I've seen reference elsewhere that if a Higgs particle were too massive, then eventually once you had a Higgs created with sufficient energy, it's self interaction would cascade into an increasing set of massive Higgs spreading out at the speed of light. I have no idea if that analysis is...
OK. Now back to the topic at hand. We can take it, when we say Higgs field it is lorentz invariant. Now is it even reasonable to ask if it would also be invariant under GR transformations? If it is, this discussion might have merit to continue. If not, I agree with Bill_K's earlier...
I was reading through the wikipedia article on the Higgs mechanism. While it isn't the greatest source of information, it is sufficent to dispell most of my previous misconceptions... I would suggest reading it for anyone not versed on the Higgs but capable of following the math. I think it...
Bill_K, as a follow-up. Do you if the data from CERN does or will verify the Higgs field is a scalar field, uniform in space and time? If it isn't a scalar field uniform in space and time would the Higgs mechanism still work? Obviously, the actual interactions could happen, with a different...
I readily admit, I could be wrong. Could you elaborate as to why you believe it is false? I'll briefly elaborate as to why I believe it is true...
One can readily verify that magnetic fields and electric fields hold mass, energy, and momentum. The simpliest experment is to turn on an...
I would think it gives us some information. It tells us part of the mass, energy, and momentum is in the Higgs field. That is probably not sufficent understanding, but it is more than what was known before.
Yes. Is that too complicated for you? :) Let's say I tell you I baught something for $0.05. Do you have anyway of ever knowing I paid with 5 pennies, or a nickle if you cannot observe the actual transaction, just the results? It is not like you can count the number of photons in a cash...
Damn auto-correct...
I don't know how old you are. Perhaps the way they teach this is different now. Take any Feynman diagram with a photon. Replace that photon with a Z boson. Guess what? The it still is a possible interaction. So in those interactions the only thing that let's you...
Lets try and step back a bit. In classical electro-dynamics there is no need to ever mention a photon. The theory itself is complete as a description of electro-magnetic waves. The quantization of light as a photon is needed for particle physics, to merge E-M with quantum mechanics. One...
A charge is basically a coupling a scalar for the coupling constant with the interactions. e.g. A quark with 1/3 an electric charge couples to a photon 1/3 as strongly as an electron. In this case a "mass charge" would be a measurement of how strongly a particle couples to a Higgs particle...
No I stated GR implies that. The argument is just against putting words in my mouth. It is one thing to say it is reasonable to expect something. It is quite another to say that in turn is fact. Just like I might say I expect Apple to release a new version of the iPod touch this year...
Of course there is a reason not to say it. There is no evidence that GR applies at the quantum level. Being a source of gravition is not neccessarily same as saying curved space at a quantum level. We also cannot say what does contribute to gravity. We know form observations, that total...
Such an exact reply. You might want to next time state what you think is incorrect. As I take it when you say "None of that is true", you are saying everything in all the above posts are false.
So I can take you believe:
F!=GM1M2/r^2
Force of gravity without mass is not 0.
...