- #1
bobneurone
- 6
- 0
After having read a number of articles about the potential discovery of the Higgs boson at CERN, I am wondering how the "mass effect" generation by the Higgs mechanism can coexist with gravitation as gravitation has been since Newton tightly coupled with the concept of mass.
I develop below the causes of my interrogations. I have not the theoretical background about the standard model (electroweak, + strong force), but gravitation from what I know is not part of the standard model while the Higgs is. My starting observation here is that the unique link between gravitation and standard model is the "concept of mass".
The Higgs boson is said to "enable" the mass of particules through the Higgs field. To illustrate the Higgs mechanism, some physicists use analogies with the macroscopic world. For instance they speak about a cocktail room filled with Higgs guests. When an unkown person enters the and go through the room, he can go fast since he does not interact with Higgs guest who don't know him at all... If a well known "people" enters and wants to cross, agglutination of higgs guests around him will slow him down a lot. Thus coupling to Higgs could be seen as mass or at least inertia.
An other analogy I have heard is a swimming pool and how a human and a fish can swim more or less easily, the human profile is not well suited to moving in water while the fish shape allows a much higher performance. the difference sits in the coupling with environment (higgs guests or water pressure). To summarize, analogies mean that weak coupling to higgs result in low mass while high coupling to higgs result in high mass.
But the point here is that mass is no longer an intrinsic scalar property of particles, instead mass or better say the mass effect results from coupling to Higgs. If we assume the above as true, mass is no longer a property of particle, but physics still stays with the gravitation force. While the above analogies, use both dynamics (or the difficulty to move, what I refer to the "mass effect" or inertia) to illustrate the Higgs mechanism, the gravitation field exists in static conditions. Two masses even at rest relatively to each other are subject to gravitational attraction. So the analogies used above are far incomplete when it comes to explain gravitation which indeed seems to result of an intrinsic property of matter.
So on one hand we have the standard model enabling a "mass effect" of particles through the Higgs field and on the other hand we have an other interaction between massive particles through gravitation. But the standard model would remove the intrinsic scalar mass of particles while gravitation is directly genereted by mass of particles. There seems to be a contradiction here. How can intrinsically massless objects (only a mass effect exists according to Higgs) can interact through gravitation which is directly proportional to objects mass. An option is to consider the Higgs mechanism not only the cause of the "mass effect" or inertia but also directly (or indirectly?) the cause of gravitation.
Thanks in advance to some physicists if you could elaborate on my questions and/or raise some contradictions in my development.
I develop below the causes of my interrogations. I have not the theoretical background about the standard model (electroweak, + strong force), but gravitation from what I know is not part of the standard model while the Higgs is. My starting observation here is that the unique link between gravitation and standard model is the "concept of mass".
The Higgs boson is said to "enable" the mass of particules through the Higgs field. To illustrate the Higgs mechanism, some physicists use analogies with the macroscopic world. For instance they speak about a cocktail room filled with Higgs guests. When an unkown person enters the and go through the room, he can go fast since he does not interact with Higgs guest who don't know him at all... If a well known "people" enters and wants to cross, agglutination of higgs guests around him will slow him down a lot. Thus coupling to Higgs could be seen as mass or at least inertia.
An other analogy I have heard is a swimming pool and how a human and a fish can swim more or less easily, the human profile is not well suited to moving in water while the fish shape allows a much higher performance. the difference sits in the coupling with environment (higgs guests or water pressure). To summarize, analogies mean that weak coupling to higgs result in low mass while high coupling to higgs result in high mass.
But the point here is that mass is no longer an intrinsic scalar property of particles, instead mass or better say the mass effect results from coupling to Higgs. If we assume the above as true, mass is no longer a property of particle, but physics still stays with the gravitation force. While the above analogies, use both dynamics (or the difficulty to move, what I refer to the "mass effect" or inertia) to illustrate the Higgs mechanism, the gravitation field exists in static conditions. Two masses even at rest relatively to each other are subject to gravitational attraction. So the analogies used above are far incomplete when it comes to explain gravitation which indeed seems to result of an intrinsic property of matter.
So on one hand we have the standard model enabling a "mass effect" of particles through the Higgs field and on the other hand we have an other interaction between massive particles through gravitation. But the standard model would remove the intrinsic scalar mass of particles while gravitation is directly genereted by mass of particles. There seems to be a contradiction here. How can intrinsically massless objects (only a mass effect exists according to Higgs) can interact through gravitation which is directly proportional to objects mass. An option is to consider the Higgs mechanism not only the cause of the "mass effect" or inertia but also directly (or indirectly?) the cause of gravitation.
Thanks in advance to some physicists if you could elaborate on my questions and/or raise some contradictions in my development.
Last edited: