Higgs field popular descriptions

Drakkith

Waveharmony, I could be wrong, but I don't believe the higgs is in any way related to general relativity. It is fully a quantum theory and has nothing to do with gravitation. General relativity explains that stress-energy curves spacetime, and since mass has energy it will do so as well.

Dickfore

So, how does GR explain the fact that the mass of the electron is 511 keV/c²?

Mark M

WaveHarmony - general relativity has nothing to do with the Higgs mechanism. The Higgs mechanism explains why particles have mass. General relativity explains why (macroscopic) massive objects gravitate.

Naty1

Wave:
that's an objective, for sure, but hasn't been achieved yet. The Higgs fields, so many of them I can't keep track, attempt to provide a mechanism for mass....But like many other components of the standard model, these Higgs fields are manual insertions individually tailored with the specific properties needed to provide different particles with the observed mass. A nice interim step, but hardly a comphrehensive theory.

I happen to be reading right now Alan Guth's 'The Inflationary Universe' and he discusses a few Higgs fields in Chapter 10/11. As an example, three Higgs fields are used to describe [construct] magnetic monopoles. So Guth talks about how he tried to avoid the magnetic monopole problem in a theory of inflation, that is, the fact that there could be many, but we observe none. How do we avoid them?

He realized if he could delay a phase transition in inflationary expansion#, horizons would increase in size and magnetic monopoles would disappear....be smeared out of existence, hence his reliance on a Higgs field with a false [temporary] vacuum...the old 'Mexican hat' energy density profile.

Sidney Coleman's 1977 paper THE FATE OF THE FALSE VACUUM describes "The process by which the Higgs fields of the false vacuum can tunnel thorugh the energy barrier..and Coleman's work was a big help to Guth.

Voila: when you know the physical characteristics required, you can invent mathematics to produce them and glue them into whatever model you'd like. It's not like all this stuff is available via first principles. How could Higgs fields, if they exist at all[+], not be related to gravity when both a related to mass.....but that link apparently remains a mystery as already noted in a prior post.

# Guth points out what he thought he 'discovered' about inflation turned out to be in a 1925 Lemaitre paper from MIT that he knew nothing about....the de Sitter solution to Einstein's field equations....but apparently Guth coined the term INFLATION as part of his research.

+ I am referring to the existence of multiple Higgs fields not whatever might have be identifiey at CERN....

WaveHarmony

I agree that General Relativity doesn't predict the mass of the electron but it is the nature of the property mass that I am trying to focus on. If we perform a measurement of mass by experiment we are measuring the inertial or gravitational mass and the underlying theory that applies to these measurements is general relativity. So what we experience as mass is described by GR.

From a GR perspective when asked how does an electron curve spacetime we would naturally look to the structure of the electron for an explanation rather than an external agency such as a Higgs field that gives it mass.

The fundamental theories of physics seem to operate in their own separate compartments. General Relativity, the standard model, quantum theory, string theory all seem to have a different underlying world view. For the standard model, the elecron is an elementary particle so we don't ask about its structure. In quantum theory (copenhagen interpretation) the electron doesn't exist between emission and observation. String theory would describe the electron as a string but without any explanation of what a string is made of.

Each theory has grown up from mathematical models which correlate with observation and experiment but there does seem to be a need for fundamental examination of basic physics to develop a coherent physical world view in a top down way rather than starting from the maths. The theories are clearly correct in their own sphere of applicability but there is a need for unification.
WaveHarmony

daumphys

Higgs field can explain time dilation near light speed C?
It is Relativity theory area?

Mark M

No, it has no relevance to special relativity. Lorentz transformations occur to preserve a constant speed of light in all inertial frames of reference.

WaveHarmony

In trying to understand the nature of mass and starting from the question 'How does an electron curve spacetime?' there is another area of physical theory which seems relevant. The relationship between the energy and frequency E=hf where E is the energy equivalent of the mass and h is planks constant. This frequency relates to the wave character of the electron as evidenced by interference experiments. This emphasises the wave character of the electron as opposed to the particle character emphasised in the standard model.

If the electron is considered as a wavelike object in spacetime this would seem to fit better with the GR viewpoint than the Higgs field hypothesis.

