Higgs Field vs Fields Giving Rise to Virtual Particles

Islam Hassan
Messages
237
Reaction score
5
Is the field of the theorized Higgs particle totally distinct from those fields which give rise to fleeting virtual particles? Would the latter also have some kind of 'drag' effect on elementary particles like the Higgs is thought to do?

IH
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The Higgs particle is a scalar field which through the mechanism of spontaneous symmetry breaking allows other particles like gauge bosons to have masses. Gauge bosons show up due to required gauge symmetries of the lagrangian. What kind of distinction are you looking for?
 
Polyrhythmic said:
The Higgs particle is a scalar field which through the mechanism of spontaneous symmetry breaking allows other particles like gauge bosons to have masses. Gauge bosons show up due to required gauge symmetries of the lagrangian. What kind of distinction are you looking for?

Hmm...simply, are virtual particles produced (and instantaneously re-absorbed) by the vacuum generated by the Higgs particle's scalar field or by some other field of field theory? (Can such a question be posed in this way or not?)

IH
 
I don't think this makes sense, how would the Higgs field produce virtual particles?
 
"Is the field of the theorized Higgs particle totally distinct from those fields which give rise to fleeting virtual particles?"

most likely yes...I've never read of them being connected.

Try reading here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particles#Properties

The concept of virtual particles arises in the perturbation theory of quantum field theory, an approximation scheme in which interactions (essentially forces) between real particles are calculated in terms of exchanges of virtual particles. Any process involving virtual particles admits a schematic representation known as a Feynman diagram which facilitates the understanding of calculations.

On the other hand, I'd bet that all manifestations originate from a common source...mass,particles, force, energy,time,space...all are related in ways we don't fully understand. Seems like they were all "unified" just prior to and at the big bang..

For a bit more try here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_symmetry_breaking#Importance_within_the_standard_model
 
Toponium is a hadron which is the bound state of a valance top quark and a valance antitop quark. Oversimplified presentations often state that top quarks don't form hadrons, because they decay to bottom quarks extremely rapidly after they are created, leaving no time to form a hadron. And, the vast majority of the time, this is true. But, the lifetime of a top quark is only an average lifetime. Sometimes it decays faster and sometimes it decays slower. In the highly improbable case that...
I'm following this paper by Kitaev on SL(2,R) representations and I'm having a problem in the normalization of the continuous eigenfunctions (eqs. (67)-(70)), which satisfy \langle f_s | f_{s'} \rangle = \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) \, du. \tag{67} The singular contribution of the integral arises at the endpoint u=1 of the integral, and in the limit u \to 1, the function f_s(u) takes on the form f_s(u) \approx a_s (1-u)^{1/2 + i s} + a_s^* (1-u)^{1/2 - i s}. \tag{70}...

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
3K
Back
Top