Higgs Boson Discovered?!

[Tubbythin]

However: now that the LHC has actually seen the Higgs, and in particular since it's seen *both* a fermion-coupling decay (top loops leading to higgs gamma gamma) and a gauge-boson-coupling decay (H->ZZ and H->WW) of what appears to be the same 125 GeV particle ... well, that basically confirms the simple picture above. Seeing Higgs tau tau would nail it down. Building a 250GeV linear collider and measuring the Higgs resonance width would *really* nail it down, eh? Let's do that.

I'm a bit out of the loop. What is the status of the ILC these days?

 

[Farsight]

There's nothing circular about it. According to the standard model with Higgs mechanism, it costs 511keV to make an electron only when the Higgs is condensed. If the Higgs is not condensed (i.e. there's no Higgs condensate around), it costs less than 511keV to make an electron. That's because the Higgs condensate interacts with the electron field in a particular way, and that's the sense in which the Higgs field is responsible for the mass of the electron.

According to experiment, it costs 511keV to make an electron, plus that tip for the neutron etc. Since the Higgs condensate is everywhere, making claims about the cost of an electron without it are not scientific.

Maybe you could try asking a question about the part you don't understand, instead of assuming you already know everything?

Sure. What I don't understand is the bit in RC's link that says this:

"But how did the electrons and quarks that make up all the matter in the universe (for technical reasons, perhaps except for neutrinos) get their mass? That we still don’t know. But once we understand how the Ws and the Z gain their mass from their interaction with the Higgs field, we assume that we also know how mass in general is created...

Do "we" know whether the electron gets its mass from interaction with the Higgs field, or is it just an assumption?

Nope. The Higgs condensate is not an aether, at least not in the 19th century sense.

But this "Higgs substance" is everywhere yeah? Pervading all of space? Walks like a duck. Swims like a duck. Quacks like a duck. But forget it, I don't have such a big issue with aether on account of Einstein's Leyden address.

It's Lorentz invariant (actually, it's more - it's Poincare invariant). It does not have a rest frame and it does not pick out a direction, so it's very much not like a normal medium. The speed of light is c in all directions in the presence of such a condensate, because it's Lorentz invariant.

The coordinate speed of light varies in a non-inertial reference frame. The mass of Robo's book varies too. Same goes for an electron.

 

[ben m]

I'm a bit out of the loop. What is the status of the ILC these days?

Half-forgotten as far as I can tell, except for ongoing (and very successful) niobium cavity R&D at Fermilab and DESY. Now that the Higgs mass is known (and because it turns out to be small) interest has picked up. In fact, the Higgs mass is *so* small that you could build a LEP-like circular collider, you don't need the crazy TeV-scale energies associated with the ILC proposals. There's a proposal called "LEP3" in which a new collider is crammed into existing head space in the LHC tunnel; you don't have to dismantle or modify the LHC to do this (except, presumably, to intersect the new beampipe with the existing experiment beam pipes). Exciting stuff.

 

[Farsight]

Now that I've had the time to get caught up, I feel retroactively silly about my previous question. But, hey. Learning has occured.

Glad to hear it Mister Earl. Hopefully you pick up a fair amount of knowledge from "interesting" discussions like this.

 

[Farsight]

Farsight, saying that you have A-level math skills and then refusing to prove those skills by outlining the math behind your ideas will do you no favors here.

It's not my idea. I'm not some "my-theory" guy. It's Einstein's idea. The maths is already there in Einstein's paper like I was saying in post #409 on page 11.

As one of my old grad school professors (a theoretical physicist named Ephraim Fischbach) once told me: "There are plenty of physics 'theories' gathering dust because their proponents didn't want to show the math." Please, show your math, as Sol requested.

I can't show my math because it's Einstein's theory. Which seems to be gathering dust despite him showing the math, over a hundred years ago.

Time for tea. Gotta go.

