Superpositioning to Produce (rest-) Mass in Particles

[Quetzalcoatl]

Hello folks,

 

I wanted to check my current understanding (or complete lack thereof) of the Higgs mechanism.

 

I remember that back in high school, we learned that light slows down inside a material. I couldn't believe it, as waves in the solutions to the wave equation should travel at constant speeds. I later figured, that I did not take into account the formation of new waves while the original wave travels through the material and shakes the electrons it encounters. These new waves are part of the same entity we call the EM field, and so they should all be summed up together with the original wave, as the superposition property of the EM field suggests. Then, I thought, this sum - the total "wave" - should, if we carry out the calculation, be moving at a slower speed.

 

Someone told me this is in fact the accepted picture from a wave perspective.

 

Adding to this another ingredient, that anything traveling below c (light speed in vacuum) must have mass (I mean rest mass), I felt it is adequate to say, that the interaction between the original EM wave and the lattice (of atoms in the material) "gave" the original EM wave a "(rest-)mass" which we observe as its slowing down. (we can also say that the bare original wave is still traveling at c, while the total wave (i.e. bare wave + new waves generated by the atoms as a result of its passing them) is moving slower)

 

My question is whether this is similar to the way the Higgs mechanism is interpreted. Lets think of an electron in a patch of space-time where the Higgs field is non-zero. Is it correct to say that the electron (which is some fermionic wave) is moving at speed c, and as it is doing so, it "shakes" the Higgs field, in a way which causes the Higgs field to create new waves in the positron-electron field such that the sum total of the bare electron + these new waves = a wave in the positron-electron field which is moving much slower than c, and so we can attribute rest mass to this "total" electron?

 

In other words, does the Higgs field, in a sense, act like the atom lattice I mentioned before, when it comes to particle mass/speed?

 

Thanks!

[Mordred]

Essentially accurate as far as it goes. The Higgs field itself and its interactions with the elementary particles gives rise to the mass of those particles.

 

 

The field itself being comprised of particles that have both particle like and wavelike characteristics.

 

this site FAQ is extremely close to your descriptive. Also does an excellent non math overview .

 

http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/the-higgs-particle/the-higgs-faq-2-0/

A more detailed explanation is available here with the math though simplified.

http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/how-the-higgs-field-works-with-math/

 

make sure you check each link to his numerous article sections. You will get a great overview of how particle, fields and quanta terms are interconnected with waves and particle like aspects.

Wave descriptions of particle fields is quite common. Here is another example.

 

http://www.mitp.uni-mainz.de/Dateien/HiggsHBMeyerSymmetry.pdf

 

However energy itself is a property of particles. So it's often better to think of it in terms of a field of particles. (Dont confuse this as a form of ether).

 

If you take the critical density value of 10^-29 grams per cubic meter. The average energy density per volume is roughly 5 photons per cubic meter. ( including all particle contributors).

That correlates to roughly 6.0*10^-10 joules per cubic meter.

Edited May 24, 2015 by Mordred

[Quetzalcoatl]

Thank you Mordred!

[michel123456]

Hello folks,

 

I wanted to check my current understanding (or complete lack thereof) of the Higgs mechanism.

 

I remember that back in high school, we learned that light slows down inside a material. I couldn't believe it, as waves in the solutions to the wave equation should travel at constant speeds. I later figured, that I did not take into account the formation of new waves while the original wave travels through the material and shakes the electrons it encounters. These new waves are part of the same entity we call the EM field, and so they should all be summed up together with the original wave, as the superposition property of the EM field suggests. Then, I thought, this sum - the total "wave" - should, if we carry out the calculation, be moving at a slower speed.

 

Someone told me this is in fact the accepted picture from a wave perspective.