WaveHarmony

WaveHarmony

We have seen how mass is handled differently by General Relativity as compared with the standard model of particle physics. I wanted to look at other physical attributes that are treated differently such as force. In the standard model the nuclear forces are explained by particle exchange. In general relativity the gravitational force arises as a result of spacetime curvature but we can also consider in GR that forces arise due to comparitive differences in energy. The apple falls to the ground to achieve a lower energy state. This approach borrowed from GR of considering forces as arising from differences in energy could well be applied to nuclear forces. In this case the mass deficit in the nucleus can also be seen as an energy deficit thus explaining the strong nuclear force without the need for particle exchanges.

WaveHarmony

Drakkith

I don't believe energy is well defined in GR, so I don't think you could do such a thing.

WaveHarmony

I took a look at the wikipedia entry for General Relativity and under the section titled Einsteins equations, it talks about the energy-momentum tensor and so energy seems to be a fundamental part of GR theory.

I think it is also useful to consider the concept of irreducible physical properties. The idea is to find a set of physical properties which is the minimum needed to describe all of physics. So for example we can say in GR that mass is not irreducible because it can be reduced to energy. We can also say that a field can be considered as a three dimensional map of directional forces. So for example an electrostatic field is a map of electrostatic forces. Now if force can be show to depend on differences in energy, we have reduced the set of all physical properties to energy, momentum and spacetime coordinates. This approach suggests that we need to consider the electrostatic force as a difference in energy which applies for example when two electrons are in proximity. If the electrons move apart the energy is lowered. Also we need to consider electromagnetic waves (e.g. light) as an electromagnetic field with an underlying cause since we are considering field to be reducible.

Looking at the same issue from a standard model perspective, we can again say that mass is a reducible property because it depends on the Higgs field. Should we consider the Higgs field irreducible or does it have an underlying cause? As I understand it the Higgs field is caused by the Higgs boson. Also the concept of a force in the standard model is based on particle exchange. Particles themselves can be considered as irreducible in the standard model? Perhaps someone could help me apply the concept of irreducible physical properties to the standard model.

WaveHarmony

Naty1

It's called THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING which would unite gravity with a GUT theory of particle physics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

WaveHarmony

I looked at the Theory of Everything entry in Wikipedia and in the section Modern physics it states that 'A Theory of Everthing would unite all the fundamental interactions of nature: gravitation, strong interaction, weak interaction and electromagnetism.'

In my previous post I suggested that all of these interactions can be considered as due to energy differences if we adopt the GR viewpoint. The standard model approach would be to attempt to extend the standard model to include some kind of gravitational particle (graviton). My point is that before any theory of everything is constructed we have to construct a descriptive narrative or physical world view to set any mathematical analysis in context.

When we did physics and maths at school any problem to be solved had a clear descriptive context within which the mathematical analysis would be completed. We have lost this clarity in modern physics by having so many different competing world views.

WaveHarmony

WaveHarmony

The above quote was received by email but doesn't seem to be in the thread.

What I feel is that we have to find a solution and not just accept that the competing worldviews are incompatible. Physics takes place in spacetime and it doesn't make sense that there should be several different and incompatible physical worldviews. The unification of physics is a very worthwhile goal and my point is that the starting point should be at the descriptive level.

I am convinced that if we could get clarity and consistency at the descriptive level then the unification of the laws of physics will not be difficult. As a starting point it is questions such as the nature of mass and the choice of fundamental physical properties (momentum, energy, spacetime) which need to be clarified and agreed.

WaveHarmony

haael

Despite I believe that GR is the proper way to unify physics, we can not stick to the particular mathematical formulation GR was written in. The unified theory may need some different mathematical objects.

The most general framework that we write our physical theories with is in fact Lagrange/Hamilton formalism.

WaveHarmony

Hello Haeel,

This is an important point of agreement, that the GR world view is the best starting point for the unification of physics. As I understand it the Lagrange/Hamiltonian formalism does deal with Energy/Momentum in spacetime so this would seem like a good approach.

What I wanted to discuss first was at the descriptive level. For example, to go back and look at the debates over the last 100 years concerning the interpretation of quantum theory and see if we can come up with an interpretation based on real physical waves in spacetime. This would be consistent with the GR view of the world in which spacetime has curvature and the potential to support wave trransmission of energy.

WaveHarmony

haael

But we can't say at this moment that the Universe looks like waves propagating over spacetime. This has yet to be proven. Our mathematical framework must allow both expressing that the world indeed does satisfy GR view, and that it does not.

There is no common picture of the world, since nothing is actually proven. If we confine ourselves to speak only in GR terms, we risk missing the possibility that the world is not like that.