Higgs Field

Boffin

I'm interested in information about the Higgs Field and Boson but am having trouble finding information about it. Anyone have some good sources?

Looked through the book "The God Particle". It's supposed to be about the Higgs particle but only has really one page in the whole book about it. Brian Greene in his book "The Elegant Universe" doesn't mention it. Neither does Stephen Hawking in his book "A Brief History of Time". Considering that the Higgs Field was named in the 1960s, why all the silence about it. Don't many scientists believe in it?

According to the Fermi Lab message below, the Higgs Field is the thing that gives matter it's mass. The Higgs Particle is really just a particle produced by the Higgs Field. According to this message the Higgs Field is not composed of Higgs Particles. But most articles explain that the Higgs Field is made of Higgs Particles. Which is right or what do you think?

"You need to distinguish between the Higgs boson and the Higgs field. The Higgs field is the stuff that gives all other particles a mass. The Higgs boson is a particle. It gets its mass like all other particles: by interacting with (“swimming in”) the Higgs field. The Higgs field is the silent field that gives the mass. We cannot directly probe for it. But discovering the Higgs boson, the “mediator”, would prove the existence of the Higgs field".

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/qu...ggs_boson.html

Albrecht

Ben Wiens,

sorry, I cannot give you information about Higgs fields and the Higgs boson.

But my recommendation is: save your time and forget this theory. There were no Higgs bosons found up to now, and they will not be found in future. And for the purpose to understand the origin of mass there are other theories available which are even now better than the Higgs theory would ever be.

heumpje

That's a very common misconception under high energy lovers...
The Higgs mechanism is a very general gauge theoretical argument and these mechanisms have been shown to exist in condensed matter systems. It has to do with spontaneous gauge symmetry breaking. Difficult stuff but you can find it in a very good review by John Kogut (1978) (believe it was called Lattice gauge theory). Unfortunately only available via prola.aps.org

Albrecht

I hope we can continue this discussion after 2 years from now when the LHC at Cern has shown to everybody, that Higgs Bosons cannot be found. I am afraid that we will have this present blockage in the development of particle physics until this fact (i.e. no Higgs bosons exist) is realized.

sol

When Physicist Crosses the Room

In the question about the higgs, I am placing this post.

I hope links are of value?

Sol:)

Albrecht

The reason for the inertial mass in physics is quite fundamental, and is independent from Higgs.

Every extended object has necessarily an inertial behaviour. Reason: The constituents of an extended object are bound to each other by a field. This field works at the same time in a way that the constituents keep a certain distance to each other. Otherwise the object would not be extended.

When now the object is accelerated at one edge, the rest will follow with a delay. The reason for that is the limited speed of light by which field changes are propagated. This delay requires a force.

If this is numerically evaluated, the result is the correct mass of an elementary particle. The mass of e.g. the electron results with a rel. accuracy of 0.001.

For details of the calculation refer to the site: www.ag-physics.org/rmass

bdkeenan00

what is this "field" of whick you speak?

bdkeenan00

oops, I meant which not whick

Albrecht

Good question. The field which connects the contituents of an elementary particle is the strong field ("Strong interaction").

ahrkron

An "elementary particle" has no components.

The proton and the neutron are not elementary. Their constituents (quarks) are held together by the "strong interaction".

But the field associated with the strong interaction is not the Higgs field.

Albrecht

It is a common believe that an elementary particle (i.e. lepton and quark) has no constituents. But it is not true.

The essential point is that the constituents do not have any mass. That is the difference. The physicists who have investigated the particles have alway assumed that the constituents, if there are any, have mass. They have bombarded particles (e.g. the electron) with high energy particles to decompose them. That did not happen. So, the conclusion was that there are no constituents. But a particle which is constructed by mass-less constituents can never be broken up in this way. Even if one of the constituents is accelerated in shortest time to c, the other constituent can follow immediately.

I have discussed this point with physicists (professors) who have conducted such type of experiment. They have admitted that there is no conflict between the assumption above and this model.

And look: These particles have an angular momentum (spin) and a magnetic moment. This can be easily understood if an appropriate size is assumed. The magnetic moment of the electron can be determined with an accuracy of 0.001 by a classical calculation!

For more details please look into
http://www.ag-physics.org/electron