High School What does the Higgs particle consist of?

[Serra Nova]

The Higgs particle that were discovered in 2012 - what is it build of?

 

[mfb]

It is an elementary particle. It is not made out of anything else.

 

[Drakkith]

As mfb said, it's a fundamental particle that isn't composed of anything else. This is just just like electrons, quarks, neutrinos, and other fundamental particles. None of them are composed of other things as far as we know.

 

[theoretical_p]

Higgs particle is massless and it gains mass through a process called Higgs process. Professor Peter Higgs got the idea of Higgs process through a very well known fact . That is .. Consider one of your favorite film star happened to pass by a public street . Then people i.e. his fans will gather around him (for autograph or to take a selfie with him). And the number of people will start to increase . From this Peter Higgs got the idea of higgs process and higgs boson. To understand the higgs process you can replace that film star alone by the higgs particle in the initial state. From this state the higgs particle gains mass(like people's gathering around the film star) by the higgs process. A lot of questions are still unanswered about this particle.

 

[mfb]

Higgs particle is massless and it gains mass through a process called Higgs process.

The Higgs has its own mass independent of the Higgs mechanism. This is unique to the Higgs (maybe apart from neutrinos).

Professor Peter Higgs got the idea of Higgs process through a very well known fact . That is .. Consider one of your favorite film star happened to pass by a public street . Then people i.e. his fans will gather around him (for autograph or to take a selfie with him). And the number of people will start to increase . From this Peter Higgs got the idea of higgs process and higgs boson.

No, this poor analogy to describe the mathematics was invented later. It had nothing to do with the original idea of the Higgs mechanism.

 

[ChrisVer]

1. The Higgs particle is not composed of anything at our current understanding. Of course there are theories which still persist in making Higgs a composite particle (such as Technicolor descendants) but they are not verified to any extend.
2. Historically I think, the whole idea of symmetry breaking came from the theory of magnetism/superconductors (the well known thing that the symmetry of random alignment of spins can be broken to a preferred direction if you place them in a magnetic field)... The tool was there and applied to SM as well.. it was some people who proposed that the extra fields you get were physical fields (aka Higgs Boson).

 

[Serra Nova]

As mfb said, it's a fundamental particle that isn't composed of anything else. This is just just like electrons, quarks, neutrinos, and other fundamental particles. None of them are composed of other things as far as we know.

I've read that quarks are composed of up, down and charm quarks. On a very small scale, they might not be elementary..

 

[phinds]

I've read that quarks are composed of up, down and charm quarks. On a very small scale, they might not be elementary..

You misunderstand. Those are not composite elements of quarks, they are TYPES of quarks.

 

[Serra Nova]

You misunderstand. Those are not composite elements of quarks, they are TYPES of quarks.

I see. Thank you for correcting me.

 

[mfb]

Protons and neutrons are composed of up and down quarks, but these quarks are elementary, as phinds said.

There are six types of quarks - up, down, charm, strange, top, bottom. Only the first two play a role in matter around us.

 

[theoretical_p]

@phinds , they are called flavours rather than 'types' of quarks.

 

[mfb]

@phinds , they are called flavours rather than 'types' of quarks.

Types of quarks is perfectly fine, especially if you are not talking to experts.

 

[DanMP]

I read in Wikipedia that:

In the Standard Model, the Higgs particle is a boson with spin zero, no electric charge and no colour charge. It is also very unstable, decaying into other particles almost immediately.

If the Higgs particle decays, it doesn't mean that it is made of something smaller?

 

[Feeble Wonk]

I read in Wikipedia that:

In the Standard Model, the Higgs particle is a boson with spin zero, no electric charge and no colour charge. It is also very unstable, decaying into other particles almost immediately.

If the Higgs particle decays, it doesn't mean that it is made of something smaller?

Good question Dan.
https://home.cern/about/updates/2013/11/atlas-sees-higgs-boson-decay-fermions
This article explains the decay, but I’d appreciate an explanation from one of the physicists as how the Higgs boson can still be categorized as a elemental particle despite this process.

