TRACKING THE HIGGS: A reconstructed particle collision in the CMS detector of the LHC.
Image: CMS/CERN
-
Gravity's Engines
We’ve long understood black holes to be the points at which the universe as we know it comes to an end. Often billions of times more massive than the Sun, they...
Read More »
GENEVA—The two largest collaborations of physicists in history Tuesday presented intriguing but tentative clues to the existence of the Higgs boson, the elementary particle thought to endow ordinary matter with mass.
Representing the 6,000 physicists who work on two separate detectors at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), called CMS and ATLAS, two spokespersons said that both experiments seemed to agree, as both their data sets suggested that the Higgs has a mass close to that of about 125 hydrogen atoms. The LHC is an international facility hosted by CERN, the European particle physics laboratory outside Geneva.
"We are talking of intriguing, tantalizing hints," said CMS spokesperson Guido Tonelli, speaking to a room filled with dozens of journalists and TV crews. "It's not evidence."
The experiments, in which protons traveling at nearly the speed of light collide head-on, cannot directly detect the Higgs, because the boson would decay within a fraction of a nanosecond into other particles. Instead, physicists must search through the debris of many different types of particle decay to find precise combinations of by-products that the Higgs would produce—and different chains of particle decays may well have the same signatures. A particular combination that appears more often than expected from other, "background" processes may signal the presence of the Higgs. But if it does not appear often enough compared with the expected background, it could just be a statistical fluctuation. Today, neither CMS nor ATLAS could claim to have the "3-sigma" statistical significance needed to claim evidence for a new particle—let alone 5 sigma for the accepted standard to claim a discovery. (A 3-sigma result implies a fraction of a 1 percent chance of a statistical fluke.) Instead, so far each experiment could only claim a statistical significance of around 2 sigma.
Both the detectors and the LHC accelerator itself, however, have been performing better than expected; so all the ducks are now in a row for settling the question soon, according to the researchers. "The nice thing to know is that by the end of 2012—sooner if we are lucky—we should be able to say the final word," Fabiola Gianotti, the ATLAS spokesperson, said at the press conference.
"I find it fantastic that we have the first results on the search for the Higgs, but keep in mind that these are preliminary results. And keep in mind that we have small numbers," said CERN Director General Rolf-Dieter Heuer in summarizing presentations that both Tonelli and Gianotti gave during a CERN seminar earlier that day.
"I think the evidence is very encouraging, though it's still too early to be sure," comments Steven Weinberg, a leading theoretical physicist at the University of Texas at Austin and a winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics.
A generation of high-energy physicists came of age studying and testing the Standard Model of particle physics, a theory devised in the 1970s that has withstood all experimental challenges. One final piece is missing, though, and it is one without which the whole model could fall. Without the Higgs boson, physicists cannot explain how other particles have mass. The Higgs itself has mass, and going by exclusion, researchers from the LHC and from its predecessor particle colliders were able narrow down the range of its value to between 115 and 140 giga–electron volts, or GeV. (One GeV is roughly the mass of a hydrogen atom.)
Together, the LHC detectors have now reduced the allowed range further: Tonelli said that according to CMS data its mass cannot be greater than 127 GeV. That was not for lack of data—in fact, quite the opposite. "We were not able to exclude the range below 127 GeV because of excesses," or more of certain particle by-products than would be expected in the absence of the Higgs, he remarked during his seminar talk—which was an understated way of saying that the CMS experiment had actually seen hints of a Higgs existing and having a mass of 124 GeV or so. ATLAS saw excesses in a similar range of energies, although the graphs did not quite line up—the ATLAS data favor a Higgs around 126 GeV.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
64 Comments
Add CommentThey can legimately claim to have detected 5-sigma evidence for data consistent with anticlimax.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn assessing the situation, please keep these well-known shortcomings of the Standard Model of particle physics firmly in mind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. The Standard Model is primarily a heuristic model with 26-30 fundamental parameters that have to be “put in by hand”.
