The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is there an electric charge analog to the Higgs?  (Read 4554 times)

Offline Supercryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
Is there an electric charge analog to the Higgs?
« on: 03/07/2011 07:10:36 »
I came to wonder about something.

Supposedly, mass is a property which is given to particles by a scalar field called the Higgs field. Mass, in turn, is responsible for gravitational fields.

Could a similar analogy be drawn with electromagnetic fields? Electromagnetic fields are generated by a property of particles we call charge. Would there be a scalar field that gives electric charge to particles in a similar way that the Higgs field gives mass to particles?


 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Is there an electric charge analog to the Higgs?
« Reply #1 on: 03/07/2011 09:38:20 »
Electric charges are clearly quantised and always the same value.  Even the 1/3 and 2/3 charges of quarks are never seen on their own.  Whereas particle masses do not form any fixed structures relationship with each other like quantisation so it is unlikely that their origins will be similar.
 

Offline Mr. Data

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
    • View Profile
Is there an electric charge analog to the Higgs?
« Reply #2 on: 03/07/2011 18:02:48 »
I came to wonder about something.

Supposedly, mass is a property which is given to particles by a scalar field called the Higgs field. Mass, in turn, is responsible for gravitational fields.

Could a similar analogy be drawn with electromagnetic fields? Electromagnetic fields are generated by a property of particles we call charge. Would there be a scalar field that gives electric charge to particles in a similar way that the Higgs field gives mass to particles?

Charge is an intrinsic property of the presence of matter. So it seems doubtful scientists will look in that direction. If the Higgs Field is needed to explain mass, then the presence of this mass explains charge (in a way).

 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Is there an electric charge analog to the Higgs?
« Reply #3 on: 05/07/2011 17:18:28 »
How does a Higg field (boson) explain that all geodesics are the same? That means that every time you stop accelerating you will find a 'geodesic'. What kind of 'resistance' ignores relative motion, and how? Higgs is a way to define inertia to me, not geodesics?
=

Eh, that mean, although the Higg may define Inertia it does not define 'gravity'. Also it split 'gravity' from Inertia as I see it, and so it becomes a definition where you now have two explanations for 'gravity' and 'inertia'. Don't like that. And that means (dar* I see I have to explain my thoughts again) that gravity is explained by Einsteins GR, and Inertia then would be explained by Higgs? So, do the universe need to split what obviously is a sort of symmetry? Inertia is to gravity as the recoil is to the photons annihilation to me.
==

And defining the recoil is a principle, conservation of momentum. as I understands it, not a boson. 'Principles' and 'constants' define SpaceTime.
« Last Edit: 05/07/2011 17:35:42 by yor_on »
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Is there an electric charge analog to the Higgs?
« Reply #4 on: 05/07/2011 17:58:33 »
Yor_on, you're right.  Inertial mass and gravitational mass are different concepts.  The Higgs field only explains inertial mass.  For all objects we've tested, it appears that inertial and gravitational mass are the same.  Indeed, general relativity relies on that as a postulate.  But so far as I know, there's no explanation of why they have to be the same aside from the fact that they seem to be for all cases we've checked.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Is there an electric charge analog to the Higgs?
« Reply #5 on: 05/07/2011 19:25:27 »
And a inertial mass is a measurement of the 'unwillingness' of matter to accelerate, (that's not exactly right, because a uniform motion contain 'inertia' too, but any deviation of that 'uniform motion', except a head on head collision, can be seen as a acceleration, and I'm not sure how to see that 'head on head collision' as actually? It's a deceleration and ..)? Gravity is a description of accelerations, gravitational like Earths or 'motion wise' as from 'A' to 'B', as measured in some positional system, and time.

If you turn it around you now will find that accelerations is gravity. Uniform motion on the other hand measured by the absence of gravity locally ('black room scenarios' all of it)

So if all uniform motions are equal inside that room, how can you state that you 'move'? There is no way I know of without using a outside frame of reference. And that is what motion is, a comparison between frames. 'A' and 'B' is two different frames of reference here, you 'moving' is the third, using them as a definition of a 'distance'. And the 'distance' you define uses a constant 'c', defining durations, aka a 'clock'.

