Physics Thoughts

"

However, it isn't known why certain particles, such as the extremely corpulent top quark, are thousands of times more encumbered by the Higgs field than are lightweight particles, such as electrons and neutrinos.

- http://www.livescience.com/34045-higgs-particle-mass.html

I have 2 postulates on this topic:
1) some (or all) particles have differing levels of attraction to higgs-bosons particles
2) some particles vibrate when moving through higgs fields and as a result have increased collision/interaction with higgs-bosons

Would love to see some mathematical reasoning and analysis in your hypotheses.

"

Darkfyre wrote:

"

However, it isn't known why certain particles, such as the extremely corpulent top quark, are thousands of times more encumbered by the Higgs field than are lightweight particles, such as electrons and neutrinos.

- http://www.livescience.com/34045-higgs-particle-mass.html

I have 2 postulates on this topic:
1) some (or all) particles have differing levels of attraction to higgs-bosons particles
2) some particles vibrate when moving through higgs fields and as a result have increased collision/interaction with higgs-bosons

The Higgs boson is an exciting discovery, and it will lead us to some new understandings of phyics. I do think that the current scientific notions of what it does are naive, and the real mechanisms will be far more complex and involve more than just the newly discovered boson.

For starters, if the Higgs boson has mass (125.09±0.21 (stat.)±0.11 (syst.) GeV/c2) - than cumulative effect of every particle exchanging higgs bosons with every other particle would result in so much mass density that everything would be a black hole. If the Higgs boson is merely exchanging influence with an underlying field, than it is that field which is causing gravity and mass.

The decay time of the Higg's boson (1.56×10−22 s) also makes it very unlikely to be an mass attraction - exchange particle over the vast distances of space.

1,56 X 10-22 secs multiplied by ~3.0 x 10 8 m/sec = 4.68 x10-14 m.

4.68 x10-14 m x 1x10 12 picometers/m = .0468 picometers.

A single carbon atom is 70 picometers across, so at light speed a Higg's boson would decay 21 times faster than it could cross a small atom.

How is a Higg's boson going to survive the trip from Andromeda to the Milky Way when it can't even survive a distance a thousands of times smaller than a mosquito's eyeball?

Next, you have the speed of gravitational interactions - no big deal, if an electron can have mass and move at light speed, we can allow the Higg's boson with mass to do the same. That sounds good until you plug relativity in there. We know that mass gains more mass as it approaches the speed of light. We have tested for and verified time dilation as velocity increases. As far as every test and theory I have seen goes, relativity holds, and there is no quantifiable way for a viewer in any one frame of reference to gauge how much relativity is affecting them or another frame of reference, unless they both approach the same frame of reference (gravity or velocity) and compare changes afterwards.

So, the Higg's bosons would need to change their effects as they moved from inside/outside their frame of reference, while still maintaining all behaviors once they were inside or outside a frame of reference and without any distinguishing features.

Further, the Higgs boson as a quantized agent of mass implies that at a certain point, the effects of mass, such as gravity, time etc can be avoided, or manipulated beyond limits by controlling certain parameters just under the quantum thresholds.

Then we have the notion that particles aren't really points, but probablistic wave bundles, with fields of alignment, yet the way mass intereacts - gravity - shows no such alignment and is wholly attractive. Any moving particle also has a wavelength depending on mass and velocity, and that wavelength (size) implies limits on its ability to interact with other forces.

I could go on, but the point is that there are far too many pitfalls for the Higg's boson as a simple explanation of mass.

The Dirac sea with a Higg's boson as the intervening messenger between any particle and the Dirac sea would avoid all of the above mess and at first glance appears feasible.

I think the Higg's boson is going to open a door into another aspect of particle physics that we didn't even realize was there, and once we have looked within, we will have a decent understanding of just what kind of role the Higg's boson plays in determining the mass of particles.

Your postulates fail.

ONLY the Top Quark has issues, therefore your first postulate fails.

It's difficult to do research on T because its lifetime is really short and you can only show it indirectly. It's even difficult to say does it behave differently from other quarks or not. This also results in the difficulty to explain why it's heavy as a heavy atom.


You have a false understanding of the Higgs Field and Higgs Boson.

Higgs Field can explain why Gauge Bosons of electroweak Interaction are massive

The Higgs Boson is the associated particle to explain the evidence of a Higgs field.