 

[Drakkith]

Well, consider the annihilation of an electron and a positron (anti-electron) to produce two gamma rays. Doesn't this mean that electrons are composed of gamma ray photons? Turns out that no, it doesn't. Particles can decay into other particles without needing to be composed of anything. You can think of it more like a transformation of one particle into something else, or a conversion of that particle's energy into another form.

 

[ChrisVer]

it doesn't mean that it is made of something smaller?

No. Particles are not blocks of "things" that [when decaying] break down to their constituents. Also the idea of smaller doesn't make sense for objects that are considered point-like. What happens resembles more a transition.

 

[Feeble Wonk]

Well, consider the annihilation of an electron and a positron (anti-electron) to produce two gamma rays. Doesn't this mean that electrons are composed of gamma ray photons? Turns out that no, it doesn't. Particles can decay into other particles without needing to be composed of anything. You can think of it more like a transformation of one particle into something else, or a conversion of that particle's energy into another form.

Interesting. But this example considers an annihilation event where in two fermions release energy in the form of bosons. The Higgs decay results in the formation of two fermions. It seems different. I recognize that’s more or less a reversal of the transformation you described, but it does seem different.

 

[Drakkith]

Interesting. But this example considers an annihilation event where in two fermions release energy in the form of bosons. The Higgs decay results in the formation of two fermions. It seems different. I recognize that’s more or less a reversal of the transformation you described, but it does seem different.

Two photons are only one possibility. You can get multiple photons or even neutrinos, though the latter is orders of magnitude less likely since that involves the weak interaction instead of the electromagnetic interaction. Increase the collision energy and you can produce B-mesons (bosons, but composed of quarks, which are fermions).

Smash any two particles together and you can get any particle you like. Bosons, fermions, top quarks, positrons, photons, etc. The idea is that particles can undergo an interaction which changes them into something else. The exact collection particles produced by this interaction depend mostly on the available energy and various conservation laws. Electron-positron annihilation usually produces two photons because their combined energy isn't enough to produce much of anything else unless you use a particle accelerator to increase the collision energy.

 

[mfb]

Interesting. But this example considers an annihilation event where in two fermions release energy in the form of bosons. The Higgs decay results in the formation of two fermions. It seems different. I recognize that’s more or less a reversal of the transformation you described, but it does seem different.

The Higgs can decay to various particles. As an example, it can decay to two photons, or one photon and one Z, both are bosons. In all cases the Higgs stops existing and the decay products start existing.

 

[rootone]

Is it possible that other stuff could be smashed together in the right way and produce a Higgs though?.

 

[phinds]

Is it possible that other stuff could be smashed together in the right way and produce a Higgs though?.

I believe that is in fact exactly how the Higgs was detected at the LHC. They weren't waiting around hoping a Higgs would wander in from space, they were smashing zillions of particles together and hoping a Higgs would pop out and eventually it did. Very rare though, apparently, at the energies currently available.

 

[rootone]

Ah, well we won't be using that technology for the next generation of cars then.

 

[mfb]

Is it possible that other stuff could be smashed together in the right way and produce a Higgs though?.

That's what the LHC is doing.

An electron-positron collider could produce it as well, but it is more difficult to get enough energy there. A hypothetical muon collider could produce it. In principle an electron-proton collider can do so as well, and every other combination can produce a Higgs once in a while, too.

 

[rootone]

Muon collider.
You got my vote.

 

[DanMP]

... this mean that electrons are composed of gamma ray photons?...

No, but it may mean that the photons are made from (part of) "the stuff" present in the electrons ...

It is impossible for particles to be made from some same/similar stuff and, when they decay/collide, that stuff to form other particles?

You wrote that it's like the energy of the particle is converted into another form, but energy and mass are related, so why is impossible to have something material inside the particles, something that can be converted into something else?

 

[Drakkith]

No, but it may mean that the photons are made from (part of) "the stuff" present in the electrons ...

It is impossible for particles to be made from some same/similar stuff and, when they decay/collide, that stuff to form other particles?

You wrote that it's like the energy of the particle is converted into another form, but energy and mass are related, so why is impossible to have something material inside the particles, something that can be converted into something else?