2. The Standard Model cannot predict the masses of the fundamental particles that make up all of the luminous matter that we can observe.
3. The Standard Model did not predict the existence of the dark matter that constitutes the overwhelming majority of matter in the cosmos. The Standard Model describes heuristically the "foam on top of the ocean".
4. The vacuum energy density crisis clearly suggests a fundamental flaw at the very heart of particle physics. The VED crisis involves the fact that the vacuum energy densities predicted or measured by particle physicists (microcosm) and cosmologists (macrocosm) differ by up to 120 orders of magnitude (roughly 1070 to 10120, depending on how one estimates the particle physics VED).
5. The Planck mass is highly unnatural, i.e., it bears no relation to any particle observed in nature, and calls into question the foundations of the quantum chromodynamics sector of the Standard Model.
6. Many of the key particles of the Standard Model have never been directly observed. Rather, their existence is inferred from secondary, or more likely, tertiary decay products. Quantum chromodynamics is entirely built on inference, conjecture and speculation. It is too complex for simple definitive predictions and testing.
RLO
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
Yawn. Wake me up when they really find something.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHello, I love science alot. I often go to youtube and watch lessons from MIT and other schools because it "blows my mind". I have something I dont understand. Can you help me to get a grasp on it?..The partical excelerator says it excelerates protons..How do they get a proton?? I mean..What I have learned about atoms is that protons are inside the atom. How is it posable for you to get the proton out of an atom by-itself and put it inside something? Believe me..I know I must sound very dumb..but if I didnt ask the questions I would never learn..THANKS GUYS!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's actually not that complicated. You use a strong electromagnetic field to strip the electrons off of hydrogen atoms & what you're left with is protons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpiritual mind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe new
summer is a
splendid idea
that appears
in the morning
with a delicate
thought.
Francesco Sinibaldi
cristinaak,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree, go back to sleep - there's nothing to worry your pretty little head about.
Take hydrogen and accelerate it to high enough energy, pass it through a carbon target to strip the electron off, you are left with a proton to accelerate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisrloldershaw,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's a lot of words to make no point.
Nicely written summary of the Standard Model's weaknesses, for us non-physicists. Thanks for posting!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome may call it the Bozo particle; stop clowning around; how about putting all that money and brain power to solve some REAL problems in the REAL, macro world. Poverty, disease, equality, the unconscionable disparities between rich and poor - how about bringing electricity to the one billion people who don't have it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWorld class embarrassment, not world-class research. It won't fill one single hungry mouth even once. It's not science, it's hubris.
rholdershaw made 5 or out of 6 points well by being a bombastic tool posting on the internet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe NY Times wrote a more informative article in less space which also happened to mention another team has 126 Gev at 2 sigma.
A Higgs-boson walks into a church, the priest stops it and says "we do not allow
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHiggs-boson in here!" to which the Higgs-boson replies "but you can't have mass
without me!
sure I can hear you all groan....I can also hear you all repeating my joke to at least one person
Agreed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is not correct to say that QCD is built entirely on inference, conjecture, and speculation. There is plenty of experimental evidence to support the idea that hadrons are composed of either 3 quarks or a quark plus an antiquark, that quarks are asymptotically confined, that the color force is mediated by 8 gluons, etc. etc. Your other points are well known and accepted. They do not invalidate the Standard Model. They simply indicate that there is more physics out there to be discovered. The Standard Model remains one of the most successful scientific theories ever, with a large number of confirmed predictions including the top and bottom quark and the W and Z bosons. The only remaining piece predicted but not yet confirmed is the Higgs boson, and if it is confirmed it will be a triumph for the theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo quote a reputedly wise man: "the poor you will always have with you". Doesn't mean you should stop spending money on finding out more about how our wonderful universe is put together.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps by 'wise' you meant 'rich' - feed the poor first then come back and talk about quantum fantasies. Food first, fantasy later. The rich depend on the poor, it helps them to define themselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just hope they don't break that darn thing, because then they will want to fix it with yet even more money. I do hope they make many serious donations to world charities to help feed the hungry.
