Weak fields, higgs fields... forces

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of fields in physics, specifically contrasting the weak field and the Higgs field, and exploring what qualifies a field as a force of nature. Participants delve into concepts related to gauge fields, quantum vacuum, and interactions within the Standard Model, addressing both theoretical and conceptual aspects.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question why the weak field is considered a force of nature while the Higgs field is not, seeking criteria for categorizing fields as forces.
  • It is proposed that "forces of nature" in popular literature refer to gauge fields, which are linked to fundamental symmetries, while the Higgs field breaks some of these symmetries.
  • Participants discuss whether all fields are part of the quantum vacuum, with some suggesting that the gravitational field may not fit this categorization.
  • There is a debate about the nature of the quantum vacuum and whether it can be considered the source of quantum fields, with differing views on the usefulness of such characterizations.
  • Some participants assert that fields simply exist and are not produced by anything, challenging the notion of the vacuum as a source.
  • Clarifications are made regarding the relationship between quantum fields and forces of nature, with mentions of particles associated with these fields.
  • One participant elaborates on the interactions within the Standard Model, suggesting that there are more interactions than commonly recognized, including those involving the Higgs field.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the categorization of fields, the nature of the quantum vacuum, and the interactions within the Standard Model. No consensus is reached on these topics, and multiple competing perspectives remain.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in the discussion include unresolved definitions of the quantum vacuum, the status of gravitational fields in relation to quantum fields, and the complexity of interactions within the Standard Model. Participants acknowledge that quantizing gravity is still an open question.

bluecap
Messages
395
Reaction score
13
Why is the weak field a force of nature.. while the higgs field is not a force of nature.. what is the signature or things to look for before a field can be considered as a force of nature?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What is referred to as "forces of nature" in popular litterature are gauge fields. These fields relate to fundamental symmetries of the theory. The Higgs field is not s gauge field. In fact, it breaks some of the mentioned symmetries, which is the reason the W and Z have mass. After symmetry breaking, three of four degrees of freedom in the Higgs field are eaten by the W and Z whfn they become massive. In some sense, the Higgs field therefore is part of the weak force.
 
Orodruin said:
What is referred to as "forces of nature" in popular litterature are gauge fields. These fields relate to fundamental symmetries of the theory. The Higgs field is not s gauge field. In fact, it breaks some of the mentioned symmetries, which is the reason the W and Z have mass. After symmetry breaking, three of four degrees of freedom in the Higgs field are eaten by the W and Z whfn they become massive. In some sense, the Higgs field therefore is part of the weak force.

Are 100% of fields part of the quantum vacuum (or since the quantum vacuum is one which has the lowest (energetic) ground state.. should the question instead be "are 100% of fields part of the quantum field?)? But gravitational field doesn't appear to be part of the quantum vacuum (or quantum field?). Are there other fields not part of the quantum vacuum (fields?)?
 
bluecap said:
Are 100% of fields part of the quantum vacuum
What do you mean by "part of the quantum vacuum"? All fields have a value everywhere in the vacuum, typically zero (that's the point of having a vacuum), the Higgs field is an exception.

We don't know how to quantize gravity properly yet, and the existing approaches would be beyond the scope of this thread I think.
 
mfb said:
What do you mean by "part of the quantum vacuum"? All fields have a value everywhere in the vacuum, typically zero (that's the point of having a vacuum), the Higgs field is an exception.

We don't know how to quantize gravity properly yet, and the existing approaches would be beyond the scope of this thread I think.

Ok. Are all kinds of quantum fields related to the forces of nature? (Orodruin stated the higgs field is part of the weak force)
Are there any quantum fields that are not related to the forces of nature?
 
bluecap said:
Are all kinds of quantum fields related to the forces of nature?
Most of them are related to what we typically call particles: electrons, muons, tau, quarks and neutrinos.
 
mfb said:
What do you mean by "part of the quantum vacuum"? All fields have a value everywhere in the vacuum, typically zero (that's the point of having a vacuum), the Higgs field is an exception.

We don't know how to quantize gravity properly yet, and the existing approaches would be beyond the scope of this thread I think.

