Higgs Boson the quanta of time?

[36grit]

I understand that the Higgs boson permeates all space, all the time. If time is space, then is it logical to assume that the Higgs boson is the very quanta of time?

What is the difference between the Higgs and the gravatron?

Is it possible that these two things reside in a subquantum space?

[ajb]

What is the difference between the Higgs and the gravatron?

 

The graviton is spin-2 while the Higgs is spin-0. The graviton is massless while the Higgs is not.

[elas]

Add to the assumptions already made: The graviton is thought to be a real particle, Higg's boson is predicted to be a virtual particle.

[timo]

I understand that the Higgs boson permeates all space, all the time.

That's not the case. You've mistaking the Higgs Boson for the vaccum expectancy value of the Higgs field, I think.

If time is space, then is it logical to assume that the Higgs boson is the very quanta of time?

No.

What is the difference between the Higgs and the gravatron?

Both differ in the motivation to include them in the model, the role they play, and in all properties except for electric charge and color charge (both zero). They are so vastly different that any difference mentioned would just be a random choice, as in saying cats and cars differ in their attitude towards mice.

Is it possible that these two things reside in a subquantum space?

I don't think that "subquantum space" has a proper meaning.

 

Add to the assumptions already made: The graviton is thought to be a real particle, Higg's boson is predicted to be a virtual particle.

That's wrong.

[Zarnaxus]

The graviton is spin-2 while the Higgs is spin-0. The graviton is massless while the Higgs is not.

 

What are the spins of the Gravitino and Higgsino? 1.5 and .5? or do they not even theoretically exist?

Edited May 4, 2011 by Zarnaxus

[timo]

The spins of the Gravitino and the Higgsinos are indeed 3/2 and 1/2, respectively. That information is readily found via Google or Wikipedia.

Edited May 5, 2011 by timo

[elas]

View Postelas, on 4 May 2011 - 08:04 AM, said:

Add to the assumptions already made: The graviton is thought to be a real particle, Higg's boson is predicted to be a virtual particle.

 

That's wrong.

 

Enter decay,Higg’s boson in Google search to find numerous decay predictions. One I found last week stated that Higg’s was only expected to exist for a few trillionths’ of a second as it is a virtual particle; I cannot recover that search result. However as the latest attempts to find it have failed, the subject is becoming increasingly academic.

[timo]

I didn't say the Higgs Boson is expected to be stable, everyone knows it is not. I said that your statement is wrong. Had you said that the graviton is stable but that the Higgs Boson is not, I had agreed (if that's what you meant, why didn't say that instead of using terms whose meaning you don't know?). That's just one arbitrary choice out of the many differences between the two particles, though (see my previous post).

[csmyth3025]

...If time is space, then is it logical to assume that the Higgs boson is the very quanta of time?...

You seem to be making the conjecture (or asking the question) "...[what] if time is space..." I see no reason why these two concepts would - or should - be the same thing. Spacetime as a unified concept is not the same as saying that time is space.

 

Chris

[36grit]

Quote

 

If time is space, then is it logical to assume that the Higgs boson is the very quanta of time?

 

"No".

 

?

Edited May 5, 2011 by 36grit

[timo]

Quote

 

If time is space, then is it logical to assume that the Higgs boson is the very quanta of time?

 

"No".

 

?

It's an amazing feature of sfn that even an answer as simple as "no" seems beyond comprehensibility, whereas hocus-pocus statements about cutting edge physics are happily eaten up as common knowledge. If I had relied with "no" to "If car is a vehicle, then is it logical to assume that faith is an apple?", would that have been understood? If so: that's essentially what you said, except that the random everyday words were random physics terms. If not: whatever.

 

btw.: Sorry for being rude, also to the others in this thread. It's not my intention to offend complete strangers (why should I?). I'm a little short with time.

[csmyth3025]

Quote

 

If time is space, then is it logical to assume that the Higgs boson is the very quanta of time?

 

"No".

 

?

Your question mark indicates that you don't understand the reply. I think timo has explained it rather clearly. Time and space are both components of spacetime, but time is not space. Try to think of it this way: Hydrogen and oxygen are both components of water, but hydrogen is not oxygen.