 

Adding to this another ingredient, that anything traveling below c (light speed in vacuum) must have mass (I mean rest mass), I felt it is adequate to say, that the interaction between the original EM wave and the lattice (of atoms in the material) "gave" the original EM wave a "(rest-)mass" which we observe as its slowing down. (we can also say that the bare original wave is still traveling at c, while the total wave (i.e. bare wave + new waves generated by the atoms as a result of its passing them) is moving slower)

 

My question is whether this is similar to the way the Higgs mechanism is interpreted. Lets think of an electron in a patch of space-time where the Higgs field is non-zero. Is it correct to say that the electron (which is some fermionic wave) is moving at speed c, and as it is doing so, it "shakes" the Higgs field, in a way which causes the Higgs field to create new waves in the positron-electron field such that the sum total of the bare electron + these new waves = a wave in the positron-electron field which is moving much slower than c, and so we can attribute rest mass to this "total" electron?

 

In other words, does the Higgs field, in a sense, act like the atom lattice I mentioned before, when it comes to particle mass/speed?

 

Thanks!

Wait.

Does that mean that when you light an object and light goes through it slowing down, the object gains mass?

[swansont]

Wait.

Does that mean that when you light an object and light goes through it slowing down, the object gains mass?

 

When an object absorbs a photon it gains energy, so it has more mass.

[Quetzalcoatl]

A short follow up question:

 

What are the formal names for the different parts of what constitutes the final wave?

 

So, in:

 

"the bare electron/photon wave + the new waves created by the Higgs field/atom lattice = a wave in the positron-electron/EM field which is moving much slower than c"

 

What are the formal terms used in physics for:

1. the "bare electron/photon wave"?

2. the "new positron-electron/EM waves created by the Higgs field/atom lattice"?

3. the "sum total wave in the positron-electron/EM field which is moving slower than c"?

 

(I assume the terms are the same in both the "positron-electron + Higgs" interaction and the "photon + atom lattice" interaction, but I mentioned both above for completeness)

[ajb]

I would avoid 'bare' here as this is already used in renormalisation theory.

[Mordred]

These are typically covered under the terms field as opposed to waves. For example the electroweak field (which includes the strong, weak and electromagnetic field inclusively)

 

Waves and particles are essentially combined under the field category.

 

You can get other fields such as scalar vector fields.

 

Your interest and mannerisms towards your understanding indicate your strongest acceptance of understanding lies under field theory.

 

So I would recommend studying

 

Quantum electrodynamics (electromagnetic)

Quantum chromodynamics (strong force, Quarks gluons etc)

Quantum flavordynamics(weak force)

Quantum geometrodynamics( gravity)

 

Collectively they combine under QFT.

Quantum field theory

[Quetzalcoatl]

I would avoid 'bare' here as this is already used in renormalisation theory.

 

ajb,

 

That is my question precisely! What would you call it? How do physicists call it, and the other ones (1,2 & 3)?

 

(in renomralization theory "bare" is used before adding virtual particles of the next order Feynman diagrams, right? is this not a similar idea?)

[ajb]

I have not come across any special nomenclature for anything resembling what you have said. What you said about 'bare' is essentially right.

[Quetzalcoatl]

After much searching, I found this video about the subject. Apparently there is a quasi-particle called a "polariton" which is the sum of the original photon together with the changes introduced by the atom lattice:

 

 

From Wikipedia, it sounds like the reference is made to "exciton polaritons", which result from the coupling of photons (coming from outside the material for instance) with excitons. Excitons are excited (energetic) dipoles as I understood it. So basically the bound electrons in the material in this example.

 

From this, by analogy, I get that all particles that travel slower than c, are in fact quasi-particles in this sense. So the "bare" "electron", does travel at c. What we decided to call an "electron" in physics - the one with the rest mass, the one travelling slower than c - that particle is actually in fact a quasi-particle (like the polariton). It is the quasi-particle which is the "bare" "electron" coupled with the Higgs field!

Edited June 3, 2015 by Quetzalcoatl

[Mordred]

You need to be careful here, quasi particles are emergent phenomenon. The polariton and polaron, the first being bosonic, the latter being fermionic. Are not considered real particles. They are I guess you could say bookkeeping descriptives of the interaction influence the Crystal lattice has upon photons and electrons travelling through solids.

 

The polariton and polaron are also strictly involved in electromagnetic interactions. Not all particles will interact with the polariton and polaron.

 

For that matter not all particles interact with the Higgs field.

 

In the case of the polaron it is a quasi particle that exhibits all the same characteristics of am electron but with a different mass. This is only when travelling through solids. The quasi particle state is a collection of complicated interactions with the electron or photon.