All the Higgs boson enthusiasts out there should temper their expectations. This particle, if found, should flesh out the Standard Model, at this point a cosmic primer. It is only the first tiny step in investigating endoinfinity in which pure energy is on an electron volt continuum with what our feeble scientic instrumentation define as "matter." It's a misnomer to call the Higgs boson "The God Particle," since the real deal is the bipartite nature of pure energy that accounts for the Big Bang, visible matter, dark energy and matter, black holes and the final Omega implosion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually the quote is from Jesus, who wasn't rich, at least not in material terms.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI disagree strongly with the number 6 in the list. As would any reputable physicist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find it interesting how so many people bemoan how much money is "wasted" on large scale physics projects, or space exploration; yet none of you research the insane amounts spent on welfare. The money spent on space and particle physics, are a drop in the bucket in comparison.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe cost of constructing the CERN LHC was spent over 30 years, totalling $6.4 billion, or $214 million per year, which was spent by participating European countries, and the USA. See:
http://www.neatorama.com/2008/09/12/10-things-about-the-large-hadron-collider-you-wanted-to-know-but-were-afraid-to-ask/
The UK and the USA spend much more on welfare than on its military forces. See:
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_welfare_spending_40.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending
In terms of space exploration, for the USA, NASA patents and private space industry patents, have achieved a ROI of $8 going back into the US economy for every $1 spent. The annual NASA budget is $7 billion.
See:
http://www.freakonomics.com/2008/01/11/is-space-exploration-worth-the-cost-a-freakonomics-quorum/
So much more money is spent on feeding the poor than on major Science projects, that it is ridiculous to make such remarks. The amount of money spent on alcohol consumed in the USA or the UK, exceeds the amounts spent on NASA or the LHC. Inform yourself first.
Despite the limitations of the standard model you list, no one has yet been able to observe anything smaller than a galaxy that clearly deviates from standard model predictions (ok, you need to cobble on General relativity to handle gravity, but this partially inconsistent pair of theories handles just about everything when used carefully). There are many things that are theoretically unsatisfying about the standard model and your list focuses on these, but experimentally it is amazingly successful. There are a few hints of effects beyond the standard model like neutrino oscillations, but these are not inconsistent and are tiny effects. If they now find the Higgs particle at 125 GeV, the standard model will stand triumphant. Clearly there are fascinating issues yet to explore, but many of us have already concluded that the standard model plus general relativity is a good enough reductionist model for any practical concern of humans. Now to get about the really interesting business of figuring what our comprehensive understanding of basic physics implies about biology and ecology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are always going to have poor people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow can a particle that have a mass and a very big mass, to give mass to very smaller particles? It´s very strange because it isn't quantic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCERN has its own tv channel and they post it to YouTube. I recall seeing a video that answers your question. The irony of all this complex electronics is that it all begins with a small canister which is where they get the protons from. The video explains it. Just search YouTube for it somehow.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for your comments and the linked references. I don't disagree with you, however I do think there must be some kind of limit, not yet reached, where the amount of money spent does not justify the results. To me it really becomes a philosophical issue, because I wonder if building bigger and bigger colliders isn't the equivalent of moving half the distance each time to a desired destination. You never really get there and the progress is minimal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this...because the pursuit of knowledge in science's name has brought nothing to the world...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor those who, like me, have followed this search for decades, initially in the true SCIAM before the internet, this is exciting news. For even physicists I suspect, the concept is hard to grasp. Some time ago I found these explanations that many of you might find helpful. http://www.phy.uct.ac.za/courses/phy400w/particle/higgs.htm
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm somewhat confused. The author of this interesting report says: "One GeV is roughly the mass of a Hydrogen atom". One Giga electronVolt remains, as one electronVolt, an energy unit. Does the statement mean that one GeV is the conversion into energy of the mass of a Hydrogen atom ?. This would be supposedly done thru the E=mc2 Einstein's conversion. But, do both GeV and Hydrogen atom mass belong to the same subset of things, ot at least of concepts ?. What wanted the author pointing ?. Thank U, salut +
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find two items in your list of standard model (of particle physics) shortcomings most incongruous:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisquote
3. The Standard Model did not predict the existence of the dark matter that constitutes the overwhelming majority of matter in the cosmos. The Standard Model describes heuristically the "foam on top of the ocean".
