Higgs Boson Discovered?!

[edd]

Thinking about this Mister Earl, I think it might be more revealing to ask the question "Why do we expect every other particle to be massless and need something to stop them being so?"
The answer to that boils down to wanting to keep gauge invariance, which it's going to be more useful to google yourself or have someone else explain than me.
http://profmattstrassler.com/articl...known-particles-if-the-higgs-field-were-zero/ is also a useful and well written article I think.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I found this little essay helpful: LINK

Thanks!

This is a skeptics forum where we discuss things rationally, we don't just accept what we're told.

True. We're discussing Farsight's posts rationally instead of just accepting what he tells us.

When we challenge what we're told and make a robust case against it, we don't expect to be shut up.

Which is why we'd have been surprised if anyone but Farsight had reponded to the robust case being made against his ideas by trying to shut down his challengers:

OK, you're on my ignore list and you're out of this discussion.

When moderators don't do their job, I will make the rules. If you don't want to to play by those rules, you're perfectly free to do so, and you are perfectly free to talk to somebody else.

Farsight's beliefs must be religious, because he regards the Catholic church as his main competitor:

If that's how you like to operate, you might find the Catholic church more to your liking.

And then there's this:

Uhhhhn. Tubby. You know what makes me laugh at JREF? A guy like you makes a mistake that a physicist would spot immediately. But nobody points it out. Nobody says sorry Tubby, that's back to front. When your physics knowledge improves, you'll start to notice this kind of thing, and then you'll come to appreciate that people here aren't being straight with you.

We've been straight with Farsight. When he's made mistakes that a physicist would spot immediately, everybody points it out.

Everybody says sorry Farsight, you're wrong.

If Farsight's knowledge of physics were to improve, he might start to notice this kind of thing, and come to appreciate it.

 

[Farsight]

When one is measured in joules (or newton-metres, or kilogram-metres² per second²) and the other is measured in rather different units (kilogram-metres per second, or newton-seconds), they're unlikely to be exactly the same thing.

They're two different measurements of the same thing. Think of the cannonball example. It's travelling at 1000m/s and you apply a constant braking force. Kinetic energy is a distance-based measure of how difficult it is to stop the cannonball. Momentum is a time-based measure of how difficult it is to stop the cannonball. Momentum is directional too, and is a vector rather than a scalar like displacement is a vector whilst distance is a scalar. Note though that the cannonball didn't actually have negative momentum.

ETA: Come to think of it, scalar quantities are seldom the same as vector quantities.

The quantities aren't, but they're just different aspects of energy-momentum, see wikipedia.

 

[Dancing David]

I would like to say thanks to all those who educate and clarify in this thread!

JREF

 

[edd]

Note though that the cannonball didn't actually have negative momentum.

I find that a mildly odd thing to say, as if you would have a problem with me saying I observed a cannonball with momentum in my chosen x direction as +100kg m/s and another with -100kg m/s.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

My highlighting:

When one is measured in joules (or newton-metres, or kilogram-metres² per second²) and the other is measured in rather different units (kilogram-metres per second, or newton-seconds), they're unlikely to be exactly the same thing.

They're two different measurements of the same thing. Think of the cannonball example.

Okay. I take two different measurements of the cannonball. One measurement tells me its mass is about 19 kilograms. The other measurement tells me its diameter is about 17 centimeters.

Those measurements are related (by the density of iron), but they don't imply that mass is exactly the same thing as diameter.

ETA: Come to think of it, scalar quantities are seldom the same as vector quantities.

The quantities aren't, but they're just different aspects of energy-momentum, see wikipedia.

That Wikipedia article supports my point to the detriment of yours.

It takes momentum as a scalar quantity (the magnitude of vector momentum), but it doesn't say energy and momentum are exactly the same thing. In fact, the article includes several equations from which it is trivial to prove that energy and momentum aren't exactly the same thing. Here's the first of those equations:

E² = m²c⁴ + p²c²​

If the energy E were exactly the same thing as the scalar momentum p, then we could substitute one for the other in that equation:

E² = m²c⁴ + E²c²​

from which it would follow that the energy E is always the square root of m²c⁴/(1-c²), which would mean the cannonball's energy depends only upon its mass. Unless you want to argue that the cannonball's energy is independent of its velocity, its energy can't be exactly the same as its scalar momentum.

Maybe you were trying to argue that energy is the same as scalar momentum multiplied by the speed of light. If so, we can repeat the above calculation to get this:

E² = m²c⁴ + E²​

Unless you want to argue that every cannonball has zero mass, that interpretation doesn't work either.

When citing Wikipedia articles that refute your argument is the best you can do, your argument is laughable.