 

In free space the electron gains its mass via the Higgs field interactions.

 

One handy note on quasi particles. By the following definition.

 

"an entity, as an exciton or phonon, that interacts with elementary particles, but does not exist as a free particle."

 

So what this means is that quasi particles exhibit particle like characteristics due to interactions but they themselves are not particles. Ie particles in free space.

 

This site has a handy analogy of quasi particles. (Soap bubble)

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/486549/quasiparticle

Here is a handy list of quasi particles. Though probably not a complete list.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_quasiparticles

[Quetzalcoatl]

You need to be careful here, quasi particles are emergent phenomenon. The polariton and polaron, the first being bosonic, the latter being fermionic. Are not considered real particles. They are I guess you could say bookkeeping descriptives of the interaction influence the Crystal lattice has upon photons and electrons travelling through solids.

 

The polariton and polaron are also strictly involved in electromagnetic interactions. Not all particles will interact with the polariton and polaron.

 

For that matter not all particles interact with the Higgs field.

 

In the case of the polaron it is a quasi particle that exhibits all the same characteristics of am electron but with a different mass. This is only when travelling through solids. The quasi particle state is a collection of complicated interactions with the electron or photon.

 

In free space the electron gains its mass via the Higgs field interactions.

 

One handy note on quasi particles. By the following definition.

 

"an entity, as an exciton or phonon, that interacts with elementary particles, but does not exist as a free particle."

 

So what this means is that quasi particles exhibit particle like characteristics due to interactions but they themselves are not particles. Ie particles in free space.

 

This site has a handy analogy of quasi particles. (Soap bubble)

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/486549/quasiparticle

Here is a handy list of quasi particles. Though probably not a complete list.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_quasiparticles

 

Is it right to say that a particle interacting with Higgs is in "free space"? I would think not, and so I would call it a quasi-particle, because it is not in free space. It is in space that has Higgs, and it is interacting with it. Maybe the definition of free space should be modified when we talk about a non zero Higgs field being everywhere and interacting with massive particles?

[Mordred]

You have a point however it breaks down to confinement. In the case under discussion are discussing the Crystal lattice structure of solids.

 

Free space has (gas) has far greater degrees of freedom. Essentially their movement is not confined. If you look under the wiki page you linked they specify solids to free space. Polarons emerge in solids not free space.

Although both can be modelled under the ideal gas laws, the degrees of freedom of particles and mean free path of particles is far more restrictive in solids.

In the case of the Higgs field the standard metrics is a nonzero scalar vacuum. We certainly cannot think of a solid as a vacuum.

Quasi particles are specifically a specified (particle + interaction).

 

Take a closer look at the descriptions of each quasi particle type on the list I provided.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Mordred

[Quetzalcoatl]

In the case of the Higgs field the standard metrics is a nonzero scalar vacuum. We certainly cannot think of a solid as a vacuum.

Quasi particles are specifically a specified (particle + interaction).

 

Take a closer look at the descriptions of each quasi particle type on the list I provided.

Hi Mordred,

I took a look at the quasi-particle list, and I think what I am thinking about in terms of my attempted analogy, is closest to "electron quasi-particle" relating to my electron example. "Electron quasi-particle" being an electron interacting with a solid. The "electron quasi-particle"'s mass would be different than the mass of an electron in a vacuum.

 

You say we certainly cannot think of a solid as a vacuum, but I was thinking maybe we can think of a vacuum as being analogous to a solid, because of the Higgs field the vacuum seems to encompass. It's not a perfect analogy, but why would it not fit here?

 

Free space has (gas) has far greater degrees of freedom. Essentially their movement is not confined. If you look under the wiki page you linked they specify solids to free space. Polarons emerge in solids not free space.

Although both can be modelled under the ideal gas laws, the degrees of freedom of particles and mean free path of particles is far more restrictive in solids.

The analogy (glass <->Higgs) is probably not perfect as I said, but how do the greater degrees of freedom make the situation *inherently* different?