 

[Tubbythin]

Half-forgotten as far as I can tell, except for ongoing (and very successful) niobium cavity R&D at Fermilab and DESY. Now that the Higgs mass is known (and because it turns out to be small) interest has picked up. In fact, the Higgs mass is *so* small that you could build a LEP-like circular collider, you don't need the crazy TeV-scale energies associated with the ILC proposals. There's a proposal called "LEP3" in which a new collider is crammed into existing head space in the LHC tunnel; you don't have to dismantle or modify the LHC to do this (except, presumably, to intersect the new beampipe with the existing experiment beam pipes). Exciting stuff.

I was told once that the original plan was to leave the LEP where it was and just build LEP around it. But then the LHC just ended up too big.

There was a program on last night that mentioned the Superconducting Supercollider. What could have been...

 

[Tubbythin]

It's not my idea. I'm not some "my-theory" guy. It's Einstein's idea. The maths is already there in Einstein's paper like I was saying in post #409 on page 11.

I can't show my math because it's Einstein's theory. Which seems to be gathering dust despite him showing the math, over a hundred years ago.

Time for tea. Gotta go.

It definitely isn't in Einstein's work. Einstein died before Higgs et al. published their work. So either put up or shut up.

 

[Reality Check]

Yes, I addressed it. I answered it, and you totally dismissed my answer.

I totally dismissed it because it was nothing to do with the question.
It was a repeat of you ignoring the Higgs mechanism. Then complaining about putting relativistic in front of QFT!

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

And the answer according to Wikipedia is : Yes!
Higgs mechanism

The relativistic model was developed in 1964 by three independent groups: Robert Brout and Francois Englert; Peter Higgs; and Gerald Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and Tom Kibble.
...
The relativistic model was developed in 1964 by Peter Higgs,[7] and independently by Robert Brout and Francois Englert,;[8] and, finally, Gerald Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and Tom Kibble.[9]

Besides, Lorentz invariance isn't the issue, the issue is that E=mc² means what it says on the can.

Wow - you really need to learn some physics, Farsight !
Without Lorentz invariance there is no SR and no E=mc²

 

[Hellbound]

Wow - you really need to learn some physics, Farsight !
Without Lorentz invariance there is no SR and no E=mc²

Have to just add a voice in support of this comment. If you read Einstein's own book about his theory (aptly enough named "Relativity"), this is made clear. The basis of it lies in Lorentz invariance; that's the mathematical expression of his ideas on the constantsy of light speed. Thus, it's that invariance that leads to E=mc². It's absolutely the issue.

 

[Reality Check]

But see Woit's blog where he talks about SUSY as an unstoppable juggernaut,
...

Oh dear: The fallacy of argument by authority that even cites an authority talking about somthing unrelated to the Higgs mechanism!

Farsight, to emphasis how bad this is :

• But see Woit's blog where he talks about SUSY as an unstoppable juggernaut, maybe the electron is something like that!
• But see Woit's blog where he talks about SUSY as an unstoppable juggernaut, maybe the neutrino is something like that!
• But see Woit's blog where he talks about SUSY as an unstoppable juggernaut, maybe the quarks are something like that!
• But see Woit's blog where he talks about SUSY as an unstoppable juggernaut, maybe the Z boson is something like that!
• But see Woit's blog where he talks about SUSY as an unstoppable juggernaut, maybe plate tectonics is something like that!
• But see Woit's blog where he talks about SUSY as an unstoppable juggernaut, maybe the theory of evolution is something like that!
• etc. etc. etc.

Yes, that is what We (Apparently) Found the Higgs Boson. Now, Where the Heck Did It Come From? says.

Maybe. I've not been saying that, and was surprised to see it in New Scientist. ...

Then why did you cite an opinion piece in a science magazine rather than a scientific paper in a scientific journal. One that talks about black holes and so according to you must be wrong!
You may have switched off the critical analysis part of your brain . Otherwise you would have asked yourself a simple question: Where is Matthew Chalmers' scientific paper that so easily invalidates the Higgs boson?
And an even simpler question: Who is Matthew Chalmers?
My guess - given his ignorance of how the Higgs boson gets its mass, a staff writer for New Scientist.