 

The Higgs boson is not the quanta of time. It is a boson:

 

Several bosons can occupy the same quantum state..... .......Bosons contrast with fermions, which obey Fermi–Dirac statistics. Two or more fermions cannot occupy the same quantum state.

(ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosons )

 

and, specifically:

 

In the standard model, the phrase "Higgs mechanism" refers specifically to the generation of masses for the W^±, and Z weak gauge bosons through electroweak symmetry breaking. Although the evidence for the electroweak Higgs mechanism is overwhelming, experiments have yet to discover the single Higgs boson predicted by the standard model.

(ref. http://en.wikipedia....Higgs_mechanism )

 

Chris

[36grit]

Your question mark indicates that you don't understand the reply. I think timo has explained it rather clearly. Time and space are both components of spacetime, but time is not space. Try to think of it this way: Hydrogen and oxygen are both components of water, but hydrogen is not oxygen.

 

The Higgs boson is not the quanta of time. It is a boson:

 

 

(ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosons )

 

and, specifically:

 

 

(ref. http://en.wikipedia....Higgs_mechanism )

 

Chris

 

I always thought (ans would take some convincing other wise,I guess) that jtime and space were the same thing.

It all makes a little better since to me now. But doesn't the higgs boson permiate all space all the time (according to the model)? It is my simple understanding that quantum fields require a quantum particle associated with it and the strength of the field was equal to the density of the particle. Doesn't this at least make the higgs boson the quanta of space? Or is space a different kind of field and not a quantum field. Perhaps some kind of vacuum for quntum fields to disrupt?

Is time a field? or just a force? does it have associated particels? and/or force carriers? Is their anti time? What is the current accepted theory?

I think this forum is the first time I ever heard that space in not time.

[csmyth3025]

I always thought (ans would take some convincing other wise,I guess) that jtime and space were the same thing....

...I think this forum is the first time I ever heard that space in not time.

I don't know enough about quantum mechanics to answer your questions on this particular aspect of space and time.

 

In general, however, it is possible for two "events" to occur at two different points in space at the same time. Likewise, it's also possible for two events to occur at the same point in space at two different times. In a given frame of reference two points (or "events") separated by a distance can be described as occurring at a particular point in time. In a different frame of reference this may not be so. Both the distance separating the events and the time separating the events may be different for someone in a different (moving) frame of reference.

 

...so Einstein noted that for the electrodynamics of moving bodies the aether is superfluous. Thus the separation into "true" and "local" times of Lorentz and Poincaré vanishes–all times are equally valid and therefore the relativity of length and time is a natural consequence.

(ref. http://en.wikipedia....of_simultaneity )

 

Chris

[36grit]

length, width, depth, and time are all measurments. All four vary according to acceleration and entropy.

Perhaps time is a decayed state of energy. We say that an energy field creates a condition in space, or that a field of energy elemintes the true vacuum. Before you jump to any snap decisions about the statement I just made consider this:

apply intense energy to a "zone" of mass, let's say we take a cutting torch to a piece of steel just long enough to get it red hot and then put it the yard as an ornamental piece of some kind and wait a few months or so. The spot we heated up will rust (decay) faster than the rest of the piece. One might say that we've changed the molecular structure via a thermo dynamic time dialation. We've changed the very lattice frame work of this particular body of mass. It's as if the proton had a predetermined amount of vibrations that it can exist bound to the other molecules before it deteriorated into rust.

Now, let's think about this same scenerio a little differently. Let's say we're in a rokcket ship in outerspace at rest and we decide to visit some near earth astroid to look for H3 for some reason. So we fire our jets and start moving towards it at an accerlerated pace. Most would say the high preasure is moving us toward a lower preasure zone according to the given thrust, but what is happening time wise?

We are trading the accelerated decay of the rocket's fuel for a slowing decay for the rest of the ship. The ship moves faster and faster through space. The proton has to vibrate a distance according the entropic state of the atoms and the distance traveled, so in the end you gain a few vibrations relative to the same mass sitting still.

Edited May 10, 2011 by 36grit

[csmyth3025]

length, width, depth, and time are all measurments. All four vary according to acceleration and entropy...

According to General Relativity, length (along the axis of travel) and time vary according to acceleration (or, equivalently, gravity). As far as I know, width and "depth" (I assume you mean vertical height) do not change in a uniformly accelerating frame of reference..

