Higgs Boson

[jajrussel]

The Higgs Particle

One of the first things I thought when I heard of the Higgs particle was; why call it the God particle? With out actually looking for the answer there it was in a Wiki article. Being somewhat religious the name God particle tended to tweak my sensibilities. Upon finding out that the name came from the censorship of a very much somewhat irreverent term from an article, about the particle, well lets just say that my sensibilities’ also have a humorous side. Still, I prefer the name Higgs particle.

I spend most of my time doing things I would prefer not to have to do. I would prefer to spend most of my time thinking about things that interest me, but people seem to think that my time is better spent not thinking at all. My sanity means nothing to them, so I seek some kind of balance on my own, and the result is that I am always late for a party that I haven’t actually haven’t been invited to, and usually find that by the time I join the conversation what seems to be the subject is not actually the subject, and the fact that I totally lack in charisma or charm does not make up for my ignorance.

 

For this reason I tend to prefer non-technical explanations of the sciences to start with. My mind tends to fill in the technical blanks, not always rightly so. It is just the way my mind works. I don’t need to actually know why an apple falls to know that under the right conditions an apple will fall. Change the conditions and the apple does not fall, but the why is always so intriguing; and more often than not, complicated.

 

The first thing I remember hearing about the Higgs particle; it was being called a Higgs boson, said to be a particulate of a Higgs field which was said to permeate the entire universe, interacting with matter to give it mass. The intriguing part was that the interaction was related to the matter particulate. The said amount of interaction depended on what it (the Higgs particle) was interacting with. My mind was off to the races… Well before I had a chance to absorb the rest of what they were saying. It seemed like another Aether theory, and I tend to like Aether theories, though I have to admit that like them or not I often tend to loose sight of where they are going on technicalities.

Upon hearing of this Higgs field the thoughts that came to mind were somewhat simple, seemingly, amazingly simple. I also, tend to like simple thoughts though they have a habit of twisting in on themselves, becoming somewhat difficult to unravel when one thinks about them too long. I also tend to get bored easily, even with my own thoughts so, I wanted to know more about what they were saying about the Higgs particle, and they started to ruin the thought talking about drag, sticky glue, and the possibility of the Higgs Boson becoming something else. Why?

 

What was wrong with the thought that the only effect that a Higgs particle has on a matter particulate is that the matter particulate displays mass? The amount of mass dependent on what the matter particulate actually is. I can see saying that the effect tends to display drag. The more massive a particle the harder it is going to be to move, but what does this have to do with the Higgs field. A singularity is certainly massive, yet black holes move rather easily through space. I am sure they experience drag, but is the drag directly related to the Higgs field, wouldn’t it be more directly related to gravity?

This clumping thought of Higgs particles sticking to matter, slowing it down; how would this result in an increase of mass? I would think that you might want to speed it up, increase the interaction with Higgs particles to gain more mass, but we already have kinetic reasoning for that increase in mass.

 

Now, as to the question of a Higgs particle turning into something else, why? Why is it, that when we are looking for something so remotely different from matter we expect it to have matter properties? It would seem that all we would need is for the Higgs field to exist as an interacting medium. I thing is what it is because it exist in this medium. The relationship of how the thing reacts to another thing depends on what the other thing is within the same medium. Certainly the thing would display certain properties due to its interaction to its medium, but then it becomes a matter of how these things react to each other. The field its self may only allow for what they are. How they react to each other is more a matter of what they are.

 

We try to figure out how things work by smashing them together. This tends to limit our field of view, but smashing them together is the only way we can figure out how to get them apart. Enormous amounts of energy spent to smash very small things into even smaller things. Okay, now how do we get these even smaller things to come apart? It would seem that we have reached a point of continued smashing and continued speculation. It is only when you define specifically what you are looking for that you can say with any certainty that something does or does not exist. In the meantime you can continue smashing and continue to examine the results in amazed wonder.