6. Many of the key particles of the Standard Model have never been directly observed. Rather, their existence is inferred from secondary, or more likely, tertiary decay products. Quantum chromodynamics is entirely built on inference, conjecture and speculation. It is too complex for simple definitive predictions and testing.
unquote
The only evidence for the existence of dark matter is inferred from astronomer's observational interpretation of gravitational effects and their discrepancies with their own estimations of luminous mass. No particle representing the characteristics required of dark matter has ever been hypothesized based on the standard model, much less directly detected.
Going back to the original establishment of the requirement for galactic dark matter to compensate for the invalid gravitational expectation that Kepler's laws of planetary motion must also apply to the exceeding distributed masses of spiral galaxies, Newton had actually explained that Kepler's equations only approximated the motions of planets in the highly centralized mass Solar system.
This is further explained in a brief commentary, "On not being the first to discover no galactic dark matter", http://www.sciencewithoutfiction.com/uploads/JDwyer.PDF
More recent modeling methods can describe the observed motions of spiral galaxies using only Newtonian dynamics and universal gravitation, without dark matter or modified gravity. Please see: & Gallo, (2011), "Modeling the Newtonian dynamics for rotation curve analysis of thin-disk galaxies", http://www.raa-journal.org/raa/index.php/raa/article/view/858
@gbcjjj - I think you are asking what I was wondering. How can the Higgs Boson, which is a chunk of the proton which is the nucleus of a hydrogen atom have the mass of 125 hydrogen atoms?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoesn't that imply that the other parts of a hydrogen atom must have "anti-mass"? What happens to the other 99.2% of the mass of the Higgs?
Correct. One can express mass as units of energy or vice versa (the latter is rarely done in practice). In special relativity there is not a complete dichotomy between mass and energy. There is something called a mass-energy 4-vector which relates mass and energy in one (unaccelerated) frame of reference to another (unaccelerated) frame of reference. So one is perfectly free to express the mass of a particle in energy units, and vice versa.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Higgs particle is not a chunk of a proton. Protons are made of 3 quarks, 2 up and one down. The Higgs particle can interact with the proton and with any other particle that has mass, but it is not a constituent of these particles. By analogy, photons, the force-carrying bosons of the electromagnetic force, can interact with any fermion or boson that has electrical charge, but is not a constituent of these fermions or bosons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInternational scientists said on Tuesday they had found signs of the Higgs boson, an elementary sub-atomic particle believed to have played a vital role in the creation of the universe after the Big Bang.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeter Higgs, the 82-year-old British theoretical physicist who first proposed the existence of the particle in 1964 as the missing link of a grand theory of matter and energy, what is known as the Standard Model of Physics. The boson is posited to have been the agent that gave mass and energy to matter after the creation of the universe 13.7 billion years ago - leading some to nickname it the "God particle".
I think God doesn't play particles game with the universe. There is no "God particle". CERN scientists are doing elusion experiment for elusive particle. Findings are only traces of illusion of the elusive boson!!! There was no Big Bang.