As everyone who knows anything about physics has been trying to tell you: Energy and momentum are related, but they aren't the same thing.

 

[Farsight]

Just a complete, possibly ignorant, layman's perspective here. Now I might be understanding the theory of how a Higgs Field is supposed to work completely incorrectly here, but AIUI, it goes something like this....

Shortly after the Big Bang, all particles in the universe had zero mass (and presumably, huge amounts of kinetic energy), and they whizzed around the universe at c. Then the Higgs Field came along (somehow?) impeded their motion to something less than c, and in so doing gave the particles mass.

This is what is said, see for example this CERN webpage. But note that it isn't part of Big Bang cosmology, so much as part of the Higgs hypothesis. See for example this NASA page re the big bang.

Is it remotely possible that Einstein didn't say "the inertia of a body depends upon its interaction with the Higgs field" simply because he had no concept of a Higgs Field Theory in the first place, and that he made the statement the inertia of a body depends upon its energy content" because it was the best fit to the observations available in his time?

No. The Higgs mechanism is only though to be responsible for 1% of the mass of matter, so if you take some body such as a bowling ball, then 99% of its mass is due to its energy content. If instead you took a body that consisted of a box, and you filled it with radiation, then 100% of the added mass is due to the added energy content.

It does not seem to me that Einstein's statement is incompatible with the idea of a Higgs Field giving particles mass, since the action of the Higgs Field in impeding the movement of particles surely must diminish their kinetic energy, and turn some of its energy into mass - E=mc²

I'm afraid it is incompatible. The box doesn't diminish the kinetic energy of the radiation within it. The radiation bounces around inside, and the box hides the kinetic energy. When you learn about pair production and electrons and atomic orbitals where "exist as standing waves" and the Febry-Perot cavity, you realise that the electron is just another "body".

 

[Farsight]

Nope. That is not the bottom line. The bottom line is that we have a crackpot, who is struggling with the first law of thermodynamics, telling us that entirety of the particle physics community is wrong because he and he alone understands the true words of Einstein whilst simultaneously dismissing the work of the person Einstein explicitly described as "the most significant creative mathematical genius thus far produced since the higher education of women began".

OK Tubby, I'm not discussing this with you any more.

 

[Farsight]

Farsight, I'm aware of all that: a book on a shelf has more energy than one on the floor

That doesn't mean that it has more kinetic energy than one on the floor

The fact that it's possible to convert energy from one form to another doesn't mean that it had "hidden kinetic energy" all along, it simply means that energy is conserved

It does Robo. When you drop the book, its kinetic energy doesn't appear because of some kind of spring mechanism. Have a look around at "potential energy is kinetic energy". Or work it through with a photon in a gedanken box. The massless photon adds mass to the system, and like Susskind, we say the box itself has negligible mass which we can safely ignore. When you raise the box up to the shelf, you add more energy to that system. Take two identical boxes, one on the floor and one on the shelf, and open them. Each is a radiating body losing mass, and you find that more kinetic energy is delivered by the upper photon. When it was in the box you couldn't see this extra kinetic energy, and called it potential energy. But all you ever had in the box was photon kinetic energy. Use the wave nature of matter to step up from a photon-in-a-box to a book.

 

[Tubbythin]

OK Tubby, I'm not discussing this with you any more.

Fine. But I will continue to point where you are wrong and you will have no opportunity to redress the argument. It is you and you alone that will lose out.

 

[Tubbythin]

It does Robo. When you drop the book, its kinetic energy doesn't appear because of some kind of spring mechanism. Have a look around at "potential energy is kinetic energy". Or work it through with a photon in a gedanken box. The massless photon adds mass to the system, and like Susskind, we say the box itself has negligible mass which we can safely ignore. When you raise the box up to the shelf, you add more energy to that system. Take two identical boxes, one on the floor and one on the shelf, and open them. Each is a radiating body losing mass, and you find that more kinetic energy is delivered by the upper photon. When it was in the box you couldn't see this extra kinetic energy, and called it potential energy. But all you ever had in the box was photon kinetic energy. Use the wave nature of matter to step up from a photon-in-a-box to a book.

In an attempt to justify your claims you invent another thought experiment. When it is pointed out to you that your interpretation of your thought experiment is wrong you invent another thought experiment (and pretend it is the same one). This is not the sign of someone with a cogent argument.

 

[Farsight]

I'd agree that this is the usual way to take that formula.

Thanks edd.

Of course not. It patently says absolutely diddly about angular momentum.

Maybe your post had the quotes around the wrong thing? E=hf contains the h term, which is the constant of action, and action has the same dimensionality as angular momentum.

You appear to continue to be mistaken about waves generally and angular motion and circular motion. Plenty of waves exhibit neither.

