Higgs Boson

[mrcurious]

Why is must there be a particle that gives other particles mass?

 

[docm]

Your question presumes that the Higgs boson exists, which is something that has not yet been determined. That should be clarified one way or the other when the Large Hadron Collider gets up and running over the next year or so. Other devices have narrowed the range of energies to be searched, but no cigar yet. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />must there be a particle that gives other particles mass? </font><br /><br />It's theorised that durring the first few moments of the BB, all particles were massless, at an extremely high temperature. As the universe cooled, the particles acquired mass thru the Higg's Field. Physicists say that anything within a field, must have a force particle associated with it. Gravity field = Graviton. Higg's Field = Higg's Boson. Both are hypothetical particles, and until they're discovered, in my mind they don't exist. I may be contradicting myself, but I believe that Strings are the final word, that give particles mass + gravity. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Yes, but a Higg's is implied in current String Theory. IIRC. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[kelvinzero]

In quantum mechanics, even sound gains particle like qualities:<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon<br />To me that is much more weird than a gravity particle, because sound is so intuitive to us. It is atoms bumping.. how can this need a particle?<br />I think it is just a result of quantum mechanics. Not only do all particles have wave properties but current theory tells us you can expect all waves to have particle properties.<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-particle_duality

 

[mrcurious]

<font color="yellow">I may be contradicting myself, but I believe that Strings are the final word, that give particles mass + gravity. </font><br /><br />Hmmmmmmmmm.....why? Have you seen a string? For all we know strings are just as unreal as the graviton & higg's boson. I was once a big fan on string theory, but once it became M-theory I really had to take a step back. Its amazing how many problem's string theory & M-theory solve........with NO verifiable evidence. Its not so much that string theory is wrong as much as it can't be verified. I'd much rather put my eggs in a basket that I can test.<br /> I honestly believe that there's something about gravity that we're just not getting. Dark matter, dark energy, weakness of gravity, & black holes are big questions all centered around gravity.

 

[steve70]

Ok a newbie question for you fellas'. If there is a Higgs Boson particle and we do detect it could we then be one step closer to anti-gravity?

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />Hmmmmmmmmm.....why? Have you seen a string? For all we know strings are just as unreal as the graviton & higg's boson.</font><br /><br />Hmmmmmmmmm....why not? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Do you think quarks and electrons are the most fundamental elementary particles? I believe docm had an article that stated that electrons were not fundamental, and that there was indirect evidence to support this. Keep in mind that there is no space inside an electron. Or according to Wiki: "A fundamental or elementary particle with no substructure. It's a point-like mathematicle charge, with no spatial extension."<br /><font color="yellow"><br />Its amazing how many problem's string theory & M-theory solve........with NO verifiable evidence. Its not so much that string theory is wrong as much as it can't be verified.</font><br /><br />Why does it have to be verified? General Relativity is verified. Quantum Mechanics is verified. String Theory is just a "weld" between the two. And String Theory did verify the Strong Force. That's how it got it's start. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />Ok a newbie question for you fellas'. If there is a Higgs Boson particle and we do detect it could we then be one step closer to anti-gravity? </font><br /><br />Nope. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigravity <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[steve70]

Thanks for the reply and link. My thinking was that if you can strip away the particle that gives an object it's mass that gravity would lose it's affect. It appears I have some reading to do.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">Steve70- Ok a newbie question for you fellas'. If there is a Higgs Boson particle and we do detect it could we then be one step closer to anti-gravity?</font><br /><br />Well, I don't think you can't have "anti-gravity" as far as what we know about physics is concerned. But, if you could find out how gravity is defined you may be able to counter it. So, you wouldn't be generating "anti" gravity, just altering how something is effected by gravity. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

I would think it a mighty tall task to eliminate the higgs field should it be found. Let's assume for a moment that it can be done... <br /><br />I submit myself to testing of anti-gravity (elimination of mass)... what happens to the matter that i am consisted of? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">derekmcd - I submit myself to testing of anti-gravity (elimination of mass)... what happens to the matter that i am consisted of?</font><br /><br />My assumption would be that the forces holding your body together, the other three main fundamental forces, would still exist and do their job. Gravity does not hold your body together. You certainly have your own gravity field, albeit extremely small. But, the other forces and interactions are much, much stronger. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

I don't know. I think there is a delicate balance between the 4 forces and removing mass from the equations would make things very interesting. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

Astronauts seem to hold together fairly well in microgravity. I don't see them ripping apart into their component parts. Adverse effects of microgravity seem to be more physiological in nature due to the body's natural responses. After all, in the "center" of your body's mass, the gravity effect generated by your body is practically nullified anyway. I don't hear of people exploding from the inside out.. very often. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

That astronaut is still affected by gravity. He may not sense it as he is in free-fall. Anti-gravity, however, is eliminating gravity altogether. To do this, mass must be eliminated. Now that I think about it, I would guess energy must also be eliminated as per e=mc2. I don't think we would fair very well. So, should the higgs field be observed, finding a way to shield us from it would, likely, not be a very good idea. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[yevaud]