Khalid Masood
khalidcustoms@gmail.com
International scientists said on Tuesday they had found signs of the Higgs boson, an elementary sub-atomic particle believed to have played a vital role in the creation of the universe after the Big Bang.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeter Higgs, the 82-year-old British theoretical physicist who first proposed the existence of the particle in 1964 as the missing link of a grand theory of matter and energy, what is known as the Standard Model of Physics. The boson is posited to have been the agent that gave mass and energy to matter after the creation of the universe 13.7 billion years ago - leading some to nickname it the "God particle".
I think God doesn't play particles game with the universe. There is no "God particle". CERN scientists are doing elusion experiment for elusive particle. Findings are only traces of illusion of the elusive boson!!! There was no Big Bang.
@bigbopper - So an atom gets its mass from a particle that is not a part of the atom? Not sure I understand that, either.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe point, which rioldershaw makes, is as follows :
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- the Standard Model is a theory, which is running into problems.
Ergo, it is doubtful, whether it can explain reality on the sub atomic level.
- the Higgs is a central point in this doubtful theory.
That is, the Higgs particle as required by this theory might not even exist.
Your question is not dumb. The only stupid questions are the ones that you don't ask.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHydrogen is a proton and and electron. With a little heat and a magnetic field it is easy to separate the two. The electron will speed off in the opposite direction of the proton as they are opposite in polarity.
They use the protons as they are much more massive than the electron ( by about 1800 times more massive). they usually accelerate one group one way and and the other group opposite then direct them to hit each other when the obtain the velocity (energy) that they need to break free the particles that they are looking for. They accelerate them to near light speed.
Can any of the brilliant physicists explain to me this logical paradox: how can a 127 GeV Higgs particle attribute mass to a mere electron of 0.5 MeV ? Are we talking about nuclear bound particles only, with their associated quarks and gluons, or ALL the fundamental particles in the Standard Model. Also, talking about the number of hydrogen atoms (protons) as equivalent to a Higgs boson particle, which attributes a mass to itself, is verging on a singularity. Scaling particle mass in terms of energy equivalence (GeV)and interaction dimensions and particle size can also be misleading to logical reasoning.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome things I don't understand .. If HiggsB is the one that gives mass but has a mass of 125 Hydrogen atoms. However every electron /quark or say hydrogen atom gets its mass from HiggsB then the building block of mass should be a sub HiggsB particle (correct me if I am wrong) And what they claim to have glimpsed now is a cluster of such particles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMadScientist72 and Taomoon, THANKS for explaining how to get the proton alone. I have so many science web-pages bookmarked on my pc and I try to read and make since of all the information. There is SO MUCH to try to take in. I often leave after reading with more questions..But I love it so much. I would love to do fun things here at home with elements..I have seen alot of neat stuff done on YouTube. Do most of you work at places that dose work with elements or are some teachers?..Or are some of you like me and just love all the mind blowing things that can be done with science?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Higgs boson does not give mass by directly donating its own mass to the particles it interacts with. The Higgs mechanism can't really be explained in simple English, as it arises from the mathematics of quantum field theory which is difficult and requires a lot of background in physics and math to understand. You can read about it on Wikipedia under "Higgs mechanism".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is similar to trying to explain how an exchange of virtual photons can cause two particles of opposite charge to be attracted to each other, a basic interaction of quantum electrodynamics (QED). It can't really be explained in simple English, it arises out of the mathematics of QED.
No, that's not the "Higgs mechanism". The Higgs particle can be thought of as the "force-carrying" boson for the Higgs field, by analogy to quantum electrodynamics (QED) where the photon is the force-carrying boson for the electromagnetic field. In this analogy interaction with the Higgs field gives rise to mass just as interaction with the electromagnetic field gives rise to various effects such as attraction or repulsion. But all these verbal descriptions and analogies are really not that useful or valid, because these processes and interactions come out of the math of quantum field theory, not from some verbal description of reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Standard Model has been validated and is extremely powerful in its "domain", which does not include gravity or extremely high-energy phenomena. This does not reduce its validity and power within its domain, which is still absolutely enormous. This is very analogous for example to Newtonian or classical physics, which is very valid and powerful in its domain, i.e., subrelativistic speeds and energies, and the macroscopic world. At relativistic speeds and energies it is replaced by special and general relativity. In the microscopic domain it is replaced by quantum mechanics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Higgs boson interacts with all particles that have mass: quarks, electrons, neutrinos, W and Z bosons, itself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe nucleus of a hydrogen atom consits of a proton. One electron is orbiting this proton. If the electron is removed which is easy, then you have a single proton.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have just a few minutes ago a CERN talk (in Poellau, Austria) There is a long way ( a small chance) to find out if a Higgs boson was generated during particle collision. The talk was given by Stefan Rossegger, a postdoc at CERN.