 

Can you provide a reference for changes in these parameters that result from entropy?

 

As far as your analogy is concerned, you lost me starting with "...One might say that we've changed the molecular structure via a thermo dynamic time dialation..."

 

Chris

[36grit]

According to General Relativity, length (along the axis of travel) and time vary according to acceleration (or, equivalently, gravity). As far as I know, width and "depth" (I assume you mean vertical height) do not change in a uniformly accelerating frame of reference..

 

Can you provide a reference for changes in these parameters that result from entropy?

 

As far as your analogy is concerned, you lost me starting with "...One might say that we've changed the molecular structure via a thermo dynamic time dialation..."

 

Chris

 

 

Tings decay very fast when their on fire.

A proton vibrating, within an atom in motion, has to absorb the distance being traveled. This explains why time slows down for things in motion.

[csmyth3025]

Tings decay very fast when their on fire.

A proton vibrating, within an atom in motion, has to absorb the distance being traveled. This explains why time slows down for things in motion.

I'm not sure what you mean by "...Things decay very fast when they're on fire..." Things are transformed into other things - is that what you mean by "decay"?

 

Antoine Lavoisier's researches included some of the first truly quantitative chemical experiments. He carefully weighed the reactants and products in a chemical reaction, which was a crucial step in the advancement of chemistry. He showed that, although matter can change its state in a chemical reaction, the total mass of matter is the same at the end as at the beginning of every chemical change. Thus, for instance, if water is heated to steam, if salt is dissolved in water or if a piece of wood is burned to ashes, the total mass remains unchanged. His experiments supported the law of conservation of mass, which Lavoisier was the first to state...

(ref. http://en.wikipedia...._and_combustion )

 

I believe Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity does a very satisfactory job of explaining why time slows down for things in motion.

 

Chris

[Zarnaxus]

http://www2.b3ta.com/host/creative/39226/1271285612/pimpmystandardmodel.png

 

Sorry, I couldn't resist

[36grit]

I don't know enough about quantum mechanics to answer your questions on this particular aspect of space and time.

 

In general, however, it is possible for two "events" to occur at two different points in space at the same time. Likewise, it's also possible for two events to occur at the same point in space at two different times. In a given frame of reference two points (or "events") separated by a distance can be described as occurring at a particular point in time. In a different frame of reference this may not be so. Both the distance separating the events and the time separating the events may be different for someone in a different (moving) frame of reference.

 

 

(ref. http://en.wikipedia....of_simultaneity )

 

Chris

 

In layman's terms:

 

If a 10 pound log is attached to a tree it is in a state of growth and it is alive

If a 10 pound log is laying on the ground it may take years to decay into oganic top soil

If a 10 pound log is lit on fire it will decay into smoke and ash very rapidly

If a 10 pound log is put in a refridgerator it will decay very slowly

if a 10 pound log is flash frozen to absolute zero you could probaly make a variaty of things that add up to 10 pounds

and 10 pounds is it's own scalar dimension with physical values and attributes

[csmyth3025]

I always thought (and would take some convincing otherwise, I guess) that time and space were the same thing.

It all makes a little better sense to me now. But doesn't the Higgs boson permeate all space all the time (according to the model)? It is my simple understanding that quantum fields require a quantum particle associated with it and the strength of the field is equal to the density of the particles. Doesn't this at least make the Higgs boson the quanta of space? Or is space a different kind of field and not a quantum field? Perhaps some kind of vacuum for quantum fields to disrupt?

Is time a field? or just a force? Does it have associated particles? and/or force carriers? Is their anti time? What is the current accepted theory?

I think this forum is the first time I ever heard that space in not time.

 

In layman's terms:

 

If a 10 pound log is attached to a tree it is in a state of growth and it is alive

If a 10 pound log is laying on the ground it may take years to decay into oganic top soil

If a 10 pound log is lit on fire it will decay into smoke and ash very rapidly

If a 10 pound log is put in a refridgerator it will decay very slowly

if a 10 pound log is flash frozen to absolute zero you could probaly make a variaty of things that add up to 10 pounds

and 10 pounds is it's own scalar dimension with physical values and attributes

The above passage is in regard to your previous post (to which I claimed insufficient knowledge about quantum mechanics to provide an informed answer).