The interactions between the particles isn't collision. It would be trivial to prove a Higgsfield and Higgsbosons if it would be actual collisions. You would just create a law similar to the impulse.

"

Hilbert wrote:

Your postulates fail.

ONLY the Top Quark has issues, therefore your first postulate fails.

It's difficult to do research on T because its lifetime is really short and you can only show it indirectly. It's even difficult to say does it behave differently from other quarks or not. This also results in the difficulty to explain why it's heavy as a heavy atom.


You have a false understanding of the Higgs Field and Higgs Boson.

Higgs Field can explain why Gauge Bosons of electroweak Interaction are massive

The Higgs Boson is the associated particle to explain the evidence of a Higgs field.

The interactions between the particles isn't collision. It would be trivial to prove a Higgsfield and Higgsbosons if it would be actual collisions. You would just create a law similar to the impulse.

The masses of the electroweak gauge bosons had explanatory theories over 30 years ago, without the Higg's boson. That was even before they renamed the "T" and the "B". The competing theories have not been ruled out, but the Higg's boson was a lower hanging fruit to be explored energy wise.

Occam's razor has repeatedly failed in the search for GUT. Every time they think they have the last part figured out, a new level of intricacy is discovered. It doesn't dissuade the bootstrapping theorists any more than the every continual problems of string theory dissuade the Church of Stringology.

The Higg's boson is likely doing exactly what people hoped it was doing when I first started reading about it and following it 34 years ago. Your statements as to what it is doing aren't really in conflict with those expectations either.

The public and media's press on what they think the Higgs boson is doing is what I was directing my statements towards.

The key thing about science is that it is not a destination, it is an ongoing process. The Higgs boson is another step in that process, but it is not a destination. Follow any specific interest in a given field of science for a few decades, and you will have a better perspective on how "discoveries" pan out and fade and reemerge and our adapted and reinterpreted.

It isn't a bad thing, it's the way science is supposed to work.

Even if the Higg's boson (and sub-varieties thereof) let the standard model explain all of mass and energy, it still wouldn't accommodate and explain Dark Matter.



Kapteyn's paper postulated Dark Matter almost 100 years ago (1922)
DOI:10.1086/142670
and yet even with Higgs purportedly completing the standard model, we have explained only 2~3% of the universe. Dark Matter is another order of magnitude beyond matter, so it stands to reason that the physics we know so far pale in comparison to what we will need to know to understand that.

And then there is dark energy which is far greater than dark matter, which means even more physics.

The chance that our present understanding of how things work survives all that is extremely small.

Compared to where we will need to be, our understanding is like grasping Earth, Wind, Water and Fire compared to the Standard Model.

The Higgs boson is not what the public or media thinks it is. Check back in 20 years on that thought. In the meantime, I would suggest some training in Epistemology.

"

GeorgAnatoly wrote:

Would love to see some mathematical reasoning and analysis in your hypotheses.

postulates. there's a big difference.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

How is a Higg's boson going to survive the trip from Andromeda to the Milky Way when it can't even survive a distance a thousands of times smaller than a mosquito's eyeball?

maybe the higgs field is one giant quantum entanglement field

"Demystifying the Higgs Boson with Leonard Susskind", courtesy of Stanford University: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqNg819PiZY

This is not the entirety of the theory, it's just a tldr simplification of how particles aquire mass and how the higgs field contributes to this. Still manages to fill out about an hour but hey, that's quantum mechanics for ya.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

The Higgs boson is not what the public or media thinks it is.

From what I have been able to gather, this statement is absolutely true. First of all it's the field that matters, not the boson. All the boson does is tell us the field exists. Secondly, the higgs field is only the final piece of the standard model puzzle that "completes it"(I'm using this term very loosley) as a theory of conventional matter and forces. There is more to mass that just the higgs.

It's not Quantum Mechanics.

It's quantum field theory.


The press are people who have no clue about science. They hear EPR Paradoxon and write stuff about beaming.

Also there are academic sites such as nature having a where every vulture and irrelevant stuff gets published and you get IE "Neutrinos are faster than light" when every phys major knows that neutrinos are massive and the margin of error in that paper was so large that 2 doctors removed their name of the paper just to avoid getting laughed at.

"

Hilbert wrote:

It's quantum field theory.

Wich is a quantum mechanical model. So... yeah.