higgs field question

stevejazzx

I was just listening to a lecture online today and it got me thinking

Why is it siad that the higgs field has to expand in line with the universe?

So we're prettty sure the universe is expanding and we say that massless atoms get 'caught' in the higgs (this what slows them down right?) and casue it expand but becasue there are so many atoms in the universe this expansion would have to be cancelled out by some other 'force' which casues probelms. So I'm wondering (probably stupidly~!) why does the higgs field need to expand? Can it not exist everywhere without automatically expanding?

Kevster

But the Higg's field has a set amount of energy, right? As the Universe expands this energy is dissipated into a greater volume, and that means it's overall strength decreases per unit volume. Thus, it can't exist everywhere and have the same strength/energy.

The Higg's boson confers mass to all particles that we currently observe as having mass. That's it in a nutshell.

Biffo The Bare

I think that the Higgs Boson particle, until proved, is just a scientific way of joining the dots in an attempt to endow every particle with mass. Otherwise there would be no explanation for gravity in the standard model of particle physics. The entire structure of matter is in simple terms space/time warping converted to energy by very process of the expanding universe. How the Higgs Boson particle fits into this process is a matter of conjecture.
I hope they get that accelerator fixed soon.

Biffo The Bare

Biffo The Bare wrote: »

I hope they get that accelerator fixed soon.

Does anyone have any idea when they'll have it up and running again?

marco_polo

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Does anyone have any idea when they'll have it up and running again?

Something like Mid November now I believe.

Kevster

Biffo The Bare wrote: »

I think that the Higgs Boson particle, until proved, is just a scientific way of joining the dots in an attempt to endow every particle with mass. Otherwise there would be no explanation for gravity in the standard model of particle physics. The entire structure of matter is in simple terms space/time warping converted to energy by very process of the expanding universe. How the Higgs Boson particle fits into this process is a matter of conjecture.
I hope they get that accelerator fixed soon.

I agree about what you're saying in your first sentence. In a way, however, I would apply this concept to Dark Matter too. I don't believe we'll ever find actual Dark Matter, and that new theories will have to be made so as not to have this huge blaring gap in the amount of mass in the Universe. If the Higg's is found, I wonder could this somehow eliminate the need for DArk Matter?

I'm only an amateur at this... ...be gentle!

Biffo The Bare

Kevster wrote: »

I agree about what you're saying in your first sentence. In a way, however, I would apply this concept to Dark Matter too. I don't believe we'll ever find actual Dark Matter, and that new theories will have to be made so as not to have this huge blaring gap in the amount of mass in the Universe. If the Higg's is found, I wonder could this somehow eliminate the need for DArk Matter?

I'm only an amateur at this... ...be gentle!

Don't worry, its amazing how little anybody knows about the subject. Including the boffins.
Dark Matter, Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs), Higgs Boson are all based on theoretical hypothesis when trying to come up with the answer to why is every particle attracted to every other particle in the known universe? It doesent make any sense unless you have some kind of field connecting every other particle in the universe. Scientists called it the Higgs Field and they reckon it is made up of Higgs Boson particles. The problem is that even though there must be quite a lot:pac: of Higgs Boson particles in the universe, no one has found even one. Will they ever be found? Only time will tell.

Kevster

...you never got the feeling that we're just adding more and more layers of theory to something that could be explainedin [probably] a fraction of the math that currently exists for it?

Professor_Fink

Kevster wrote: »

I agree about what you're saying in your first sentence. In a way, however, I would apply this concept to Dark Matter too. I don't believe we'll ever find actual Dark Matter, and that new theories will have to be made so as not to have this huge blaring gap in the amount of mass in the Universe. If the Higg's is found, I wonder could this somehow eliminate the need for DArk Matter?

I'm only an amateur at this... ...be gentle!

We already see dark matter. The bullet cluster is a perfect example of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster

Dark Energy is far more mysterious.

Professor_Fink

Biffo The Bare wrote: »

I think that the Higgs Boson particle, until proved, is just a scientific way of joining the dots in an attempt to endow every particle with mass. Otherwise there would be no explanation for gravity in the standard model of particle physics.

This is incorrect. The standard model makes no reference to gravity. The need for the Higgs boson is to explain the origin of mass, not gravity. Without mass, every particle would have to travel at the speed of light, which clearly they don't. So the reason for the Higgs is to explain why we get massive bosons for the weak interaction, for example, while getting massless photons for the electromagnetic interaction. The fact that the particles have mass significantly alters the nature of the interaction.

Biffo The Bare

Professor_Fink wrote: »

This is incorrect. The standard model makes no reference to gravity.

But the standard model doesn't need to, because
Gravity (Newtons per Kg) = Weight (newtons)/Mass(kg)

Professor_Fink

Biffo The Bare wrote: »

But the standard model doesn't need to, because
Gravity (Newtons per Kg) = Weight (newtons)/Mass(kg)

Actually the link between inertial mass and gravitational mass isn't fully understood. What you have written is completely wrong. Mass isn't independent of reference frame, so you can't simply write an expression of the form you have. Basically what you have just written completely ignores relativity.

Kevster

****, sorry guys - I have made a silly error here. i meant to say all that I've said but with DARK ENERGY, and not Dark Matter. I know that we can infer DArk Matter's existence, but it's Dark Energy that is the lame duck in my mind. It simply doesn't exist - physically - and is only 'there' because our maths is incomplete somewhere

Professor_Fink

Kevster wrote: »

****, sorry guys - I have made a silly error here. i meant to say all that I've said but with DARK ENERGY, and not Dark Matter. I know that we can infer DArk Matter's existence, but it's Dark Energy that is the lame duck in my mind. It simply doesn't exist - physically - and is only 'there' because our maths is incomplete somewhere

Well, you can add a cosmological constant into GR which fixes things, but we have no idea why the hell it would be non-zero. So its not really that we don't have the maths for it, it is simply that we don't have the physics to explain the maths.

10000maniacs

Professor_Fink wrote: »

Actually the link between inertial mass and gravitational mass isn't fully understood. What you have written is completely wrong. Mass isn't independent of reference frame, so you can't simply write an expression of the form you have. Basically what you have just written completely ignores relativity.

But I was under the impression that Einstein based his general theory of relativity on the assumption that inertial mass and gravitational mass were equal. And the acceleration of gravity is a result of a 'valley' or slope in the space-time continuum that masses 'fell down' much as pennies spiral around a hole in the common donation toy at your favorite chain store. To quote Einstein, not me.

Professor_Fink

10000maniacs wrote: »

But I was under the impression that Einstein based his general theory of relativity on the assumption that inertial mass and gravitational mass were equal. And the acceleration of gravity is a result of a 'valley' or slope in the space-time continuum that masses 'fell down' much as pennies spiral around a hole in the common donation toy at your favorite chain store. To quote Einstein, not me.

Eh, what quote? I think you are getting mixed up with the equivalence principle which basically says that you can't tell the difference between acceleration and the force due to gravity (i.e. you can't tell if you are on earth or in a space ship accelerating at 9.807 m s^-2 through only the forces you experience). GR has no axiom about inertial mass.