 

At the core, I'm trying to understand, if the same mechanism that is responsible for giving the polaritons mass (photons in a glass solid) and thus makes us consider them to be quasi-particles, is also the same mechanism that gives massles "electrons" in the Higgs field vacuum a mass. If so, they should be considered quasi-particles, on an equal footing with polaritons.

 

My reasoning for all of this is that for simplicity's sake (aka occam's razor), I would expect there to be only one way things (quantum fields) acquire rest-mass.

 

Also, I am not familiar with confinement. What does that mean?

 

Thanks!

 

btw, this is in the Britannica link you supplied:

"There is reason to suspect, however, that all particles may actually be disturbances in some underlying medium and, hence, are themselves quasiparticles."

-- http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/486549/quasiparticle

Edited June 3, 2015 by Quetzalcoatl

[Mordred]

What defines a solid other than density? Well one way to define it is via the dominance of the electromagnetic force. In a solid the electromagnetic force and how it interacts with an electron far exceeds that of the Higgs field. To the point where the Higgs field would have negligible influence upon an electron, compared to the electromagnetic force. This would be true even in waveform.

 

Now how is mass defined?

 

Mass is resistance to inertia. So in a solid the major influence of mass on an electron is the binding energy(confinement) of the electromagnetic force.

 

Inside a proton the majority of the binding energy upon quarks is the strong force. So the majority of its mass is due to the strong force.

 

In the latter case only 1% the mass of the proton is due to the Higgs field.

 

Now how is a particle categorized? Via its properties. Spin, charge, rest mass, and interactions ie color and flavor etc.

 

So if any of these properties change you have a different particle.

 

In the case of quasi particles they do not exist without the specified interactions. An electron however can exist on its own. Hence its classified as a real particle.

 

The electron can even exist without a Higgs field.

 

Can all particles be considered as quasi particles. Possibly but as quasi particles is a combination of particle and interaction you would significantly need to increase the number of particles. Each different combination would require a different name. Sounds like Occams razor favors the SM model to me.

 

 

(By the way this thread is refreshing, not often you get good solid debates/conversations going on forums) usually one pushes his personal ideas ahead of established models and theories without learning why the standard models and theories work and why they work

+1

Thus far your questions have been well thought out.

[Mordred]

After some digging I found a thesis paper on the subject. Be forewarned it's heavy on the QM regime mathematics.

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=19&ved=0CDkQFjAIOAo&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ifw-dresden.de%2Fuserfiles%2Fgroups%2Fitf_folder%2FHelmut_Eschrig%2Fp.pdf&rct=j&q=quasi%20particles%20principles%20pdf&ei=CtxvVejbNsjRoATxwoOgBA&usg=AFQjCNEqTemavUPC5an-Ua21kEf-BYoJBA&sig2=te8Y1Skdr5x2DeGVXUqb7Q

 

However this is probably more appropriate as it deals with wave functions extensively.

Edited June 4, 2015 by Mordred

[Quetzalcoatl]

Can all particles be considered as quasi particles. Possibly but as quasi particles is a combination of particle and interaction you would significantly need to increase the number of particles. Each different combination would require a different name. Sounds like Occams razor favors the SM model to me.

 

I see your point. It is true, if we say rest mass is something that distinguishes between particles (which is what we say) then one would get many many particles using this method... I guess my thought was that some of these definitions date back way before QFT and the Higgs mechanism were established, and in some sense could be revised. Maybe it's not bad to have many quasi-particles, as long as you have a small set of massles/"bare" particles. But only if that would prove useful. Also, I haven't thought through about how binding energy comes into this picture. Probably as another interaction, generating more waves in the particle's field, adding up using superposition again, to give rise to a heavier new quasi?-particle. But that is just conjecture on my part, as I'd like it to be a similar mechanism. I'm not sure what picture I prefer yet, but I'll go ahead and look at this paper you found. I already like the preface

 

Thanks for your patience with me. As I am not a formal physicist I find it is always wise to keep a healthy bit of humility at heart when speaking about the subject. But I did learn a lot on my own, from books and lecture videos, so I don't come empty handed. The thing is, with a book, or a video, one can't ask questions. That is how I started using this forum. I always had envy toward people who do this for a living (not for the pay of course)...

Edited June 4, 2015 by Quetzalcoatl