Is a Higgs Force the Key to Understanding a 5th Fundamental Force?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter 2sin54
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Force Higgs
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the nature of the Higgs boson and its role in particle interactions, specifically questioning whether it implies a fifth fundamental force. Participants clarify that the Higgs boson does not act as a force carrier but interacts with particles via electroweak interaction, providing mass through Yukawa-type interactions. The Higgs force is described as ultraweak and short-range, with a coupling constant of approximately 1/500,000 for electron interactions. Ultimately, the term "force" is deemed inappropriate for the weak interaction, which is better characterized as an interaction rather than a classical force.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum field theory
  • Familiarity with electroweak interaction
  • Knowledge of scattering theory and matrix elements
  • Basic concepts of particle physics, including bosons and fermions
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the role of the Higgs boson in particle mass generation
  • Study Yukawa interactions and their implications in particle physics
  • Explore the differences between fundamental forces and interactions in quantum mechanics
  • Learn about the electroweak theory and its significance in the Standard Model
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of particle physics, and anyone interested in the fundamental forces and interactions in the universe.

2sin54
Messages
109
Reaction score
1
Since Higgs boson is a boson and they are said to be the force carriers, wouldn't that imply that there's a new, 5th force?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Higgs boson doesn't carry any force. It is a particle interacting with other particles via electroweak interaction. It's job is to give other's particles mass thanks to this interaction.
 
Einj said:
Higgs boson doesn't carry any force. It is a particle interacting with other particles via electroweak interaction. It's job is to give other's particles mass thanks to this interaction.

Thank you. I guess i need to get it out of my head that bosons are only force carriers.
 
What do you mean by "force" exactly?

In the context of quantum field theory, especially scattering theory, one definition could be that a "force" causes particles in incoming states to interact such that there is a non-vanishing cross section (a matrix element) to find different particles (or the same particles but with different momentum vectors) in the outgoing states |X>. The in-state |A,B> with two particles A,B will not only result in the same out-state |A,B> but will in addition scatter (with some scattering cross section i.e. probability described by the matrix element) to other out-states |X> where X differes from A,B.

So one example could be |e-,e+> which scatters into
|e-,e+>
|2γ>
|2Z°>
...
|q,q-bar>
...
via the electro-weak "exchange force", where |q,q-bar> scatteres into hadronic final states via the strong interaction (of course there are many more possibilities).

If you use this as a "definition of an exchange force" then there are matrix elements where Higgs bosons (or a collection of exchange particles including the Higgs) are exchanged between ingoing particles causing scattering in different out-states.

In that sense there is a Higgs force!
 
Between fermions the Higgs induces a Yukawa-type interaction, which could be called a "force". But it is very short-range (125 GeV ≈ 0.001 fermi) and ultraweak. The coupling constant is m/v where m is the fermion mass and v is the Higgs vacuum strength, about 245 GeV. So for the "Higgs attraction" between two electrons the coupling constant is about 1/500,000. Let's see, the Bohr radius... :smile: (The constant is greater, of course for b-quarks, say.)

But I'd say while technically true, the term "force" here isn't useful. Calling something a force is appropriate in a situation where multiple bosons have an opportunity to act together to form a classical field, and one can talk about the potential energy, and take its gradient. True e.g. of the nuclear force, but not the weak force.
 
OK, if you define "force" as a collective, classical effect then the weak "force" is no force; that's why we call it "interaction" instead of "force"
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
8K