Hartwig Thim
While I find particle physics of tremendous interest, would someone please explain what it means for humanity to find this particle. I apologize if this is a naive question but if I were asked today, my answer would be that it is the pursuit of knowledge but as to this discovery's practical usage today, I am at a loss except that this knowledge may be put to use someday and somehow?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisif the higgs exist, why should the higgs show mass? that would b my 1st question.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnglish Major, with a question to proponents of Standard Theory. A potential sticking point, as I understand it, is that a calculation in one Higgs-related field requires the mass of a Higgs perticle to be some astoundingly large number of orders of magnitude higher than any inhabitant of the range the LHC data, calculated within another field, could conceivably own.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDeliverance, as I gather from a discussion among apparently objective specialists, is looked for by some as yet unknown--even as to where to look--mathematical manipulation of quantum effects.
My question is, are there any instances of other theories, later accepted as solutions, that achieved that status by virtue of such a process, bridging such a gap?
The article clearly states that the Standard Model has withstood every challenge thrown at it, and many a try has been made. Now a multi-billion dollar experiment is at work for yet another test despite the flat-earthers who claim the Standard Model is weak. Uh huh.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery nicely put:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The Higgs particle can be thought of as the "force-carrying" boson for the Higgs field, by analogy to quantum electrodynamics (QED) where the photon is the force-carrying boson for the electromagnetic field. In this analogy interaction with the Higgs field gives rise to mass just as interaction with the electromagnetic field gives rise to various effects such as attraction or repulsion."
However, the effects of mass and gravitation seem to be fundamentally distinct from the identified particle forces. The effect of potential mass energy seems to me to be much more closely (inversely) related to particle wave-state kinetic energy than any particle force.
It seems most likely to me that particle physicists are simply attempting to extend their success by defining the quantum mass effect in the mathematical context of the standard model of particle physics.
However, as I understand, attempts to integrate mass with the standard model produces infinities that lead to the collapse of all matter...
Considering the apparent effects of gravitation, I seems to me that it involves an interaction between aggregations of localized potential mass energy and a kinetic energy contained within the external 'vacuum'.
Likewise, at quantum scales particle mass may be a condensation of local vacuum energy obtained as the fundamental particles were initially produced or emitted. In that way most particles condensed in the initial universe would reflect the localization of exceedingly high energy density, whereas particles emitted in the conditions of the current universe would much more likely represent the much lower energy density of the recent conditions of vacuum energy density.
As a somewhat separate issue, when you state that "In this analogy interaction with the Higgs field gives rise to mass just as interaction with the electromagnetic field gives rise to various effects such as attraction or repulsion" do you really imply that mass is continually and dynamically imparted to particles? Isn't it more correct to consider that quarks, for example, only obtained mass as they initially condensed in the very early universe?
Sorry I don't really do math, so I may never be able to conceive of the physically processes being discussed as you do, in its proper context. All I know is that particles somehow acquired mass which is a critical factor in the production of very large scale gravitational effects...
