, the Higgs field has four degrees of freedom, three of which interact with the W and Z bosons and generate masses. The remaining degree of freedom is what we see as the 125Gev Higgs boson.

 

[Reality Check]

You seem to have forgotten the actual questions and a very relevant point in
Farsight: Can you cite the evidence for your unsupported assertions?

There seems to be all sorts of unsupported assertions in this post, so Farsight:

• Can you cite the published papers that show that the Higgs mechanism "contradicts E=mc²"?
• Can you cite the published papers that show that the Higgs mechanism can be removed from the Standard Model and replaced by a symmetry (in the SM?)?
• Can you cite the published papers that show that there is a problem in QED related to the Higgs mechanism that is so obvious that people have a "Ohmygawd! moment"?

FYI: The Standard Model is a relativistic quantum field theory, i.e. nothing in it contradicts E=mc² !

First asked 30 October 2012. But the answer seems to be:

You have no actual scientific evidence except a fantasy that a relativistic theory does not include relativity.
​

That certainly deserves a !

 

[Roboramma]

My objection is to the Higgs sector of the standard model, and I've explained why the Higgs mechanism contradicts E=mc².

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

Like the electron, the Higgs boson is made of kinetic energy,

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

and the inertia of a body depends on its energy content. Not its coupling to the Higgs field.

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

 

[Roboramma]

Go back to post #231 on page 6 where Tubby bumped the thread, and follow the argument closely. You don't need expert physics knowledge to understand what I've been saying.

I've been following the thread since that point (I was following it prior to that as well, but may have forgotten much of the discussion as I was following it as it happened and it's been a while). I honestly don't understand your argument. My post that you responded to here seems evidence of that as I wrote what I thought was your argument and you made it clear that that's not what you were saying.

On the other hand the Susskind lecture that I linked to was quite clear to me. That's why I posted it: because I figured others at my level might find it useful.

 

[Dancing David]

My objection is to the Higgs sector of the standard model, and I've explained why the Higgs mechanism contradicts E=mc². Like the electron, the Higgs boson is made of kinetic energy, and the inertia of a body depends on its energy content. Not its coupling to the Higgs field.

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

 

[Tubbythin]

Like the electron, the Higgs boson is made of kinetic energy, and the inertia of a body depends on its energy content. Not its coupling to the Higgs field.

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

 

[Tubbythin]

Don't put words into my mouth Tubby. What's important is that I gave a bloody good explanation, which is why guys like ben and edd are stumped.

I'm not putting words into your mouth.

I'm not hiding behind anything. I even gave you a bit of Einstein's very simple maths, only there's some kind of problem with the latex. Maybe I should have a word and tell them how to fix it.

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

All you said was Typically (depends on the energy of course) a photon will scatter once or twice and then be absorbed. As ever you've explained nothing, and you try to pretend that you have. Nobody is fooled Tubby.

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

I said nevertheless kinetic energy in space is essentially what the photon is. That's why it can be converted into electron kinetic energy.

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

 

[Tubbythin]

And here's RC being convictional. I give a rock-solid argument backed with impeccable evidence

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

All: Oh boy. It's as if I hadn't posted anything at all. I give evidence galore and logic that even a child could understand, and it's all totally in line with Einstein and known physics, and RC repeats his unsupported assertions mantra. I don't if you've ever heard me say this: the shutters are down and there's nobody home. That's exactly what it's like. Honesty, I really do recommend you go find some creationists to talk to, note their convictional traits, and then note the selfsame traits in people who talk about speculative physics. They talk about many-worlds just like some religious guy talks about heaven, and there's no shaking either of 'em.

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

 

[Perpetual Student]

I've given a robust explanation backed by references and simple logic that you can't refute. All you've done is make acerbic quips of no value.

What? I have reviewed your comments still again. Where is this "robust explanation"? Photons imparting energy to electrons? Is that it? Photons are energy in space ? Is that it? Some of us have studied some particle physics and QM; so give us something other than hand waving with more pretense and bluster. You claim above,"I've explained why the Higgs mechanism contradicts E=mc²" Huh? Are you hallucinating?
Where is you evidence? Where is your mathematics? Where is your logic?
On another thread you said of Sean Carroll(of Caltech):
"I think he's a pompous pontificator who employs sophistry and thinks people are too stupid to spot it."
What rich irony!

 

[Roboramma]

The former. Explaining something in terms of something you can't explain isn't elegant, it's a non-answer. Just as "God did it" is a non-answer.

Everything comes down to something you can't explain. At some point the chain of "why" questions has to stop and the answer is simply that that's the way things are That we can get deeper and deeper explanations is wonderful, but that doesn't change the fact that there are necessarily some facts where are simply facts.

To take several different numbers (the masses of the various massive particles) and explain them as the result of a single number makes a theory simpler I honestly can't see how you can disagree with that.

There's nothing analogous here to "god did it" explanations, because the nature of god can be arbitrarily tweaked to any number of different facts: god saved that child because he loves him, god gave that one a disease because he is testing him, etc etc Whereas the mass of the Higgs boson has to be consistent with all of the masses of the particles in the standard model. And guess what? The experimental results agree with that predicted value. Show me a similar prediction made by "god did it" models, and perhaps I'll agree with your point

 

[Reality Check]

I'm saying the inertia of a body depends upon its energy content, just like Einstein said.

You are wrong - Einstein never said that or you would cite him saying that.
There is no inertia in E=mc².
What E=mc² (mass-energy equivalance) means is that

• If you have a system with an an energy E you can consider that system as having a mass of mc² or
• If you have a system with an a mass m you can consider that system as having an energy of E/c²

The former. Explaining something in terms of something you can't explain isn't elegant, it's a non-answer. Just as "God did it" is a non-answer.

Wrong, Farsight. The Higgs mechanism is explained and has been explained for 50 years so it is an an answer.
This seems to be an argument from incredibility (you cannot understand it ans so it is a "non-answer").

 

[TjW]

The former. Explaining something in terms of something you can't explain isn't elegant, it's a non-answer. Just as "God did it" is a non-answer.

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

 

[Cuddles]

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