Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

A question on the Higgs Boson and fundamental particles in general.

2»

Comments

  • #32
    Enkidu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,005 ✭✭✭Enkidu


    krd wrote: »
    There is also the possibility Feyman was wrong.
    There was, until Quantum Electrodynamics was tested and every single one of its predictions verified.
    krd wrote: »
    And I believe his path integrals are a convoluted cop out.
    Why do you believe an infinite dimensional integral over the space of field histories is "a cop out"?
    krd wrote: »
    I do not believe in particles. I do not believe in aetherical fields.
    The fields in quantum field theory are not the same as the aether fluid from 19th century physics. The just both happen to have the word field in them.


  • #33
    shizz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,506 ✭✭✭shizz


    Enkidu wrote: »
    All particles are excitations of fields, even electrons and protons.

    I reckon that's the reason why I was getting confused about it. What fields are protons and electrons an excitation of? (electrons I presume electromagnetic?)

    Why do they constantly exist?


  • #34
    Enkidu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,005 ✭✭✭Enkidu


    shizz wrote: »
    I reckon that's the reason why I was getting confused about it. What fields are protons and electrons an excitation of? (electrons I presume electromagnetic?)
    The electron is an excitation of the electron field (named after the particle of course, sometime called the Dirac field), the proton is a combined excitation of ten fields, the eight gluon fields and the up and down quark fields.
    shizz wrote: »
    Why do they constantly exist?
    Why wouldn't they? Nothing can make them go away. Although the full answer is a little more technical.


  • #35
    shizz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,506 ✭✭✭shizz


    Enkidu wrote: »
    The electron is an excitation of the electron field (named after the particle of course, sometime called the Dirac field), the proton is a combined excitation of ten fields, the eight gluon fields and the up and down quark fields.

    The idea of all these fields is really starting to confuse me now. Just particles made so much sense, but alas that doesn't matter a dam.
    Enkidu wrote: »
    Why wouldn't they? Nothing can make them go away. Although the full answer is a little more technical.

    Just from the previous discussions in this thread the idea that energy needs to be put into these fields to create the particles, I can't understand how they are always there?

    Also if all these fields need to be excited to create their respective particles, what is causing the fields? As my previous thinking was that these particles created the fields


  • #36
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    krd wrote: »
    Virtual photons are transient and unobservable because they may only exist to satisfy the equations.

    A real photon, can never be observed as a particle. When the light wave collapses at a detector - it just excites the waves within the detector. At no point is there ever a particle observed - the quantity of energy can be observed - the point the wave collapses at - but there is no particle , ever.

    I know the Standard Model gives absurdly correct results, but I think it could be wrong (not complete wrong). I don't like the idea of particles and I don't like the idea of aether like fields.

    They don't only exist to satisfy equations. You admit yourself that they are used to predict absurdly accurate results.

    Also, a photon isn't a particle in the billiard ball sense. It is a quantised excitation that can exhibit discrete, particulate behaviour like the kind seen in the photo-electric effect.

    The fields in quantum field theory are not aether-like.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    shizz wrote: »
    The idea of all these fields is really starting to confuse me now. Just particles made so much sense, but alas that doesn't matter a dam.

    Just from the previous discussions in this thread the idea that energy needs to be put into these fields to create the particles, I can't understand how they are always there?

    Also if all these fields need to be excited to create their respective particles, what is causing the fields? As my previous thinking was that these particles created the fields

    The ontology is always going to be a headache. Fields are generally interpreted as the fundamental "stuff" of physics. Since it is an empirical issue, we can always ask why fields exist and quantum field theory, per se, won't be able to answer the question.


  • #38
    shizz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,506 ✭✭✭shizz


    Morbert wrote: »
    The ontology is always going to be a headache. Fields are generally interpreted as the fundamental "stuff" of physics. Since it is an empirical issue, we can always ask why fields exist and quantum field theory, per se, won't be able to answer the question.

    OK, well I think it's a bit over my head for the moment but I got the answer I was looking for. Of course it also left me with more questions but hey, if that isn't science I dunno what is haha.


  • #39
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    shizz wrote: »
    OK, well I think it's a bit over my head for the moment but I got the answer I was looking for. Of course it also left me with more questions but hey, if that isn't science I dunno what is haha.