You just gave me a couple of curious thoughts. Not proper for ATA, so I continue it in SF. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

But gravity is such a weak, weak force. There isn't much effect at all compared to the other fundamental forces. I'll defer to someone more experienced with this next bit but; I don't know of anything that deals with the other fundamental forces which would be holding your body together that insists that gravity must be present in order for them to continue functioning correctly. That's one reason why they are fundamental forces in their own right. Cutting your body off from the effects of gravity would not directly cause it harm, IMO. Now, if you were not able to deal properly with translating your inertia to zero, you may go flying off at something like 30 k/sec or so. (Speed of Earth's orbit around the Sun just for grins..) That may be kind of upsetting if you were standing really close to a brick wall. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[heyscottie]

Yes, but if we rid ourselves of mass, we also rid ourselves of inertia, or so I would think. If we are massless, do we not have to travel at light speed by default? I would think somehow stripping mass from ourselves would indeed have dire consequences.

 

[docm]

As long as you're on the proper trajectory and have 'brakes' what's the problem? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mrcurious]

<font color="yellow">Why does it have to be verified? General Relativity is verified. Quantum Mechanics is verified. String Theory is just a "weld" between the two.</font><br /><br />The same reason that QM & GR needed to be verified. Because if we're wrong you need to be able to prove it so you can correct your mistake. If we're right then we need to prove it, so we can manipulate what we've learned. <br /><br />String theory leads us down a path with lots of answers and no way to test their varasity. How do we know its the right meld? While string theory has survived from the 70s to now, its still nothing more than a theory, while QM & GR are still theories, we've been able to prove many of those theories' predictions and continue further. <br /> You can't just believe it exist no matter how much you think its the right answer, science doesn't seem to work that way. We don't even understand the more fundamental theory created from Supergravity theory & String Theory = M-Theory. <br /> QED verified the strong force as well and did so before string theory with <i>verifiable</i> experimental evidence. String theory, however, has not produced such evidence, its beyond our technological grasp ATM. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">Hmmmmmmmmm....why not? Do you think quarks and electrons are the most fundamental elementary particles?</font><br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model <br /><i>As of early 2007 there have been indications of particles at the predicted mass of the Higg's boson found by the tevatron at fermilab (New Scientist: 3 March 2007); the significance level of these indications is however not high enough to warrant it being confirmed as the Higgs particle.</i> All I gotta say is, LHC baby!<br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow"> I believe docm had an article that stated that electrons were not fundamental, and that there was in</font>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

Well, the particle's mass information would not be altered. Only what is actually communicated as "mass" would be altered. So, the particles themselves would still maintain their mass information but the communication channel would be controlled. So, let's say you could tune the channel to ignore any gravity/mass effects over variable "x" originating outside of a certain physical range. So, the hammer in your hand would react normally but it and you wouldn't be effected by the nearby mass effect of a large planet. Come to think of it, if you could alter the communication of mass to the rest of the Universe, you wouldn't have to worry much about the speed of light barrier would you? If spacetime reflected you having a mass of "0" would the gate to lightspeed would be open?<br /><br />Then again, all I'm saying in previous posts is that "gravity" isn't holding your body together. Other forces are at work. But, it would be interesting to hear what someone else has to say regarding what would possibly happen if all particles in your body were reduced to a true mass of zero. It's a good question. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />I believe docm had an article that stated that electrons were not fundamental, and that there was indirect evidence to support this. <br />I need to read this article. I searched for something like that, but found nothing. </font><br /><br />Here ya go: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19325954.200&feedId=online-news_rss20<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[mrcurious]

I read this article and while it talks about strings, it doesn't talk about string theory. Instead it comes up with its own theory, called String-Net Liquid. The article states; <font color="yellow">"in their theory elementary particles are not the fundamental building blocks of matter. Instead, they emerge from the deeper structure of the non-empty vacuum of space-time."</font> <br /><br />The first time I read this article I didn't even investigate "string-net liquid." This time around I look into and it leads me right to, LQG aka Loop Quantum Gravity. <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String-net<br />http://dao.mit.edu/~wen/pub/qorder.html<br /><br />I never said strings weren't the answer, I said string theory & m-theory need verification. There's been so much hype over string theory and yet not one single piece of evidence says that this theory is correct. While, the same could be said for LQG....but this piece of herbetsmithite that was found might be showing us that we need to rethink some of our current theories .

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />I read this article and while it talks about strings, it doesn't talk about string theory. Instead it comes up with its own theory, called String-Net Liquid. The article states; "in their theory elementary particles are not the fundamental building blocks of matter. Instead, they emerge from the deeper structure of the non-empty vacuum of space-time." </font><br /><br />Thanks for the clarification. They say that electrons are strings of other particles. That's a pretty general statement. Then they talk about entanglement, and the non empty vacuum of space-time (virtual particles). So, putting this all together, are they saying that electrons are strings of virtual particles, that are entangled all over the universe? I say all over the universe, because of the Heisman Uncertainty Principle.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>