Thanks for the compliment. Elsewhere in the post I made it clear that I think verbal descriptions of these theories are hopelessly inadequate. If someone doesn't do math, ultimately they'll never understand these theories, because the predictions come directly out of the math in a way that mere English cannot possibly replicate. Many people are very interested in the latest in physics, but much of it is simply inaccesible without approaching it on the level of the math itself. It's like trying to understand Confucius without being able to read Chinese, and with no translations available.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere's really no way to predict ahead of time what the practical applications of basic research will be. For example, back in the early 19th century when it was first shown that an electric current caused a compass needle to move, who would have been able to predict the far-reaching applications such as electric motors and dynamos? A lot of basic science is simply done for "the pleasure of finding things out", as Richard Feynman put it. That can be a very great pleasure indeed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I said.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"It seems most likely to me that particle physicists are simply attempting to extend their success by defining the quantum mass effect in the mathematical context of the standard model of particle physics."
"However, as I understand, attempts to integrate mass with the standard model produces infinities that lead to the collapse of all matter..."
When equations produce infinities, it's a sign that the particular mathematical framework one is using is no longer accurately describing the physical reality for which one is getting infinities. But this doesn't mean that these equations are completely invalid. Rather, one has discovered a domain in which they're no longer valid. A good example is found in the historical development of QED. The equations were producing infinities which the best minds in physics in the thirties and early forties couldn't see a way around. Then along came Feynman, Schwinger, Tomonaga et. al., who showed that if one used the artifice of an energy "cutoff", i.e., if one confined QED to energies below a certain upper limit, one got finite answers. So this indicates that QED loses applicability in very high-energy domains. Similarly, no one really believes that there actually is an infinitely dense point of infinite mass at the center of a black hole, rather, the equations of general relativity no longer apply there and some other physics is needed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhether the same will be true of attempts to integrate mass with the Standard Model, I don't know, but if the Higgs boson is discovered, then the answer would be no.
Very well done again - thanks!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, if I understand correctly, it is the integration of mass with the standard model that produces instantaneous infinities causing all particles to collapse. If that is the case, won't it likely be some restriction in the specification of mass within the standard model that is currently missing, such as a minimal mass that produces gravitational effects, for example?
Your point about gravitational singularities is well taken, but aren't they a mathematical convenience used to indicate a dimensionless point of singularly directed gravitational energy rather than a unphysical region of spacetime containing an infinite quantity of mass?
Thanks again!
There is an assumption in all of this conjecture about Higgs and the Higgs phenomenology: that we know what mass is. There are operational definitions beginning with Mach and Newton through Weyl, Carnap and Einstein, and everything in between. There are theoretical or axiomatic definitions by many. This point of the meaning of mass is somewhat theological in the Higgs conjecture in that as a particle moves through a Higgs field it gains mass and since Higgs fields are everywhere particles always have mass, but the way to determine if the Higgs particle exist is to bombard a particle in such a way as to yield unusual amounts of energy which is equivalent to mass via Einstein equivalence but this unusual amount of energy can only be accounted for if it is the Higgs boson. That is the long and the short of it. This works as long as we agree on what mass is. We are using both the second law and the conservation of momentum in both relativistic and non-relativistic ways to operationally define mass. It is logically deduced from mathematically sound formulae which we need not review here. The mathematics works, but the philosophy doesn't. Repeating, since Higgs fields are everywhere including empty space, then particles have mass since Higgs gives it to them as a function of the theory. BUT what is this thing called mass that is given to them? The mathematics easily lets us describe it in terms of energy equations, but existentially we are still left with the questions of "what is it?" Does this epistemic conundrum matter? Well, maybe not. But who knows.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't know the answer to your first question. It is widely accepted that above a certain energy the Standard Model is insufficient and additional physics will be necessary to integrate gravity with the other three forces. What that physics is no one knows although string theory is a favorite candidate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs far as your second question is concerned, the singularity associated with black holes (and also with the Big Bang) is more than just a mathematical convenience. It is a direct indication of the failure of the existing theory of general relativity to accurately describe the physical reality going on inside the event horizon of the black hole (or in the very earliest moments of the Big Bang). This is because when one crams a large enough mass into a small enough space, one can no longer use quantum mechanics while ignoring gravity. Under ordinary circumstances the domain of the very small (where quantum mechanics is required for an accurate description) has sufficiently little mass that gravity can be ignored. But near the center of a black hole (or in the earliest moments of the Big Bang) gravity cannot be ignored. Thus a theory which unifies gravity with quantum mechanics is required. No one knows what this theory will be, although string theory is a popular candidate.
