Higgs Boson Discovered?!

[godless dave]

It certainly isn't the first time, and I doubt this will be the last time this is said, but it isn't either-or there.

Right.

The Higgs boson is (probably) responsible for 1% of the mass of matter in the universe.

The mass of any kind of matter, whether or not it is explained by the Higgs boson, can be expressed as m in E=mc².

My car gets 22 miles per gallon of fuel.

5% of the fuel in my car is ethanol.

Do those two statements contradict each other?

 

[ben m]

It's what Einstein said in his E=mc² paper. The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content. And he referred to the electron as a body. The Higgs mechanism contradicts this, and asserts that the mass of a body is a measure of its interaction with the Higgs field.

We've been through this a dozen times, but I have to say it again I suppose.

The electron has a rest mass m = 511 keV. It has this mass, rather than zero mass, because of the Higgs mechanism.

The electron's rest energy is E = mc^2, and which figures into all electron conservation-of-energy issues. Just like Einstein said.

You are making up a conflict between these two statements. You're pulling it out of thin air and out of your own misunderstanding. Please stop.

 

[Farsight]

LOL at this Wikipedia-thumping.

You dismiss Einstein, and you dismiss factually correct articles. Is there anything you won't dismiss?

That's how the particle is created in the LHC, and it has nothing to do with their nature. It does NOT explain why this particle has a mass of about 125 GeV.

What does? It's not as if Higgs or anybody else predicted a boson with a mass of 125GeV years ago. There's been postdiction on that, but not prediction.

Energy as some sort of stuff -- that's so typical of pseudoscientific woo-woo. No amount of Einstein-thumping about how E = mc² can change that.

It isn't woo. In the LHC, protons are accelerated, and are given kinetic energy. The so-called Higgs boson is quite literally made using this energy.

It's not the "energy" that's confined, it's the quark and gluon fields.

No, it's energy. Look to low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation. The result is usually pions, which are transient, which decay to transient muons along with neutrinos and electrons. But there's a cross-section of about 1% direct to gamma photons. Where's the quark/gluon fields then? Here, look it up on wikipedia:

"In general, a proton encountering an antiproton will turn into a number of mesons, mostly pions and kaons, which will fly away from the annihilation point. The newly created mesons are unstable, and will decay in a series of reactions that ultimately produce nothing but gamma rays, electrons, positrons, and neutrinos."

But you haven't read about it in a physics textbook and you have never done any problems, done any experiments, or developed any applications that use the actual science of this equivalence. Yet you claim, on the basis of your wikipedia knowledge, to criticize almost every scientist working in the field on their knowledge of physics.

I'm not criticizing almost every scientist. I told you what CERN physicists think about this. Their views are at odds with the publicity pap that you lap up.

Please explain how waggling your hands is evidence of motion. Your reasoning on this point is not clear. Your earlier responses to requests for clarification on this issue were insults and refusals.

I haven't responded with insults and refusals. You simply waggle your hands and you see that they don't stay in the same place. When that happens, we call it motion. It's that simple.

 

[lpetrich]

You dismiss Einstein, and you dismiss factually correct articles. Is there anything you won't dismiss?

Arguing like a theologian again, Farsight, with your implication that I'm somehow denying some great prophet.

And what justifies adding Wikipedia to the Canon of Sacred Books of Science?

It's not as if Higgs or anybody else predicted a boson with a mass of 125GeV years ago. There's been postdiction on that, but not prediction.

Farsight, you need to read the literature on the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model. The recently-discovered Higgs particle is in the mass range expected from the MSSM.

In the LHC, protons are accelerated, and are given kinetic energy. The so-called Higgs boson is quite literally made using this energy.

That's the woo -- talking about energy as if it's some sort of stuff.

Look to low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation. The result is usually pions, which are transient, which decay to transient muons along with neutrinos and electrons. But there's a cross-section of about 1% direct to gamma photons. Where's the quark/gluon fields then?

The ordinary quarks and antiquarks annihilate, and the gluons disappear with them.

The transience of pions and muons is totally irrelevant.