So, do motion exist? Well, it must, as everything we do (and are) involve 'motion' in some way. But what is it, really?
==

Remember what we call water becoming ice, good, because I don't :)
That's 'inertia' maybe, a transitionally state defining a demarcation between two other states. Uniform motion to -> acceleration -> and back.
=
And as I already destroyed the threads original question, by questioning what the Higgs particle/field describes Super (Sorry about that). This is very good too, and adds a little more to JP:s description

By Marcus;

=Quote

"When something is moving it has a "longitudinal" inertia and a sideways or "transverse" inertia. But it no longer has a mass, because mass is a directionless quantity. So the custom is to assign to each object the "invariant" mass which is the inertia it WOULD have if it were sitting still. Lorentz discovered this ambiguity of inertia of a moving object back in 1904 even before Einstein.. .

The equations (GR) that model gravity do not have mass in them they have *energy density* and related pressures. Energy is what causes gravity in GR. Energy tells space how to curve and curved space tells energy how to move...

When something is moving it has a different "longitudinal" inertia from its sideways or "transverse" inertia. It takes more force (measured in the lab frame) to produce a given acceleration vector in the direction of motion than the same acceleration sideways. It is harder to speed a moving body up than it is to deflect it---even if the observer at rest can see that the size of the acceleration vectors are the same. People used sometimes to talk about the "transverse mass" (gamma m) as opposed to the "longitudinal mass" (gamma3 m). But nowadays most physicists when they say mass just mean "rest mass"----there is no other kind. But if you google with keywords "longitudinal mass" and "transverse mass" you can still find these gamma formulas and some discussion of these things.

The factor gamma = (1 - beta2 )-1/2 can be quite large for beta near one. So there can be a big difference between gamma and (gamma3 ! The difference between forwards inertia and sideways inertia can be very large. Like, if gamma is 2, then the thing is 4 times more resistant to speeding up than it is to deflection (where the same size acceleration is to be produced) Or if gamma is 10, the thing is 100 times more resistant to speeding up than to deflection. Nowadays the use of the term "relativistic mass" is more of an endearing eccentricity than anything else. Like wearing a sword, or having suits of armor in one's livingroom. For a moving body, the "relativistic mass" is essentially the same as transverse"------inertia measured as resistance to deflection-----and the formula for it is gamma m."

= End of quote


« Last Edit: 05/07/2011 20:46:04 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Is there an electric charge analog to the Higgs?
« Reply #6 on: 05/07/2011 21:02:10 »
So if we look at Marcus definition we can see what I think differs a 'gravitational mass' from a 'inertial mass'. But it's also a question of if you think that something can be 'at rest' in this universe. It's those 'ideal parallel lines' again I guess :). But as 'inertias' definition of what it measure is the invariant mass of something being 'at rest' we seem to assume that it exist?

That one is easy to test. You just need to measure how hard it is to push something, not moving, on a table. Try it from all directions, in the tables 'plane (of course:) and if you find its 'resistance' to motion symmetric we have a definition of being 'at rest' that will differ from the "longitudinal", in the direction of relative motion, and sideways, or "transverse" inertia. Then you give it a motion relative the table and measure the inertia again, and there you will find a difference between being at rest relative the table plane and 'moving' relative the table plane. Easier to move sideways than in, or against, its 'propagation' as I think of it.

If we find a symmetry on that table, inertia as when defining motion, versus being 'at rest' should differ? But that one becomes somewhat of a headache, doesn't it :)
« Last Edit: 05/07/2011 21:17:09 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Is there an electric charge analog to the Higgs?
« Reply #7 on: 05/07/2011 21:08:45 »
A easier way of defining it is using geodesics, all geodesics are the same, but the inertia isn't. And depending on your, so called, invariant mass, and relative motion, you will find a different inertia. But when it comes to 'gravity' it will be 'gone'. Loosely defined here as there always will be a gravity associated to the matter itself. I'm starting to understand the need for defining it 'ideally' to make it precise :)
==

And that we can find the inertia varying with motion and mass I use as a definition of a gravity always existing, even when unmeasurable, as in a uniform motion. But you could also use it to define inertia as one thing, and gravity as another, possibly, if defining it such as there can be portions of 'space' without gravity, but with inertia? But then you have taken away the metric of space, which to me is gravity.

In that case Inertia would define all sorts of motion, and mass (invariant) whereas gravity would define a ideal state of invariant mass being at rest, all as it seems to me? But then we have accelerations that according to Einsteins principle of equivalence is 'gravity'. That one is true, you will be unable to differ a acceleration from a gravity inside that black room scenario. So if Inertia would be all kind of 'motions'? How can a acceleration be 'gravity'? As well as a uniform motion is without 'gravity'?
« Last Edit: 05/07/2011 22:18:06 by yor_on »
 

Offline Mr. Data

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
    • View Profile
Is there an electric charge analog to the Higgs?
« Reply #8 on: 05/07/2011 23:27:42 »
Yor_on, you're right.  Inertial mass and gravitational mass are different concepts.  The Higgs field only explains inertial mass.  For all objects we've tested, it appears that inertial and gravitational mass are the same.  Indeed, general relativity relies on that as a postulate.  But so far as I know, there's no explanation of why they have to be the same aside from the fact that they seem to be for all cases we've checked.