 

I certainly feel that a field exists. That accelerating a particle certainly gives it more mass, but the potential energy was and has always been there. It is not something that accumulates along the ride. That it has always been there is the intriguing part. Where did it come from? This is what I thought they were talking about when I first heard of the Higgs boson and the part it played in the Higgs field. Now I am not so sure.

 

Maybe they are looking for a God particle, and what makes them thing that as they accelerate a matter particle that the Higgs particle is along for the ride? It would seem that existing as a field; it would be what the matter particle is being accelerated through. Being that the acceleration of the matter particles was allowed I would not expect the field to put up much resistance when the particles collide. The only interaction that I would be looking for would between the two particles. That that result would be a direct correlation to each particle mass would be why certain results would be expected, and why certain results would not be expected. If we see something we don’t expect we ask why? It would seem to me that what they want to know at CERN is if the Higgs field exist can we force it’s particulates to react to a high energy field. Can we actually grasp the universe and rip it apart?

[ajb]

I wanted to know more about what they were saying about the Higgs particle, and they started to ruin the thought talking about drag, sticky glue, and the possibility of the Higgs Boson becoming something else. Why?

 

This is an analogy that I never really understood.

 

What was wrong with the thought that the only effect that a Higgs particle has on a matter particulate is that the matter particulate displays mass? The amount of mass dependent on what the matter particulate actually is. I can see saying that the effect tends to display drag.

 

A massless particle must travel at the speed of light. Giving a particle mass acts a bit like a "drag force" slowing the particle down to a speed strictly less than the speed of light.

 

But all this is really analogy and I am not sure how much you should really read into it.

 

The key point of the Higgs-Kibble mechanism is that one can give mass to gauge bosons ("force carriers") without spoiling the mathematical properties of the theory, namely renormalisability. The Higgs field can then also be used to give a mass to fundamental fermions ("matter").

[jajrussel]

Copied from ajb @ SFN (A massless particle must travel at the speed of light. Giving a particle mass acts a bit like a "drag force" slowing the particle down to a speed strictly less than the speed of light.)

 

 

I hadn’t thought this way. What happens if there is something that moves faster than the speed of light?

If 0 mass = C what happens to the scale?

 

I have to admit that my mind is clouding up here a bit. Thoughts and questions keep pushing to the front. If a 0 mass particle has to move at C then it would seem that this Higgs particle would have to move at C or have mass.

 

If we consider that any matter particle displays a field we could assume that as the Higgs particle passes through the field it slows down in passing and the display of the matter particle having mass occurs, but the thought that the Higgs particle is moving through a matter particle field is awkward, because if the matter particle field is the result of its mass. Well, it seems awkward…

 

If we consider that the matter particle alone, receives drag, hmm how to say it? Well it would seem that the amount of drag is its mass, because if not for the interaction with the Higgs field the mass particle would display 0 mass and have to travel at C, or we consider the possibility that the matter particle has a root specific minimum mass, not allowing it to travel at C and that the Higgs field adds a specific amount of mass to this minimum, the amount added being due to the matter particulate.

 

With this consideration accelerating the matter particle would add mass; but even if the Higgs field were the sole reason for the amount of displayed mass accelerating the matter particle should add mass because the initial mass displayed by the Higgs field’s effect on the matter particle exist as drag, and by accelerating we are in a sense squaring that drag.

 

There seems little fun in going with the; adds to existing mass thought. My understanding would be that if a matter particle has a root mass value without the Higgs field then the matter particle can never be accelerated beyond anything but less than C; but, if the mass displayed is the direct result of the Higgs field, then consider; turn the Higgs field off and everything without regard to what it is moves a C.

 

Thank you for your input ajb. At this point I am kind of shooting from the Hip, and I am sure that it shows. I will research the Higgs-Kibble mechanism. I am sure that understanding its point will be a great help in my thinking once the dust of understanding settles

[ajb]

I hadn’t thought this way. What happens if there is something that moves faster than the speed of light?

If 0 mass = C what happens to the scale?

 

There is a notion of a tachyon which has negative mass squared, or imaginary mass. Such things in quantum field theory cannot really be identified with particles.