Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Are there anti-higgs particles?

  1. Feb 24, 2004 #1
    If gravity is a relativistic effect, and a cause of the speed of particles, shouldn't there be particles smaller than higgsparticles, that repell eachother through gravity. Maybe thats the dark matter in the universe. If there are such particles, it's much possible that there are anti-higgsparticles aswell. What do you think?
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 25, 2004 #2


    User Avatar

    1. Dark matter is attractive
    2. The cosmological constant is not antigravity
    3. Higgs particles have not themselves been detected yet
    4. Nothing currently neccessitates the invention of such further particles. There may be such particles, and there may be not, but the present goal of physics is to minimise the number of fairies, not to see how many more we can squeeze in there.
  4. Feb 25, 2004 #3
    Re: Anti-higgsparticles

    Gravity is "caused" by curvature of spacetime, and has nothing to do with the speed of particles.
  5. Feb 26, 2004 #4
    That's not really fact.

    Last edited: Feb 26, 2004
  6. Feb 26, 2004 #5
    The speeding of particles increases their virtual mass, also known as inertia. Speed up a particle really fast, and it has the inertial properties of an unmoving object at a higher mass. Therefore, gravity is not relativistic, even though the alleged gravitons can travel at the speed of light.

    Just my duo of pennies.
  7. Feb 26, 2004 #6
    Does a symmetrically spacetime-inverted Higgs potential suggest any applications?
  8. Feb 27, 2004 #7
    You don't know the meaning of the expression "a relativistic effect", Flas H.

    Einstein claimed it to be, though he never left any proof for this.

    ((1-v2/c2)½ = s)

    D(vr) = ar - vr2/(c2s)
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2004
  9. Feb 27, 2004 #8
    -vr2/(c2s) = ?

    (delta X = x, pi = q)

    let the average speed of a particle be h/mx.

    The minimum speed of a particle is h/(4qmx)


    let m be the mass of average free particle here on planet earth (the atom mass divided with two).

    Also, let x be the atom radius, c:a 10-10 meters.
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2004
  10. Feb 27, 2004 #9
    You seem to be missing a fine point as well. "Relativistic" doesn't exclusively imply "special relativistic". Gravity is relativistic in the sense that it is described by the theory of general relativity, as opposed to Newtonian theory. Relativistic doesn't strictly imply veolcity.
  11. Feb 28, 2004 #10
    Gravity is a relativistic effect like in the way magnetism is a relativistic effect.

    If not, what's -vr2/(c2s) then?

    h / 4qmx = vmin

    m = the average mass for a particle not held together with another particle through the strong force. let's say matom/2.

    Let x be the atom radius ra.

    From this equation I get about G/158 = G/16q2.

    That's because vmin2 << vaverage2. 158 times actually. that's 16*q2.

    MmG/r2 = F.
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2004
  12. Feb 28, 2004 #11
    Not really.

    I'm not sure. What is it? Relativistic effects introduced by GR involve mass and coordinate radius, not velocity.

    I'm not really sure I follow what you did, but the fact that you end up deriving Newtonian gravity in an argument that's supposed to be about general relativity is telling of something.
  13. Feb 28, 2004 #12
  14. Feb 28, 2004 #13
    That made even less sense. And please edit your post so you attribute only my quotes to me, and not your whole reply.
  15. Feb 28, 2004 #14
    I don't understand anything of what your saying.

    h/4qma/2*ra = plank's constant divided with four times 3.1415... times the atom mass divided with two times the atom radius = vmin for the average free particle.

    this is put into the second term of the derivata of vr (that's the relativistic speed).

  16. Feb 28, 2004 #15
    No, I don't 'comprende'. I have absolutely no clue what you're trying to say. What do atomic radii have to do with free particles? If you have an expression with atomic radii, chances are you're talking about bound systems, which are not free particles. You are absolutely not making any sense, and as far as I'm concerned are just spewing out arbitrary equations without concern of whether they're classical, quantum mechanical, or relativistic.

    If you can present your argument in a coherent fashion, and preferably use the LaTeX formatting features for your equtions, then people might be able to follow what you're saying.
  17. Feb 28, 2004 #16
    Anti higgs particles would explain the properties of exotic matter, since there would be smaller particles then the higgsparticles.

    Your theory might or might not work. I think not.
    Last edited: Feb 29, 2004
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Are there anti-higgs particles?
  1. Higgs particles? (Replies: 2)

  2. E=mc2 and anti-particles (Replies: 10)