To be made up of something implies some sort of substructure. Composite objects are always formed from smaller particles, which are themselves composed of smaller particles, all the way down to the elementary particles. But for elementary particles like the electron, we can find no substructure. There has been no indication that they are composed of any smaller particle. And if you want to say they might be made up of some sort of non-particle material, you might as well say they are made of energy since energy already fits this description well enough.

Also, given that two particles under enormous collision energies produce all sorts of other particles, it makes more sense to me to say that energy is converted to other forms (other particles) instead of inventing an unobserved substructure and attributing some of this particle production to that substructure being changed. Why do all that when you already have an explanation that fits the observations and calculations perfectly well and have nothing showing it's incorrect?

That doesn't mean that what you suggest is impossible, it just means that it makes things more complicated than necessary and adds nothing of value to our current description.

 

[mfb]

No, but it may mean that the photons are made from (part of) "the stuff" present in the electrons ...

In this case photons would have to have mass. They do not.

There are extremely accurate measurements that all confirm that our elementary particles are indeed elementary. The most prominent example is the electron g-factor. For elementary electrons we can predict it, while for composite particles it can be anything in a range of something like -10 to +10.

The theoretical prediction:
2.002 319 304 362 (where the last digit is uncertain).
The experimental result:
2.002 319 304 361 (where the last digit is certain)

A 1 part in a trillion measurement. It would be extremely odd if this is just a random occurrence.

 

[jtbell]

If the Higgs particle decays, it doesn't mean that it is made of something smaller?

A muon decays into an electron, a muon-neutrino, and an electron-antineutrino. That doesn't mean that a muon is made of those particles, or that they share smaller constituents. In fact, a muon is (as far as we know) just as "elementary" and "pointlike" as an electron, or a neutrino, or an antineutrino.

 

[DanMP]

To be made up of something implies some sort of substructure. Composite objects are always formed from smaller particles, which are themselves composed of smaller particles, all the way down to the elementary particles. But for elementary particles like the electron, we can find no substructure. There has been no indication that they are composed of any smaller particle. And if you want to say they might be made up of some sort of non-particle material, you might as well say they are made of energy since energy already fits this description well enough.

Also, given that two particles under enormous collision energies produce all sorts of other particles, it makes more sense to me to say that energy is converted to other forms (other particles) instead of inventing an unobserved substructure and attributing some of this particle production to that substructure being changed. Why do all that when you already have an explanation that fits the observations and calculations perfectly well and have nothing showing it's incorrect?

That doesn't mean that what you suggest is impossible, it just means that it makes things more complicated than necessary and adds nothing of value to our current description.

Imagine a concrete ball. That ball is not sand, nor gravel, nor water, it is something made from those ingredients (and more), but different ... and also a whole, not a system with moving parts (at least apparently). If you smash it, you obtain different pieces, with different shapes and proprieties (cutting edges, not rolling, etc.). Two or more smashed/crushed balls can be used to form a new concrete thing, maybe a cube. This is an analogy of what I meant with the "same stuff" as common ingredient for all "fundamental" particles.

I'm not very happy with the idea that "they are made of energy". This is too abstract. I remember reading that particles are in fact field excitations, not really particles. This means that the Higgs particle is an excitation in the Higgs field? And this excitation (wave, energy?) decays/splits in 2 or more excitations in other field(s)? How you digest this? I can't.

I have more (and solid) reasons to ask and think about this new, lower level in the structure of matter and about the Higgs boson composition/formation in particular, but I'm not allowed to explain (personal ideas/theories are banned). All I can (and want to) say is that my reasons and my main theory are related with something we (you) don't yet understand, dark matter/energy, so it may add something of value to our current description of the Universe.

I am happy with the last underlined comment in your post :) Thank you for that (and for all the rest).

 

[phinds]

This is an analogy of what I meant with the "same stuff" as common ingredient for all "fundamental" particles.

It's not clear but you seem to have still not gotten it that there IS NO "stuff" in fundamental particles. That's why they are called fundamental (actually elementary)