Question about the Higgs

[robinpike]

The Higgs has been discovered. Does that count? Anything comprised of electrons can't be massless.

 

The discovery of the Higgs is evidence, so yes, I agree it may count, as it was something predicted by theory.

 

On reading the Wikepedia explanation of how the Higgs mechanism gives mass to particles, it is very complicated.

 

I have a few questions:

 

Does the Higgs field give particles inertia, i.e. is that what giving mass to a particle, means?

 

If so, how the does the Higgs field avoid giving a particle continuous inertia that slows it down continuously?

 

And how does the Higgs field give a particle inertia according to Relativity, as presumably, a moving particle is not moving in its own reference frame, and so what reference frame is the Higgs field in when it interacts with a particle?

Edited April 16, 2013 by robinpike

[timo]

Does the Higgs field give particles inertia, i.e. is that what giving mass to a particle, means?

In some sense, yes. But inertia is not really a prominent concept in quantum physics.

If so, how the does the Higgs field avoid giving a particle continuous inertia that slows it down continuously?

Inertia does not slow down objects.

[robinpike]

In some sense, yes. But inertia is not really a prominent concept in quantum physics.

 

Maybe I need to take a step back on this first...

 

Do we understand how the electron and proton have the property of inertia?

 

If so, what is the explanation?

[timo]

<nevermind>

Edited April 16, 2013 by timo

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

 

 

If so, what is the explanation?

 

One particle is giving it's kinetic energy to other particle and slowing down.

If entire kinetic energy is given, source particle is stopped, and other particle is accelerated.

If just part of energy is given then both particles after collision are moving.

 

With relativistic speeds particle colliding with other particle will create other particles.

What will be created depends on amount of kinetic energy.

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/particle_creation.html

 

v=0.36c will create additional pion 0 from proton and proton collision (or in other scenario pion+ and neutron and proton).

v>0.9c will create additional proton and antiproton from proton and proton collision.

 

It was nicely described in the article I gave link above.

Edited April 19, 2013 by Przemyslaw.Gruchala

[swansont]

 

One particle is giving it's kinetic energy to other particle and slowing down.

If entire kinetic energy is given, source particle is stopped, and other particle is accelerated.

If just part of energy is given then both particles after collision are moving.

 

With relativistic speeds particle colliding with other particle will create other particles.

What will be created depends on amount of kinetic energy.

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/particle_creation.html

 

v=0.36c will create additional pion 0 from proton and proton collision (or in other scenario pion+ and neutron and proton).

v>0.9c will create additional proton and antiproton from proton and proton collision.

 

It was nicely described in the article I gave link above.

 

!

Moderator Note

This thread is about the Higgs. Please stay on that topic.

[Dekan]

The Higgs "particle" has a short name.

 

It'll have a short life-span. In 50 years, it'll be history, like Q-Rays, Protoplasm or the Currant-Bun Atom.

 

 

[swansont]

The Higgs "particle" has a short name. It'll have a short life-span. In 50 years, it'll be history, like Q-Rays, Protoplasm or the Currant-Bun Atom.

 

!

Moderator Note

No, that's not what I meant by on-topic.

[Dekan]

Sorry, I didn't realise the Higgs cannot be questioned, I suppose it's an article of faith, like Global Warming?

[swansont]

Sorry, I didn't realise the Higgs cannot be questioned, I suppose it's an article of faith, like Global Warming?

 

!

Moderator Note

Not at all. But we have rules on this site, as you should know by now, and a science thread is for answering questions asked by the OP with mainstream science. If you want to propose that some aspect of science an article of faith, do it in speculations. Here, such a suggestion is off-topic.

[Dekan]

Point taken - Speculations is more appropriate. I appreciate such a courteous telling-off, thanks!