 

I take it that you're making a point about the nature of a scalar quantity:

 

In physics, a scalar is a simple physical quantity that is not changed by coordinate system rotations or translations (in Newtonian mechanics), or by Lorentz transformations or space-time translations (in relativity). This is in contrast to a vector.

(ref. http://en.wikipedia....Scalar_(physics) )

 

I still can't make the connection between scalar quantities and what it is you're trying to say about space and time being the same thing, the Higgs boson, a "time field", etc.

 

Chris

[36grit]

Well, I'm probably the biggest quack on the website, but this is what I'm seeing and my simple understanding:

The Higgs boson is said to exist everywhere all the time. The difference between vitual particles and real particles is supposed to be due to their interactions with the Higgs boson. As a simple minded wonderer I see that virtual particles do not last much more, if at all, than an instant of time where as real particles cannot be created or destroyed.

A force field is a condition in space. It eleminates the true vacuum.

Bosons are particles that make up a particular field. Their density identifies the strength and size of the field that they are. So to me it makes sense that the Higgs boson is the boson of a time field.

Distance as time: If I wanted to visit my neighbor I could get up and walk across the street and say hello.

If I were a massless entity, I could visit him without traversing the distance innetween. In fact, I could sit here and drink my coffee and visit my neighbor at the same time. Distance, space, and time, would be irrelevant because massless entities enjoy an infinite field outside of but permeating all space and time.

According to the model I read about, The Higgs boson seems to make all the difference. If the Higgs boson is not the quanta of time then what is the force field that it represents?

 

The four known force fields:

 

electromagnetic

strong force

weak force

gravity

Edited June 4, 2011 by 36grit

[csmyth3025]

...According to the model I read about, The Higgs boson seems to make all the difference. If the Higgs boson is not the quanta of time then what is the force field that it represents?...

The Higgs boson is a hypothetical massive elementary particle predicted to exist by the Standard Model of particle physics. The existence of the particle is postulated to resolve inconsistencies in theoretical physics and attempts are being made to find the particle by experiment, using the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN and the Tevatron at Fermilab.

 

The Higgs boson is the only Standard Model particle that has not been observed in particle physics experiments. It is a consequence of the so-called Higgs mechanism which is the part of the Standard Model that explains how most of the known elementary particles become massive.^[2] For example, the Higgs boson would explain the difference between the massless photon, which mediates electromagnetism and the massive W and Z bosons which mediate the weak force. If the Higgs boson exists, it is an integral and pervasive component of the material world.

 

If it exists, it is of a class of particles known as scalar bosons. Bosons have integer spin and scalar bosons have spin 0. The photon is a kind of boson and so is the less-familiar gluon, along with the W and Z particles mentioned above. These particles are all vector bosons, with spin 1. At present there are no known elementary scalar bosons in nature...

(ref. http://en.wikipedia....iki/Higgs_boson )

 

Please note the use of the words "hypothetical" and "postulated" in the above quoted article. Theoretically, the Higgs mechanism is the means by which "massive" particles aquire the property we call "mass". As far as I know it doesn't have anything to do with time.

 

The Higgs boson's existence is not a strictly necessary consequence of the Higgs mechanism: the Higgs boson exists in some but not all theories which use the Higgs mechanism. For example, Higgs boson exists in the Standard Model and the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model yet it is not expected to exist in Technicolor models or Higgsless models. All of these models realize various forms of the Higgs mechanism. A goal of the LHC experiments is to distinguish among these models and determine if the Higgs boson exists or not.

 

 

(ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson#Origin_of_the_theory )

 

Chris

 

Edited to add second quote from Wkipedia

Edited June 7, 2011 by csmyth3025

[yasimi]

The graviton is thought to be a real particle, Higg's boson is predicted to be a virtual particle.。。

 

 

 

 

 

Microsoft Windows 7 UltimateMicrosoft Visio Standard 2010Microsoft Office 2007 Enterprise

[csmyth3025]

The graviton is thought to be a real particle, Higg's boson is predicted to be a virtual particle.。。

I haven't read that before about the Higgs boson. Can you provide a reference?

 

Chris