I know the Quantum Vacuum is the lowest energetic (ground) state of a quantum system
But is it right to say the Vacuum is the source of the quantum fields?
Isn't it the quantum fields is its own origin and there is no vacuum that produced it.
Then when many authors especially pop-sci authors state the vacuum produce the quantum fields.. then it is not exactly correct?
 
bluecap said:
But is it right to say the Vacuum is the source of the quantum fields?
I don't think that is a useful approach.
bluecap said:
Isn't it the quantum fields is its own origin and there is no vacuum that produced it.
I don't think that is useful either.

The fields just exist. They are not "produced" by anything.
 
mfb said:
I don't think that is a useful approach.I don't think that is useful either.

The fields just exist. They are not "produced" by anything.

Therefore what I mentioned is right that "quantum fields is its own origin and there is no vacuum that produced it". Why do you say the statement is not useful either?
 
  • #10
"is its own origin" looks like something would produce something.
 
  • #11
mfb said:
What do you mean by "part of the quantum vacuum"? All fields have a value everywhere in the vacuum, typically zero (that's the point of having a vacuum), the Higgs field is an exception.

We don't know how to quantize gravity properly yet, and the existing approaches would be beyond the scope of this thread I think.

In the above, why did you mention "All fields have a value everywhere in the vacuum".. isn't it "vacuum" has no place in quantum field theory.. there are only quantum fields and quantum vacuum is just the ground state of it.. there is really no "vacuum". What is the correct usage of the word "vacuum" in QFT (if it's valid at all).
 
  • #12
There is spacetime with fields in it. If all those fields are in the lowest energy state, we call this vacuum. You can call it "quantum vacuum" if you want to highlight that you work with quantum field theory, but it is the same vacuum as in classical mechanics, it is just described with different concepts.
 
  • #13
mfb said:
There is spacetime with fields in it. If all those fields are in the lowest energy state, we call this vacuum. You can call it "quantum vacuum" if you want to highlight that you work with quantum field theory, but it is the same vacuum as in classical mechanics, it is just described with different concepts.

But classical mechanics are just coarse graining of quantum reality. So how could there still be classical mechanics like the vacuum. In the universe, there are only quantum fields and general relativitistic geometry. Nothing else. So how could one still mention about classical mechanics in a QFT Universe?
 
  • #14
bluecap said:
Why is the weak field a force of nature.. while the higgs field is not a force of nature..

The commonly said phrase about "four fundamental interactions" (em, weak, strong, gravity)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction

needs some clarification. For one, while Standard model does have strong force, there is no "fundamental EM interaction": electromagnetism is just a "fallout" of broken SU(2)*U(1). Thus, SM has three "forces", if we mean that by gauge fields: strong SU(3), weak isospin SU(2), and weak hypercharge U(1). Gravity is not explained by SM, but it clearly exists. So yes, four forces, but not ones commonly enumerated.

And then, there are in fact more interactions in SM. Higgs "gives mass to fermions". That's interaction. Not linked to a gauge field, but still, it is an interaction.

I would say each non-self-interacting term (i.e. a term with more than one field) in the Lagrangian is an interaction. Apart from three interaction terms for the above mentioned interactions of gauge fields with fermions, there are W*phi and B*phi terms for weak isospin and weak hypercharge fields interacting with Higgs field (since Higgs is not a fermion, these terms look different and I think this means it's a different interaction). And lastly, Yukawa interaction terms ("Higgs gives mass to fermions"), fermions*phi.

Thus, SM has six interactions. Plus gravity, it makes seven.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Undergrad Does the Higgs Field Consist of Higgs Bosons?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
High School Why is the Higgs boson considered a boson?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Undergrad How does the strong force give nucleons most of their mass?
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
High School Why is the Higgs not considered 'a 5th force'?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad Why is the Weak Force Considered Weak Despite the High Mass of the W Boson?
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
5K
High School Are real theories undiscoverable from effective field theories?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Graduate Higgs field was zero right after Big Bang, could it return to zero?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
High School Why Photon & Gluon are Exceptions from Higgs Field
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
Undergrad Questions about the Higgs Field
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Undergrad Is mass of top quark based solely on the Higgs field?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K