That's a junk-science pop-science circular non-answer.

This is where the Higgs gets it mass from in a valid pop-science actual answer:
We (Apparently) Found the Higgs Boson. Now, Where the Heck Did It Come From?

The Higgs gives itself mass!

 

[Reality Check]

...
You get a very different impression to the one you get from the CERN press releases.

Oh dear Farsight, now your argument is about how the Higgs boson is portrayed in the media.

Way to do science, Farsight !

 

[edd]

My understanding was that while part of the Higgs mass comes from a self-interaction, there's a free parameter that gives the Higgs bosons mass even if the Higgs field were zero?

Paging theoreticians. Paging theoreticians.

 

[MattusMaximus]

By the way, Ephraim Fischbach is practically the personification of the oft-repeated, crackpot-disproving statement: "real physicists are not afraid to look for evidence against the Standard Model"

Yup. It's a shame that I was only able to take one class with him, but what a class it was!

I also got to interview him - I still read the transcript from time to time for little nuggets of wisdom

 

[MattusMaximus]

The third one, because E=mc² means m=E/c², so if m=0 then E=0 too. Next!

Wow. Dude, you've forgotten (or maybe you didn't read) what I clearly outlined here...

Farsight, if you work through the math behind what Tubbythin is saying, you will find that the more general relationship between relativistic energy and momentum (neglecting the four-vector nature of momentum) comes out to:

E² = (pc)² + (mc²)²
which for massless particles, like photons, comes out to (m = 0)...

E = pc

No offense, but this is a pretty straightforward calculation requiring only a basic understanding of SR and some algebra. For someone claiming to be so well versed in SR, this isn't the kind of mistake you should be making.

Have you even bothered to do this calculation yet? Incidentally, the first person to do this very calculation was... you guessed it... Einstein!

As I said before, these are some pretty elementary mistakes you're making, Farsight. Unless and until you acknowledge these errors and show us some working math to back up your ideas, instead of butchering and misrepresenting Einstein's work, I'm guessing that you will continue to bat zero here.

 

[dlorde]

... I've been posting to make sure anyone else reading this knows that he's wrong (not that my contribution is particularly necessary in that respect).

On behalf of the lurkers, thanks, it's much appreciated.

 

[Tubbythin]

On behalf of the lurkers, thanks, it's much appreciated.

Cheers. There are far more knowledgable people than me on this subject on this thread. I've learnt quite a bit from them. Hopefully the things I have said have been largely accurate.

 

[ingoa]

Dear colleagues,
I am starting to become depressed. Fine minds waste time that could be used much more productively. Get some nice food or drinks, spend time with your loved ones (always a problem in research). Or work in the lab or at the desk. We have a saying: Do not discuss with silly people. They will drag you down to their level and beat you by experience.

It is impossible to discuss with people who use different definitions of physical entities and ignore scientific (experimentally measured) facts. There are simply no common grounds where you could debate. This happens to me almost every time I give a larger presentation for the public. The self-educated folk too often take Gedanken-Experiments for real. A photon in a box for example makes no sense. Either it is dead in no time (pun intended) or covers the entire universe (being dead at no time either as it has to hit something). This is of course the photon perspective.

For the Higgs: It is found (probably). Which kind of Higgs it is, we do not know. We'll see. The theory will have to catch up, whatever LHC will find out. I can not see any circumstance where Fairsight's theories will play a significant role in that process.

 

[Almo]

I can not see any circumstance where Fairsight's theories will play a significant role in that process.

Agreed.

 

[Dancing David]

I can not see any circumstance where XXXXXXXX theories will play a significant role in that process.

Yes, but I sure learn a lot from these threads!

 

[MattusMaximus]

Cheers. There are far more knowledgable people than me on this subject on this thread. I've learnt quite a bit from them. Hopefully the things I have said have been largely accurate.

Ditto