I know plenty, edd. Electromagnetic waves exhibit spin angular moment which is quantized ±ħ, and can also exhibit orbital angular momentum which isn't quantized.

 

[Farsight]

Pardon my arm-chair-science intrusion, but I'm confused. The Higgs is the particle that gives other particles mass by interacting with the Higgs field. Correct?

No. It is said that particles acquire mass by interacting with the Higgs field. The Higgs boson is said to be an excitation of that field.

And the Higgs particle has mass. ... So the Higgs has a Higgs? Does that sub-Higgs have a sub-sub Higgs? How far down does the stack of turtles go?

All the way down. What they don't say is how the Higgs boson has a mass of 125GeV, they gloss over the fact that the Higgs mechanism is said to be responsible for only 1% of the mass of matter, that the LHC ingredients were protons and kinetic energy, and that the inertia of a body depends upon its energy content.

 

[Perpetual Student]

In order to understand and gain a deep appreciation of the necessary difference between energy and momentum, a study of Hamiltonian mechanics would be very enlightening.
But then -- that's real physics.

 

[Farsight]

I find that a mildly odd thing to say, as if you would have a problem with me saying I observed a cannonball with momentum in my chosen x direction as +100kg m/s and another with -100kg m/s.

I don't have a problem with it, I just recognise that the negative sign is merely a convention of measure. Think about it this way: if a 1kg cannonball is motionless with respect to you, you'd say it has zero momentum. If it's moving at 100m/s in some direction relative to you, coming right at you, it doesn't. But you don't say "That's OK, I'll just stand here. That cannonball has got less than zero momentum. It can't do me any harm".

 

[Farsight]

Okay. I take two different measurements of the cannonball. One measurement tells me its mass is about 19 kilograms. The other measurement tells me its diameter is about 17 centimeters...

That's a straw-man, Clinger, and you know it. We were talking about a cannonball in space with a given mass and a given motion relative to you. You apply a constant braking force to bring it to a halt, and you say its momentum is defined in terms of force x time whilst its kinetic energy is defined in terms of force x distance. But the cannonball does not have two two totally different properties called momentum and kinetic energy. You cannot remove one without removing the other. That's why in physics we talk of energy-momentum.

It takes momentum as a scalar quantity (the magnitude of vector momentum), but it doesn't say energy and momentum are exactly the same thing.

Of course not. I didn't either. I said they're two different measures of energy-momentum. See my response to edd above re negative momentum.

Maybe you were trying to argue that energy is the same as scalar momentum multiplied by the speed of light. If so, we can repeat the above calculation to get this:

E² = m²c⁴ + E²​

Unless you want to argue that every cannonball has zero mass, that interpretation doesn't work either.

Don't put words in my mouth.

When citing Wikipedia articles that refute your argument is the best you can do, your argument is laughable. As everyone who knows anything about physics has been trying to tell you: Energy and momentum are related, but they aren't the same thing.

It doesn't refute what I said. It only refutes what you tried to pretend I said. Come on Clinger, you're going to have to do better than that.

 

[edd]

I might prefer to think of it in a more appropriate manner then, Farsight.

 

[Farsight]

With the exception of RC's posts from a few days back, I've caught up. But right now, I've got to go. Do let me know if there's anything I've missed.

ETA: noted edd. Negative signs can be misleading at times. I think binding energy is a case in point.

 

[Tubbythin]

All the way down. What they don't say is how the Higgs boson has a mass of 125GeV, they gloss over the fact that the Higgs mechanism is said to be responsible for only 1% of the mass of matter, that the LHC ingredients were protons and kinetic energy, and that the inertia of a body depends upon its energy content.

Mister Earl, "they" don't not say any of these things apart from the last bit (which is Farsight getting his knickers in a twist about basic accounting of rest mass and kinetic energy).

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I don't know why Farsight thinks he can get away with denying his own words, but I guess that's the best argument he has left.

It takes momentum as a scalar quantity (the magnitude of vector momentum), but it doesn't say energy and momentum are exactly the same thing.

Of course not. I didn't either. I said they're two different measures of energy-momentum.

Ho ho ho.

Here's exactly what you said:

Energy and momentum aren't two different things.

Now you're claiming to have said they're "two different measures of energy-momentum."

Make up your mind, Farsight. Are they two different things, or are they not two different things?

When citing Wikipedia articles that refute your argument is the best you can do, your argument is laughable. As everyone who knows anything about physics has been trying to tell you: Energy and momentum are related, but they aren't the same thing.

It doesn't refute what I said. It only refutes what you tried to pretend I said.

It may not refute what you're now trying to pretend you said, but it refutes exactly what you did say.