Strictly speaking, what we observe as elementary particles are field excitations, just as light and other electromagnetic waves are electromagnetic-field excitations. There's no "energy stuff" anywhere. I'm trying to describe a basic feature of quantum field theory in nonmathematical language. I remember a physics professor who described photons as "blobs of light". That seems reasonably close to what QFT says a photon is.

You simply waggle your hands and you see that they don't stay in the same place. When that happens, we call it motion. It's that simple.

Seems like a reversion to the methods of Aristotelian physics.

We have an internal time sense, and we use that and our memories to deduce motion: change between one time and another.

 

[Farsight]

We've been through this a dozen times, but I have to say it again I suppose.

And you've said nothing a dozen times, apart from repeat a mantra because you still don't understand E=mc².

The electron has a rest mass m = 511 keV. It has this mass, rather than zero mass, because of the Higgs mechanism.

No it doesn't. It has this mass because that's how much energy is present in the system or structure that we call an electron. And as for what's interacting with what to create this structure, see two-photon physics and note this:

"From quantum electrodynamics it can be found that photons cannot couple directly to each other, since they carry no charge, but they can interact through higher-order processes. A photon can, within the bounds of the uncertainty principle, fluctuate into a charged fermion-antifermion pair, to either of which the other photon can couple".

That's saying pair production occurs because pair production occurs. It's wrong. We do not see photons spontaneously fluctuating into electrons and positrons which then magically transform back into a single photon, which all the while has been propagating at c. It has to be wrong because electrons and positrons do not propagate at c, any fluctuating photon must be travelling at less than c. So it's a photon-photon interaction that created our electron, and you don't have to be the brain of Britain to work out that a photon-photon interaction, or an electromagnetic self-interaction if you prefer, sustains the existence of that electron.

The electron's rest energy is E = mc^2, and which figures into all electron conservation-of-energy issues. Just like Einstein said.

And just like Einstein said, the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content. And from that you know that if you trapped a 511keV photon as a standing wave in a box, you will add mass m = 511keV to that system. You know that the Higgs mechanism has absolutely nothing to do with this. Now go and look at atomic orbitals and pay attention: The electrons do not orbit the nucleus in the sense of a planet orbiting the sun, but instead exist as standing waves. So a standing wave inside a box adds mass to that system by virtue of E=mc², but a standing wave that isn't inside a box doesn't? Come on ben, think.

You are making up a conflict between these two statements. You're pulling it out of thin air and out of your own misunderstanding. Please stop.

I'm not making it up a conflict. Einstein also said If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c². Now go and look at electron-positron annihilation. You've got two radiating bodies whose mass diminishes to zero, and then they're not there any more. Not some fabulous Higgs mechanism that magically switches off because fat Eddie turned into a barracuda.

 

[godless dave]

And you've said nothing a dozen times, apart from repeat a mantra because you still don't understand E=mc².

No it doesn't. It has this mass because that's how much energy is present in the system or structure that we call an electron.

And why is there that much energy present?

 

[ben m]

No, it's energy. Look to low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation. The result is usually pions, which are transient, which decay to transient muons along with neutrinos and electrons. But there's a cross-section of about 1% direct to gamma photons. Where's the quark/gluon fields then? Here, look it up on wikipedia:

Such a strange way of arguing.

a) Contradict a bunch of physicists.
b) Say, "No, my view is obvious"
c) Post an unrelated (but true in context) snippet from a popular or secondary source
d) Say, "See?! See?!" as though your bizarre reading-between-the-lines process results in a truth so obvious you don't have to explain it.

Above: your own words are muddled contrarian gibberish. You leap from one phase suggesting QCD is wrong, to a random quote of experimental facts perfectly consistent with QCD (p pbar -> mesons), a false (or very poorly phrased) non-fact (p pbar -> pure direct photons? Never.), and generic muddleheaded contrarianism ("where are the quark and gluon fields?").

The text you quote from Wikipedia is correct, and indeed this sort of thing is a prediction of the quark/gluon theory of hadrons and more generally of the Standard Model, and it disagrees with you.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Such a strange way of arguing.

a) Contradict a bunch of physicists.
b) Say, "No, my view is obvious"
c) Post an unrelated (but true in context) snippet from a popular or secondary source
d) Say, "See?! See?!" as though your bizarre reading-between-the-lines process results in a truth so obvious you don't have to explain it.

