The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?  (Read 7103 times)

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1826
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/the-higgs-particle/the-higgs-faq-2-0/

Matt Stassler provides an explanation as to how we can think of everything being stationary relative to the Higgs field.  However, all the explanations I have found to date seem to involve the movement of particles through the Higgs field as a means of gaining mass. 

Can anyone throw any light on this, please?


 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #1 on: 15/03/2013 21:01:47 »
He has decided that it exist and he makes a very good effort of describing it. I'm not saying that I understand what he says though, although I'm sure it makes sense from his perspective.

"If mass is created by a particle interacting (moving through) the Higgs Field then is the field moving or the particle or both? If a particle is static (not moving) relative to the Higgs Field, can it lose its mass?

No matter how you are moving, you are not moving relative to the Higgs field. That sounds bizarre, but remember something else bizarre: that no matter how you are moving, light is moving about relative to you at the same speed, namely 300,000 meters per second. Our intuition for space and time is not correct — that’s what Einstein figured out — and it is possible for there to be fields that are at rest with respect to all observers!

And so a particle’s mass is the same no matter what it is doing — stationary relative to you or moving relative to you. And that’s important, because a particle is always stationary relative to itself! so it always, from its own point of view, should have the same mass."

Well, that is what I call 'locality', in a way. Using locality you do have a defined distance and time. If each particle use that, each particle will have a definition of where all other particles 'are', in relation to itself.

What it don't have is a absolute 'frame of reference' from/to where we all can relate it. But if you want to be really strict then neither has relativity. We use a constant 'c', and 'relative motion' relative accelerations/gravity to define it. But we don't know why 'c' has to be 'c' to make it work?

Or we do:) After all, it works :)
The universe I mean.

You could possibly define it as 'uniform motion', no matter different speeds (and vectors/directions/geodesics) found in 'relative motion' is a equivalent description, defining one single 'frame of reference' from a Higgs field. But I still need to understand how the Higgs field then describe observer dependencies, cause I don't.
« Last Edit: 15/03/2013 21:22:14 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
Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #2 on: 15/03/2013 21:09:45 »
And by the way, I like lattices but they will not suffice to describe a Higgs field. Not that this seems to discuss it from such.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #3 on: 15/03/2013 21:14:18 »
Well, you can define it. but only if using locality :)
And as that is a very centric description of a universe?
It opens for a whole lot of weird stuff being possible, to me that is.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1826
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #4 on: 15/03/2013 21:22:52 »
I take the point about the constancy of the speed of light, but that can be understood by considering time dilation, the relativistic velocity addition formula and so forth.  What sort of formula would you use to account for zero movement relative to a field?

Of course, Stassler's reasoning is that it is meaningless to talk of movement relative to space, but any movement, relative to anything, involves movement through space, so by that reasoning, it is also meaningless to talk of anything being stationary relative to space, or to the Higgs field.

 
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #5 on: 15/03/2013 21:50:33 »
I would use a definition going out from you, or me, or the gal next to us :)
There are no 'true' definitions globally.
The definitions we use are local.

But they join us.

We all measure 'c', so that becomes a 'uniquely same frame of reference' for us all, Although being a strictly local description.

If Stassler really means that 'motion' is a meaningless description globally today, I agree.

It actually is. That's why we defined 'relative motion'. Nothing globally untrue, as we find different motions and objects, but neither true, from a physical point of view in where we measure 'energies' and equivalences/symmetries of something.

And if that sounds weird :) So do 'c'.

But yes, defining it as stationary only makes sense in a limited 'centric' definition of something existing relative you, asking if you're in uniform motion, or accelerating? What I call 'communicating' :)

And now you forced me to defend a Higgs field Bill :)
And I'm sort of Pi*'ed off with it, I like the underdog :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #6 on: 15/03/2013 21:57:57 »
 But I like your thinking, you have more trust in some principles being globally true than I. And as I don't know what the universe should be seen as your views makes me think. The best thing we ever can do to each other is to make each other think a little more, that is encouraging us to become better human beings, well hopefully :)
 

Offline flr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 302
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #7 on: 15/03/2013 21:59:24 »
No matter how you are moving, you are not moving relative to the Higgs field.

How could one be moving relative to a field?
What is a field? Let's take the electrostatic field around a point charge: fi=Q/r (which is exactly so in some units). What is fi? I could be OK considering fi only a mathematical object rather than something of ontological reality. The charge Q generating the field has actual ontological reality but I am not sure I can say the same thing about the field fi=Q/r
I can attach a frame of reference to the charge and define my movement with respect to the chosen frame. But how can I define a frame of reference with respect to the field itself?

---

If the charge is uniform distributed over the whole space, it will still generate a field that is constant everywhere.
If I understand correctly, by analogy, the Higgs boson is similar to Higgs field like electrostatic charge is to electrostatic field. And the Higgs field is uniformly distributed in space, right?
Then how can I define my movement relative to  such a uniformly distributed field?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #8 on: 15/03/2013 22:05:59 »
Damn, hate to admit it, but you lose me there flr, I'm sure you see it, but I don't? find a alternative way to describe it and I , hopefully so, will get your point.
=
And remember, no fancy words here, we're all from *Texas ::))

Ahem, i like Texas..
« Last Edit: 15/03/2013 22:07:55 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
Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #9 on: 15/03/2013 22:14:44 »
Okay, not being sure I can do this. Consider a atom.
It's actually built from 'forces', and they're not static.
They are relations describing a object.

You can 'freeze' them in your mind, or description, but they still becomes relations.
If it the question of whether something 'really exist' is what you're thinking of?
==

You might want to think of it in terms of 'outcomes'. (And my spelling sux btw..)
If there is no outcome the system is in a superposition, after a 'outcome' it becomes 'history'.
Does that make sense?
« Last Edit: 15/03/2013 22:18:52 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
Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #10 on: 15/03/2013 22:26:17 »
You might be addressing if a 'field' is possible to define?
It should be, if it isn't then it's pure theory, belonging to the same 'space' as all other theory's having no validation in experiments. A electrical field is measurable, as far as i know? But to join that to a Higgs field craves me to think of the universe as electro magnetic, and I don't think that is the solution? Fermions and bosons seems to exist though, and 'forces'
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #11 on: 15/03/2013 22:33:49 »
And to define that field you need to decide from where you will define it. That's what relativity is about. The simplest way I've found is to relate it to my measurement. and as that measurement is local, relative where I am, in relation to what I measure, my truth don't need to be your, you may find other definitions of it.

If you think of it it becomes a question of what 'frames of reference' really means. Is your frame of reference locally true for me too, if it is? In which 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
Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #12 on: 15/03/2013 22:51:08 »
What I find harder to accept is a definition of a field as co-moving without defining from what principle. You can use uniform motion for it, thinking from locality, but I don't see how you can use anything else?

Locality is simple.

One object.. no meaning
two objects.. Possible to define a relation, impossible to define who moves though.
three objects or more.. Giving the possibility of 'relative motion', as I see it. You can use that with two objects too, but with three, or more, it will get its 'depth' or 'focus' if you like, making it possible to consider a whole universe in 'relative motion'.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #13 on: 15/03/2013 23:04:02 »
Then again, I actually prefer it to make a global as well as local sense? What you seem to suggest is that though electrical charges exist, locally measured, a field will not? As I said, think about it and then describe it otherwise. Then we can narrow it down, and maybe find something that I haven't considered?
==

Damn, don't read me wrong please, I'm sounding pretty 'high and almighty' there, but that's not how I meant it. What I really mean is that if you have an objection or an idea, and some other person (like me) don't get it, don't give up on it. Reformulate it so we both can see it instead, that will make my life fun, as well as yours, and in the end, isn't that why we're here? :)
« Last Edit: 15/03/2013 23:25:37 by yor_on »
 

Offline flr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 302
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #14 on: 16/03/2013 02:28:43 »
What you seem to suggest is that though electrical charges exist, locally measured, a field will not?

Why do we need a field? All we need is a second (test) charge which interact with the first one.
We will never know there was a field unless we bring a test charge, right?

The charge Q is the real thing. the field Q/r is a mathematical object, that by itself does nothing unless another test charge q is brought nearby.
But then who does it? The field Q/r or the charge Q?
 

Offline flr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 302
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #15 on: 16/03/2013 02:45:17 »
In order to compute the motion of an object of mass m along the (say) galaxy all I need to know is the distribution of mass in the Galaxy (stars, planets, moons, etc).
I can very well compute from the mass distribution the field and then make field interact with the test (moving) mass m.

But I can very well do it without field, just from all mases and the test mass.

----
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #16 on: 16/03/2013 04:14:15 »
What I find harder to accept is a definition of a field as co-moving without defining from what principle. You can use uniform motion for it, thinking from locality, but I don't see how you can use anything else?

Locality is simple.