    Asking how the fields are there is sort of the same as simply asking why does space exist, or why is there something rather than nothing. The fields are basically existence. Existences exists as a set of fields that can have points that are excited by energy (if I understand correctly). It is not really a case of thinking of these fields as something that exists in reality, but rather they are the fabric of reality. Reality is a set of fields and all the stuff that exists are excitements of these fields.

    Why that rather than something else. Well that is because it is the way the Great Turtle wanted it to be :P


  • #40
    krd
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,455 ✭✭✭krd


    Morbert wrote: »
    They don't only exist to satisfy equations. You admit yourself that they are used to predict absurdly accurate results.

    The thing about the Standard Model, is I think the maths gives the correct answers, but the underlying ideas may be wrong.

    The only way I can describe how I feel about it, would be like earlier theories of light. The observations and calculations were in agreement - but of course the ideas were wrong.
    Also, a photon isn't a particle in the billiard ball sense. It is a quantised excitation that can exhibit discrete, particulate behaviour like the kind seen in the photo-electric effect.

    Yes, and no. Yes, the photon exhibits discrete behaviour when the wave collapses at a detector- but a particle is never observed. And it's the same with the photoelectric effect - neither photons or electrons are observed as particles. They have discrete qualities, and it's intuitive to think of them as particles. Or that a particle has taken a path to get from point A to point B. And the maths works.

    When you measure a photon it exhibits discrete behaviour - but I can think of other instances, where it doesn't behave discretely.

    I'm not proposing a new theory, I just have a feeling that certain ideas may be wrong.

    What would be an absolute disaster, is if the CERN guys do a Pons-Fleischmann. If the Higgs is not there, it's not there - and it not being there could be the key to why everything is there - or at least appears to be there.
    The fields in quantum field theory are not aether-like.

    Aethers are wonderful, they can literally be pulled out of thin air to explain things.


  • #41
    mooliki
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 62 ✭✭mooliki


    Think I'm getting more confused the longer this thread goes on for! Anyone recommend good reading material that covers these topics, particularly on the Standard Model, say in the layman-friendly manner of Brief History of Time or Short History of Nearly Everything?


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    krd
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,455 ✭✭✭krd


    Stephen Hawking has apparently had to pay out on bet. He didn't think they'd find it.

    That's another question Where does the Higgs field fit in, in terms of things like black holes?


  • #43
    opinion guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,001 ✭✭✭✭opinion guy


    krd wrote: »
    Stephen Hawking has apparently had to pay out on bet. He didn't think they'd find it.

    That's another question Where does the Higgs field fit in, in terms of things like black holes?

    He wasn't denying the Higgs - he just thought it would take longer to find - i.e. he didnt' think they would find it in his lifetime.

    It seems most people including the CERN sceintists are surprised to have found it already


  • #44
    krd
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,455 ✭✭✭krd


    opinion guy wrote: »
    He wasn't denying the Higgs - he just thought it would take longer to find - i.e. he didnt' think they would find it in his lifetime.

    Black holes is Hawking's thing. I'm not sure where the Higgs field fits in, in the scheme of a black hole.
    It seems most people including the CERN sceintists are surprised to have found it already

    You're not saying that's a little fishy, are you.


  • #45
    opinion guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,001 ✭✭✭✭opinion guy


    krd wrote: »
    You're not saying that's a little fishy, are you.

    Not at all. At the CERN announcment/panel interview thingy it was commented on the the Higgs came easier than expected hwilst other experiments ar etaking longer than expected


  • #46
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    Setting the stage:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0NiNp66mGM


    for a fantastic video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6huY4kBotD4


    that I don't fully understand, but superficially - wow...


  • #47
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    Ah ha, I see a few familiar faces round here!

    This thread has been illuminating.

    Anyone know anything about stars? I posted a question on the astronomy forum but no answers....


  • #48
    juneg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,083 ✭✭✭juneg


    Please can anybody direct me to a link or website that explains about the higgs bosun particle in an accessible way for a child of 12 please who is interested in this type of physics.
    many thanks


  • #49
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 8,717 ✭ [Deleted User]


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzQpeqE_wLg


  • #50
    juneg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,083 ✭✭✭juneg


    That was enjoyable, thanks Aristotle!!


Advertisement