Indeed! Ad nauseum.

 

[Hellbound]

Argument by Pinball.

If you can bounce from side to side often enough, eventually you'll confuse your opponent and can slip between his arguments into the rabbit hole

 

[Cuddles]

Argument by Pinball.

If you can bounce from side to side often enough, eventually you'll confuse your opponent and can slip between his arguments into the rabbit hole

If there's a rabbit in your pinball machine, something has gone very wrong.

Although I actually quite like that as a metaphor. What turns up where completely unwanted, constantly gets in the way, and just plain doesn't make any sense? Farsight's claims - the rabbit in the pinball machine.

 

[Hellbound]

If there's a rabbit in your pinball machine, something has gone very wrong.

Although I actually quite like that as a metaphor. What turns up where completely unwanted, constantly gets in the way, and just plain doesn't make any sense? Farsight's claims - the rabbit in the pinball machine.

Yes, I intentionally mixed metaphors to "sweeten" the analogy...although I was thinking more about the entrance to Wonderland...

 

[Farsight]

Arguing like a theologian again, Farsight, with your implication that I'm somehow denying some great prophet. And what justifies adding Wikipedia to the Canon of Sacred Books of Science?

Geddoutofit lpetrich. I give references to back up my case, you're attempting to dismiss them, and everybody can see it. You'd be better off giving your own references to counter mine.

Farsight, you need to read the literature on the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model. The recently-discovered Higgs particle is in the mass range expected from the MSSM.

No I don't. We've got enough plain-vanilla physics issues with the Higgs boson without wandering off into the decades-old lah-lah land of gluinos and squarks and Higgsinos. But here's a little literature, on wikipedia:

...This lower limit is significantly above where the MSSM would typically predict it to be, and while it does not rule out the MSSM, the discovery of the Higgs with a mass of 125 GeV makes proponents of the MSSM nervous.

...As the Higgs was found at around 125 GeV (along with no other superparticles) at the LHC, this strongly hints at new dynamics beyond the MSSM such as the 'Next to Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model' (NMSSM).

Quick lpetrich, shift them goalposts!

That's the woo -- talking about energy as if it's some sort of stuff.

Get used to it. When Einstein said energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another, he wasn't kidding.

The ordinary quarks and antiquarks annihilate, and the gluons disappear with them.

But the energy doesn't disappear. So think again about it's not the "energy" that's confined, it's the quark and gluon fields. Oh, and do note that gluons are virtual particles. They were never really there anyway. Not as little bullet-things rattling back and forth between the quarks. It's the same for virtual photons. Magnets don't shine, and hydrogen atoms don't twinkle.

Strictly speaking, what we observe as elementary particles are field excitations, just as light and other electromagnetic waves are electromagnetic-field excitations. There's no "energy stuff" anywhere.

You referred to quark and gluon fields, if we say these are quark/gluon field excitations and then note that these are annihilated to electromagnetic field excitations, then note that energy is conserved along with what Einstein said (see above), and then look up Higgs substance, it's crystal clear that you're talking out of your hat. And that you don't know that this "Higgs substance" would pan out a whole lot better if it were responsible for photon energy-momentum as well as electron mass. Because that then introduces the symmetry between momentum and inertia: a wave in space resists your efforts to change its state of motion whether it's moving on an open path or a closed path.

I'm trying to describe a basic feature of quantum field theory in nonmathematical language. I remember a physics professor who described photons as "blobs of light". That seems reasonably close to what QFT says a photon is.

I beg to differ. I think a better description would involve a lattice distortion, this lattice being merely a visual aid.

Seems like a reversion to the methods of Aristotelian physics.

No it doesn't, it's empirical.

We have an internal time sense, and we use that and our memories to deduce motion: change between one time and another.

No, we don't deduce motion We see things, and we see them moving and/or changing. We don't see time. And we don't see time flowing, or anything moving through time either.

 

[Farsight]

And why is there that much energy present?

I'd say it's because of action h in E=hf which is common to all photons, which is in turn related to the properties of space. Have a read of The role of the potentials in electromagnetism by Percy Hammond and see the bit near the end: "We conclude that the field describes the curvature that characterizes the electromagnetic interaction." A photon is essentially a singleton electromagnetic wave which is a spatial curvature propagating at c. All electromagnetic waves share the same action, which has the dimensionality of momentum x distance and is intimately related to angular momentum. Only one wavelength and therefore energy is the right energy to match h and convert a gamma photon moving at c into the standing-wave structure called an electron.

 

[godless dave]

Only one wavelength and therefore energy is the right energy to match h and convert a gamma photon moving at c into the standing-wave structure called an electron.

And why that wavelength?

 

[lpetrich]

And you've said nothing a dozen times, apart from repeat a mantra because you still don't understand E=mc².

Yes I do, and I can derive that formula. Can you?

It has this mass because that's how much energy is present in the system or structure that we call an electron. And as for what's interacting with what to create this structure, see two-photon physics and note this:

"From quantum electrodynamics it can be found that photons cannot couple directly to each other, since they carry no charge, but they can interact through higher-order processes. A photon can, within the bounds of the uncertainty principle, fluctuate into a charged fermion-antifermion pair, to either of which the other photon can couple".

Electrons as self-interacting photons. Yawn. This indirect photon-photon interaction is teeny teeny teeny tiny.

Electrons have spin 1/2, and there is no way to get one from an integer-spin field. Rotate a system with spin j by 360 degrees. Its wavefunction will get a sign of (-1)^2j relative to its original. Photons get +1, electrons get -1, and never the twain shall meet. One likewise can't get Fermi-Dirac statistics from a system that follows Bose-Einstein statistics. Like what happens to a combined wavefunction upon interchange:
BE: X(2,1) = + X(1,2)
FD: X(2,1) = - X(1,2)

We do not see photons spontaneously fluctuating into electrons and positrons which then magically transform back into a single photon, which all the while has been propagating at c. It has to be wrong because electrons and positrons do not propagate at c, any fluctuating photon must be travelling at less than c.

That's projecting classical-limit intuitions onto quantum-mechanical effects, and that's not the first time that mistake was made.

And just like Einstein said, the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content. And from that you know that if you trapped a 511keV photon as a standing wave in a box, you will add mass m = 511keV to that system.

True but totally irrelevant. Why that mass and not some other? The Higgs hypothesis explains it as some value of the electron-Higgs coupling constant. The trapped-photon hypothesis does not have anything comparable to fix a value.

You know that the Higgs mechanism has absolutely nothing to do with this.

Because the trapped-photon hypothesis is just plain wrong. Electrons follow the Dirac equation up to collision energies of at least 100 GeV, as determined by the LHC's predecessor, LEP.

 

[lpetrich]

Geddoutofit lpetrich. I give references to back up my case, you're attempting to dismiss them, and everybody can see it. You'd be better off giving your own references to counter mine.

Like some theologian quoting some sacred books?

(Wikipedia-thumping snipped)

The Wikipedia article on "MSSM Higgs Mass" has a note on it stating "This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2009)".

So please explain to us once again, Farsight, why Wikipedia deserves the status of a sacred book.

Oh, and do note that gluons are virtual particles. They were never really there anyway. Not as little bullet-things rattling back and forth between the quarks. It's the same for virtual photons. Magnets don't shine, and hydrogen atoms don't twinkle.

More classical-limit absurdity.

 

[Dancing David]

Welcome, lpetrich, and thanks for the very informative posts.

Agreed hear hear!

 

[Farsight]

And why is there that much energy present?

I'd say it's because of action h in E=hf which is common to all photons, which is in turn related to the properties of space. Have a read of The role of the potentials in electromagnetism by Percy Hammond and see the bit near the end: "We conclude that the field describes the curvature that characterizes the electromagnetic interaction." A photon is essentially a singleton electromagnetic wave which is a spatial curvature propagating at c. All electromagnetic waves share the same action, which has the dimensionality of momentum x distance and is intimately related to angular momentum. Only one wavelength and therefore energy is the right energy to match h and convert a gamma photon moving at c into the standing-wave structure called an electron.

 

[ben m]

Geddoutofit lpetrich. I give references to back up my case, you're attempting to dismiss them, and everybody can see it. You'd be better off giving your own references to counter mine.

You cut out bits of text, wrap them in quote tags, and refer to them.