For sure, the Higgs field is difficult to wrap one's mind around. Maybe it's better understood by thinking about the Local particle and the associated Higgs field as being common participants existing only together but never separately. The question would be: Does the Higgs field exist alone without the presence of matter, or, does the matter in the particle generate it's own Higgs field giving rise to the mass we can experimentally measure?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #17 on: 16/03/2013 09:02:20 »
Yes Flr, and thnx. I can see the idea better now, and I agree. You may not need a field, although it becomes one. For me that has to do with 'what' the universe is :) Then again, everything seems to become philosophy to me, and? Because if we consider it from that point of view it still will work, as I think, but you will then also need to define how the universe works? As one coherent picture in where we all exist? Or as something defined from each mass, and then also using some sort of fractal to describe 'emergences'. I'm not sure you and Strassler are that far apart there, but I think you still need to decide how you would define a universe from that point of view. We have it, you can move in a electrical field, to find it change. It exist. Fact is that I need to think about it, but, it's a interesting idea.
« Last Edit: 16/03/2013 09:04:36 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
Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #18 on: 16/03/2013 09:08:11 »
And yes Ethos, that was how I thought too. Talking about 'forces' being associated to the mass. But then, what is 'space'? Not to forget that it is the major thing defining a distance for us, inside us as well as outside us. And what would 'forces' become? If they don't use a 'space'?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #19 on: 16/03/2013 09:37:47 »
I'm not pleased with a Higgs field because it builds on a vacuum definition of there being 'layers' of energies in it. It actually comes from the same place as virtual particles as i read it, which makes it a preposition to consider a space as having a existence without mass. Also it becomes a very tricky definition of how the universe is thought to act. It is a particle definition using something without resistance and mass having a 'force' that interacts with us without being measurable. We can't measure that field, what we have done is to throw hadrons (Neutrons and protons) at each other using a very strong accelerating Em field to then measure energies. From that to find this decided seems as hubris to me
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #20 on: 16/03/2013 09:41:12 »
Or if you like, if a Higgs particle have a mass, from where do you think it gets it?
Its chirality :)

And that would be ... What exactly?
No funny pictures. Just what it is.
=

if the universe can be described as a wave function, does it have a chirality?
What direction would that be then?

Awhhhh...
« Last Edit: 16/03/2013 10:16:43 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
Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #21 on: 16/03/2013 09:53:01 »
And another thing, the more certain I find a answer to be, and the less interested those defining it is in finding a easy to understand explanation for a layman, the more I doubt it. And this one demands you to accept all definitions existing before it as true, also that you assign a couple of years to learning the esoteric mathematics behind it. After that you can ask :)

Wasn't it Einstein who said that 'make it as easy to understand as is possible, but no more' :) On the other hand he also pointed out that if you can't explain it to a six year old, it most probably is wrong. This one you can't explain without that math, also accepting all definitions leading up to the math. What does that make it?
« Last Edit: 16/03/2013 10:00:37 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
Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #22 on: 16/03/2013 11:07:32 »
Okay it assumes a space. This space is not discussed from the macroscopic observer dependencies. The space contains some 'energy' but only as a expectation. particles of mass can, and are expected to, change chirality, which can be seen as some symmetry interacting with that Higgs field values, becoming their 'anti partner' (electrons-positrons for example) depending on your measurement.  the reason behind the field is called electroweak symmetry breaking, which is a discussion about 'emergences'.  And actually there seems to be two camps here, one defining it as inertia, the other defining it as 'mass' :)

Gotta love physics.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #23 on: 16/03/2013 11:09:34 »
So we have very fast jumped from a probable Higgs to a 'confirmed'. We have also a change in the definition for it from 'inertia' to 'mass'. It is then a TOE. And all of it 'particles' eh, 'fields' eh, but 'particles'.. :)
=
The funniest thing is that no one dare to state it, but it must be the conclusion.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #24 on: 16/03/2013 11:23:48 »
A theory that can't explain how macroscopic observer dependencies can exist can't be a TOE to me? But, if you want to give mass to the Higg, you then can define gravity, per Einstein, as a pure geometry. That geometry is defined through mass (and that scarlet pimpernel 'energy') and here we find the Standard Theory now happily defining mass as a result of 'particles' gaining it from interacting with the expectation value of a unmeasurable field. It's possible, maybe? I don't know, but I doubt it.

What would a acceleration be under this definition? Can you then define a 'energy' as per the stress energy tensor to the Higgs field? Locally? That would change that expectation value, would it not? But as it all 'virtual'  right :) Well, it's not 'virtual' in a collision, as far as I know?

And 'motion', what would it be?
And a 'space', is it now defined as existing without mass? Because it becomes a sort of 'round robin' reasoning like this. We define it from a space having a field, although the field and particles interacting create the mass defining the 'space' and so the 'field'. Or would they be two separate 'things'?

Another point, defining a 'common space' for a field you now no longer have a 'relative motion'. You now have gone to a 'absolute motion' as I read it. Because you then must have one coordinate system prevalent as the definer of that field. Avoiding this you introduce a field that can't be a field as occupying some predefined space. Then the field is a local description only.
=

Keep correcting my syntax and spelling. It sux.
« Last Edit: 16/03/2013 11:55:51 by yor_on »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #24 on: 16/03/2013 11:23:48 »

 

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