Actually, this is true of everything else in physics. We really don't know what space "is", or what time "is", or what electrical charge "is", etc. etc. Everything in science is operationally defined. There is no absolute or "ideal" or "Platonic" reality outside of this to which we can refer for some absolute definition of what something "actually is".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor example, as Einstein first pointed out, all the difficulties which arise from considering time as an absolute a la Newton are neatly sidestepped if we simply define time operationally as "that which we measure with clocks". Using this simple definition in his landmark 1905 paper, he was able to develop special relativity.
I agree with your comments; I made mine in reaction to the popular idea that 'Higgs yields everything.' I do think that 'mass' as a challenge is different from 'space or time.'We know that there is no absolute space or time, relativity has seen to that. Even relativistic mass 'moves' away from itself not in substance but in measure, gravitational mass not withstanding. Still, it exists, and existence is physical theory and epistemology. Yes, there is mass and space time geometry as general relativity notions. Yet, mass is the junction between physical phenomenology and the essence of being. Studies of mass are about existence itself. I do not separate mass from space time; I am postulating that mass is bigger or deeper or more profound than all three as we currently describe them. I look forward to the discourse as the Higgs phenomenon unfolds.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is another possibility for black holes - a simpler solution. If gravitation is a distortion of spacetime then perhaps there is no dimensional matter crammed into a singularity - gravitational effects can be imparted solely in spacetime, directed to a singular focal point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBriefly, matter ingested into black holes, accelerated to near light speeds may be disintegrated by collision and other interactions much like matter is decomposed into more fundamental particles by particle accelerator experiments. Just as the particle detectors employed by those experiments can detect no mass, perhaps mass energy is separated from matter and, in the conditions of a black hole, are imparted as accumulated gravitational effects in local spacetime.
In this scenario, active black holes, ingesting matter, would expel high energy, nearly massless fundamental particles in the observed relativistic polar jets.
I can't properly represent this idea mathematically, in the context of established physics, but in this case a singularity is a infinite or indeterminable gravitational distortion of effectively dimensionless pointlike local spacetime.
As I understand, the fundamental missing component of particle theory is the description of separable mass energy as configured with assembled dimensional matter and the processes that produce its composition/decomposition.
From what I've heard in the past, it's the Higgs that gives stuff mass. If so, what gives hydrogen its mass if the Higgs is 125 times heavier?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs stated by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The simplest implementation of the mechanism adds an extra Higgs field to the gauge theory. The spontaneous symmetry breaking of the underlying local symmetry triggers conversion of components of this Higgs field to Goldstone bosons which interact with (at least some of) the other fields in the theory, so as to produce mass terms for (at least some of) the gauge bosons. This mechanism may also leave behind elementary scalar (spin-0) particles, known as Higgs bosons."
So, in the Higgs field theory Higgs bosons do not mediate mass directly to particles - they are secondary by-products of the process that does, if you believe...
Your question remains in the form of: why would so much mass be attributed to (unstable) Higgs bosons by the process that, for example, attributed mass to quarks?
Also note that the most stable fundamental particles of mass (quarks bound in nucleons and electrons) are thought to have been produced only in the conditions of the very early universe, when matter first condensed from energy. The LHC hopes to produce Higgs bosons as residue of the disintegration of neutrons rather than the creation of quarks...
The picture is like a picture of a galaxy and a picture of 4 electrons in some state. If we take the definition of boson, everything is made from higgs bosons
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this