That does not mean that they back up your case.

You're so wrong, even Abraham Lincoln knew you were wrong:

AT this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper.

Your understanding of Special Relativity is shallow; your understanding of the Higgs is pure guesswork; and your understanding of quantum mechanics is zero. Read what Wolfgang Pauli said:

The carriers of an electrical charge are negative electrons and positive protons. In addition, positive electrons (positrons), negative antiprotons, and other particles (mesons and hyperons) of both positive and negative charge can be artificially produced by suitable processes.

And so on. </sarcasm>

 

[Farsight]

Like some theologian quoting some sacred books?

Change the record lpetrich. I'm the one quoting bona-fide references here. You're the one behaving like a theologian dismissing the science I'm referring to.

So please explain to us once again, Farsight, why Wikipedia deserves the status of a sacred book.

It doesn't. It merely gives a fairly accurate description of current physics knowledge whilst demonstrates that I'm not just making this stuff up.

More classical-limit absurdity

What's absurd is the notion that gluons are real particles. They aren't. They're virtual particles. They aren't real particles prior to proton-antiproton annihilation, and they aren't real particles thereafter when we've rendered the proton and the antiproton down to gamma photons. We do not see gluons spilling out of proton-antiproton annihilation.

Electrons as self-interacting photons. Yawn. This indirect photon-photon interaction is teeny teeny teeny tiny.

But this interaction is sufficient to create and electron-positron pair out of photons. Surely even you can see the tautology that suggests photons are converted into electrons and positrons because they spontaneously convert into electrons and positrons. Like worms from mud.

Electrons have spin 1/2, and there is no way to get one from an integer-spin field.

Not that old canard. Pair production happens. You get an electron and a positron from your integer-spin field.

Rotate a system with spin j by 360 degrees. Its wavefunction will get a sign of (-1)2j relative to its original. Photons get +1, electrons get -1, and never the twain shall meet. One likewise can't get Fermi-Dirac statistics from a system that follows Bose-Einstein statistics. Like what happens to a combined wavefunction upon interchange:
BE: X(2,1) = + X(1,2)
FD: X(2,1) = - X(1,2)

Nobody is impressed by that. because verybody knows you rotate an a spin ½ electron by 720 degrees, like you rotate a moebius strip. Ditto for the positron. And when you annihilate them with one another, you get two photons. Then the twain do meet. Just as they met in pair production.

That's projecting classical-limit intuitions onto quantum-mechanical effects, and that's not the first time that mistake was made.

No it isn't, and it's no mistake. If a photon really fluttered back and forth into an electron-positron pair which cannot travel at c, that photon can't be travelling at c either. And to hoist you by your own petard, you cannot convert an electron and a positron into one photon, now can you? How you think you can get away with vague assertions about "classical-limit intuitions" beats me. And everybody else no doubt.

True but totally irrelevant. Why that mass and not some other? The Higgs hypothesis explains it as some value of the electron-Higgs coupling constant. The trapped-photon hypothesis does not have anything comparable to fix a value.

It will. See what I said to Godless Dave. And note that spherical harmonics are used for atomic orbitals, where the electron exists as a standing wave. And that we can diffract an electron. Because it exists as a standing wave even when it isn't in an atomic orbital. Which rather suggests that harmonics also play a role.

Because the trapped-photon hypothesis is just plain wrong. Electrons follow the Dirac equation up to collision energies of at least 100 GeV, as determined by the LHC's predecessor, LEP.

How plain wrong can it be when you can create an electron and a positron from a photon-photon interaction, and annihilate an electron and a positron to get photons? And in between, the electron is something you can diffract. And is a spinor. A thing with spin angular momentum wherein the Einstein-de Haas effect demonstrates that spin angular momentum is indeed of the same nature as the angular momentum of rotating bodies as conceived in classical mechanics. Sorry lpetrich, your "plain wrong" just won't do. And nor will the electron is a fundamental particle. Like you said about the LEP in post #848: That accelerator smashed electrons and positrons into each other with energies of more than 100 GeV, and the electron still had Dirac structure. It has structure. Like a moebius strip. Hence the spin ½. And the Dirac equation is a relativistic wave equation which includes c and ħ. So that electron isn't some point-particle, now is it?