Well, energy gravitates as well. Photons have a gravitating effect in the presence of their acceleration through a gravitational field couples to the curvature of spacetime.

As for inertia, it's like you said, it's the description of matter which can be at rest, or at near rest (since particles are never at complete rest). As far as we are aware, gravity is an intrinsic property of matter, that it gravitates in all cases we have measured.
 

Post by Mr. Data click to view.

Offline Mr. Data

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
    • View Profile
Is there an electric charge analog to the Higgs?
« Reply #9 on: 05/07/2011 23:37:43 »
Shrunk
How about we turn to some math to help us understand the restraints. You would find gravitating energy and momentum in General Relativity, but this is the role of the stress energy tensor. In that tensor, you can also describe non-gravitating parts. The role is simply a density and a flux in spacetime which is made of the energy and momentum of your system. The flux of a relativistic mass over some surface xj is equivalent to the energy density of the momentum in the ith component:

T0i = Ti0

thus the density of the time-time component is given as:

T00 = ρ

So a non-gravitating momentum and energy are given as:

E = ∫vT00 dV

Pi = ∫VTi0 dV

But are there objects in the universe which posess momentum and energy, but does not have a gravitational effect on each other? I'd say we have not detected this kind of matter, if even this kind of matter exists.
 

Post by JP click to view.

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Is there an electric charge analog to the Higgs?
« Reply #10 on: 05/07/2011 23:41:22 »
Shrunk
Mr. Data, there's probably only a few people on the forum who can understand those equations without a lot more explanation.  Would you be able to explain it a bit more thoroughly in words for those who haven't studied tensor calculus and general relativity?
 

Post by Mr. Data click to view.

Offline Mr. Data

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
    • View Profile
Is there an electric charge analog to the Higgs?
« Reply #11 on: 05/07/2011 23:43:46 »
Shrunk
Mr. Data, there's probably only a few people on the forum who can understand those equations without a lot more explanation.  Would you be able to explain it a bit more thoroughly in words for those who haven't studied tensor calculus and general relativity?

I simply don't have the time. I've tried to explain a lot less complicated things here, but I don't seem to get anywhere a lot of the time.
 

Post by yor_on click to view.

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Is there an electric charge analog to the Higgs?
« Reply #12 on: 06/07/2011 01:21:52 »
Shrunk
Hm, think I've seen this before?
Yep, I have, with a explanation.

Check out Green Destiny.
 

Post by Mr. Data click to view.

Offline Mr. Data

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
    • View Profile
Is there an electric charge analog to the Higgs?
« Reply #13 on: 06/07/2011 02:11:38 »
Shrunk
Hm, think I've seen this before?
Yep, I have, with a explanation.

Check out Green Destiny.

Yes... And the same information can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress-energy_tensor
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Is there an electric charge analog to the Higgs?
« Reply #14 on: 06/07/2011 02:58:11 »
Try this one if you're interested Quantitative Introduction to General Relativity Sadly it isn't finished, but what's written is both clear and understandable. And after that one John Baez. which starts with a favorite of mine :) Parallel lines, well, sort of.
 

Offline Mr. Data

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
    • View Profile
Is there an electric charge analog to the Higgs?
« Reply #15 on: 06/07/2011 03:05:24 »
Nice introduction to GR. It probably explains the components of the stress energy tensor better than what I would have.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Is there an electric charge analog to the Higgs?
« Reply #16 on: 06/07/2011 03:18:49 »
Yeah, I was impressed by it. But looking around it seems slightly uneven (not that page though) A pity that.
=

Conservapedia I mean, not Baez :) He's as 'even' as you can be, I guess :)
« Last Edit: 06/07/2011 03:21:58 by yor_on »
 

Post by JP click to view.

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Is there an electric charge analog to the Higgs?
« Reply #17 on: 06/07/2011 04:20:24 »
Shrunk
Hm, think I've seen this before?
Yep, I have, with a explanation.

Check out Green Destiny.

Yes... And the same information can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress-energy_tensor

Yes, but your post is a verbatim copy of that post from another site, which you've been warned about doing twice already.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Is there an electric charge analog to the Higgs?
« Reply #17 on: 06/07/2011 04:20:24 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums