Could the Higgs Boson Actually Be a Wave Instead of a Particle?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the nature of the Higgs boson, specifically whether it should be considered a particle or a wave. Participants explore concepts related to wave-particle duality, detection methods, and the implications of quantum field theory. The conversation includes both theoretical and conceptual aspects.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the necessity of classifying the Higgs boson strictly as a particle, suggesting it could also be a wave.
  • There is speculation that the difficulty in detecting the Higgs boson may stem from the methods used, with suggestions to explore alternative approaches like splitting waves instead of colliding particles.
  • One participant mentions the concept of "electroweak symmetry breaking" as a focus of current research rather than the Higgs itself.
  • Wave-particle duality is discussed, with some participants asserting that all matter, including larger objects like molecules, exhibits both wave and particle characteristics.
  • There is a claim that the wave-particle duality explanation is outdated, with a shift towards understanding particles as excitations of fields in quantum field theory.
  • Some participants express confusion about the implications of wave-particle duality and its relevance to understanding quantum mechanics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the nature of the Higgs boson and wave-particle duality, with no clear consensus reached. There are competing perspectives on the relevance and interpretation of wave-particle duality in modern physics.

Contextual Notes

Some discussions highlight limitations in understanding wave-particle duality and its implications, as well as the potential confusion it causes for newcomers to the topic. The conversation also touches on the historical context of quantum mechanics and the evolution of theoretical frameworks.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring quantum mechanics, particle physics, and the philosophical implications of wave-particle duality, as well as individuals seeking to understand the current debates in theoretical physics.

SpecialKM
Messages
49
Reaction score
0
Why must it be a particle? I mean, if sub-atomic particles act as a wave and a particle why can't the higgs? Maybe the only reason we can't detect it is because we're looking for the particle and not the wave? Can someone please elaborate on this.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
SpecialKM said:
Why must it be a particle? I mean, if sub-atomic particles act as a wave and a particle why can't the higgs? Maybe the only reason we can't detect it is because we're looking for the particle and not the wave?

Now c'mon, be honest. Do you really think physicists are THAT dumb? Really?

Zz.
 
Well...who knows. I mean, the gap for the higgs to actually exist is getting smaller and smaller. It begs the question if it really does exist and if it does what are we doing wrong in the detection of it?

Instead of smashing particles together, maybe split up the waves? All alternatives should be checked, no matter the absurdity, right?
 
SpecialKM said:
Well...who knows. I mean, the gap for the higgs to actually exist is getting smaller and smaller. It begs the question if it really does exist and if it does what are we doing wrong in the detection of it?

Instead of smashing particles together, maybe split up the waves? All alternatives should be checked, no matter the absurdity, right?

What is absurd is a suggestion based on ignorance.

What if I tell you that they are not looking for the Higgs, but rather an "electroweak symmetry breaking"? Would that ring a bell?

Zz.
 
Oh, okay now I learned something! Sorry for being ignorant, I just wanted to obtain some knowledge.
 
SpecialKM said:
Oh, okay now I learned something! Sorry for being ignorant, I just wanted to obtain some knowledge.

It isn't that you wanted to know something, it was the way you worded your "question" and then your response. If it had been something like "Are we looking for the higgs as a particle or a wave?", then there probably wouldn't been any problem and the wave-particle duality would have been explained to you.
 
Alright, I understand where I went wrong. I apologize.

Can you help me understand wave-particle duality please?
 
Last edited:
SpecialKM said:
Alright, I understand where I went wrong. I apologize.

Can you help me understand wave-particle duality please?

Have you read anything up on it? If not, I recommend hitting up wikipedia first. Nearly any book on Quantum Physics should have this critical concept described in it as well. I cannot help you understand the concept as a whole, as the entire thing is very detailed, but I can answer specific questions or generalize some things.
 
Yes I have, just a little bit though. So wave-particle duality is basically any particle can behave as a wave or, a particle. Is this with only the really tiny sub-atomic particles or is this also true for relatively larger substances like atoms or molecules?
 
  • #10
SpecialKM said:
Yes I have, just a little bit though. So wave-particle duality is basically any particle can behave as a wave or, a particle. Is this with only the really tiny sub-atomic particles or is this also true for relatively larger substances like atoms or molecules?

Everything acts as BOTH a particle AND a wave. Even larger objects like molecules can be shown to interfere in a double slit experiment. Depending on how you observe an object, it can behave as a particle or a wave.
 
  • #11
Oh.. So the act of observing actually makes it a particle or a wave?
How would one control that? I mean if you observe, how can you produce a particle instead of a wave or vice versa?
 
  • #12
Wave-particle duality is old news. Its all just fields now. I don't understand why everyone sticks to this explanation even though its harder to understand.

QFT has already resolved the apparent paradox of wave-particle duality. Try this article:

Teaching Elementary Particle Physics Part I - Art Hobson (TPT)
http://physics.uark.edu/hobson/pubs/11.01TPT.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
Than you saim, I'll read that right now
 
  • #14
I don't know enough to say that the particle-wave duality is old news or anything, but I do know that it was explained to me that way when I first started reading up on it. Probably because we learn from the easy stuff to the advanced stuff, which tends to be the top-down approach. Start things off in the scale of things we can see and touch with everyday, and then move down from there into the QM scale.
 
  • #15
saim_ said:
Wave-particle duality is old news. Its all just fields now. I don't understand why everyone sticks to this explanation even though its harder to understand.

QFT has already resolved the apparent paradox of wave-particle duality. Try this article:

Teaching Elementary Particle Physics Part I - Art Hobson (TPT)
http://physics.uark.edu/hobson/pubs/11.01TPT.pdf

Not only that, we also had addressed this in the FAQ section of the General Physics forum. I truly wish we could make people read those FIRST before they make their first posts on here.

Zz.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #16
ZapperZ said:
Not only that, we also had addressed this in the FAQ section of the General Physics forum. I truly wish we could make people read those FIRST before they make their first posts on here.

Zz.

I saw the FAQ about light, but does that apply to everything or just light itself? I've never seen any serious discussion or explanations of normal matter not being a particle. But I am definitely not as knowledgeable as I wish I was in this area.
 
  • #17
I think it's high time to acknowledge that wave-particle duality is more confusing to newcomers than explicative. Particles are always particles! But, according to Quantum Mechanics, they obey an equation of motion that is similar to wave equations from Classical Physics.

The (probability) waves are called De Broglie waves for historic reasons, but De Broglie never actually comprehended the essence of his 'matter wave' hypothesis. It was Max Born who gave the correct probabilistic interpretation of the wave function.

In the limit when the De Broglie wavelength is much smaller than the linear dimensions over which the potential energy changes considerably, we can apply the geometric optics (technically called eikonal) approximation and obtain the laws of Classical mechanics for the motion of a particle.

Furthermore, even particles do not exist! They are simple excitations of a matter field that carry energy and momentum in space as a propagating particle does.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad New Constraints On The Higgs Boson Width
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
Graduate Branching ratios | Higgs phenomenology
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
Graduate Higgs Boson Confusion: Answers to Your Questions
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
Graduate Questions about the higgs boson.
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Graduate How many Higgs bosons have ever existed?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Graduate One quick question about Higgs boson and supersymmetry
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
Undergrad How Does Beta Decay Relate to the Role of W Bosons in Weak Nuclear Force?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
Graduate What Lies Beyond the Higgs Boson in Particle Physics?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
High School Higgs-Boson Particle Explained in Layman's Terms for Jonas
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Graduate Can we say the Higgs is 'the originator of Time'?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K