Higgs Field & Mass: Exploring the Interaction

[nikkkom]

http://profmattstrassler.com/articl...s-basics/how-the-higgs-field-works-with-math/

This article explains, *with math*, how exactly Higgs field (a scalar field with nonzero vev) gives mass to excitations (particles) of another field.

The math in this article is greatly simplified, but it is still better than attempts to "explain it in layman's terms" without math.

 

[TumblingDice]

Hello avito009,

I've been following this thread and would like to try to help. Some of what you've written is on the right track, yet it's mixed with misunderstandings. The mentors and members who've stressed that a deeper understanding of prerequisite physics topics is required to fully understand is true. Speaking for myself, perhaps they think of the 'cocktail party' analogy and how misleading it is when they offer this viewpoint.

I'm not an expert and can't explain the Higgs mechanism, but I think I can help to form a good foundation for future questions by offering my layman's explanation to establish some terminology and possibly remove the misconceptions. You've mentioned moving and motion, rest mass, and change in speed.

1) The first terminology I'll mention is an IRF (inertial reference frame). An IRF is a frame of reference that can either be described as "at rest" or "moving with a constant linear velocity". Simply put, it is not being acted upon by any forces that cause it to change direction or speed.

2) Rest mass is a specific term for the mass of an object as observed in its IRF. There are other flavors of 'mass', but they're not relevant to this discussion. In modern physics the term 'mass' is expected to refer to 'rest mass' unless otherwise noted. Mass is sometimes referred to as the resistance to change in motion. Ergo, measuring mass requires acceleration.

3) Acceleration is a change in velocity. As a vector, velocity has a rate (speed) and a direction. Acceleration can be measured when either the speed or direction of an object is changing.

Before proceeding, let's set aside any queries that you received asking about motion "relative to what?" This doesn't matter and might cause confusion.

I was saying "Just as it is hard to push a car to increase (or decrease) its speed because the car has a big mass, the more massive a particle the harder it is to CHANGE its speed."

This is on a good track. Changing speed is acceleration, and that is when mass raises its head.

Very early on I thought you had been looking at the "cocktail party" analogy which, as ChrisVer and mfb pointed out, these are inaccurate explanations.

the molasses analogy is not the description of what the Higgs field does.

I don't like the cocktail party analogy, because it gets the "velocity is not acceleration" part wrong.

"Moving" through the Higgs field is a poor analogy. I hope I'm following @mfb properly when he mentions "velocity is not acceleration". Acceleration is absolute and can always be measured (thanks to the Higgs mechanism).

Not to tangent - but only to explain an aspect of the equivalence of gravity and acceleration. On Earth the terms mass and weight are often used interchangeably. Yet weight is dependent on the strength of the gravitational field that's acting on the mass. We know the acceleration gravity causes here on Earth. The acceleration of an object due to Earth's gravity (at the surface) is 32 feet/sec/sec. Bathroom scales are calibrated to measure weight (mass) based on this value. If you tried weighing yourself in an elevator that was accelerating upward, the scale would measure incorrecty because of the additional acceleration.

I'm going to pause here to give you time to read, and the experts time to correct any mistakes! :)

 

[ChrisVer]

Mass is sometimes referred to as the resistance to change in motion.

That's the definition of inertial mass.

 

[TumblingDice]

That's the definition of inertial mass.

I gotcha' CV. Inertial framing is what I thought would help to establish a basis to build on. Thank you for helping me with the appropriate terminology. Does this mean you were "mostly OK" with the rest of my post? Thanks again!