The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Does a supernova destroy the Higgs field locally?  (Read 2558 times)

Offline DanAriet

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
During a thought exploration about black holes the other night I had an interesting thought.  At least I thought it interesting although I'm not an expert by any means on the subject. But anyways, what if during the extremely violent explosion of a super nova, which will inevitably create a black hole, the higgs boson/field is disrupted so mush that it is destroyed.  (For those who aren't familiar with the higgs boson or field, it is the particle that gives everything mass.)  This could possibly effect only an extremely small point in space, maybe the size of a higgs boson particle.  This space where the higgs was destroyed could be what we know as a singularity.  And if this did happen it could hypothetically cause hyper-distortion to the space around it.  Because of this area with no "space" everything around it would want to move to it.  I imagine it would be the same as matter moving to the least dense area.  This is just a thought and could and most likely is completely wrong but some feedback and expansion on this idea would be appreciated it!
« Last Edit: 11/09/2015 08:16:29 by chris »


 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 125 times
    • View Profile
.... (For those who aren't familiar with the higgs boson or field, it is the particle that gives everything mass.)  ....
Just a point of detail, as I understand it the Higgs is not responsible for mass of all particles eg not protons and neutrons. Perhaps someone who works in this area could correct me if I've put the wrong spin on this.
That might affect your ideas, but I can imagine such an event causing disruption.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
As I understand it, supernovae don't inevitably result in black holes, and the Higgs field, like the other quantum fields, can't be destroyed, it's part of the fabric of spacetime. It isn't the Higgs particle that gives everything mass, it's the Higgs field (of which the particle is a high energy excitation) that gives mass to the fundamental particles. Non-fundamental particles, such as protons and neutrons, have a few percent of their mass contributed by the fundamental particles they contain (quarks, etc.), but the bulk of their mass is due to the energy of the virtual particles that bind them together.

Having said all that, a singularity is where current physics breaks down to give meaningless results; I don't think many physicists believe there can really be a spatial point of infinite density - we just don't know what really happens. Speculating, I don't see why the absence of the Higgs field would result in a singularity. Without the Higgs field, all fundamental particles would be massless and travel at the speed of light, so presumably there would be an intense burst of Cherenkov-like radiation as these particles emerged from Higgs-less space at c, encountered the Higgs field, gained mass, and shed their surplus energy. I have no idea what that would mean inside the event horizon of a black hole - I guess we'd never know about it.

But I'm no expert, I'm just putting together stuff that I've read...
« Last Edit: 07/09/2015 10:44:31 by dlorde »
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1830
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: Dan
This space where the higgs was destroyed could be what we know as a singularity.

Hi Dan, welcome.  I think Colin and Dlorde have covered the essentials, but one thing interests me.  One of the supposed features of a singularity (at least, of the type that might be at the centre of a BH) is infinite gravity.  In your idea, where does the gravity come from?

The logical answer seemed to be that it came from all the matter/energy that rushed into the space; but then you said:

Quote
Because of this area with no "space" everything around it would want to move to it.


so if there's no space, what is there to rush into?
 

Offline Mordeth

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
During a thought exploration about black holes the other night I had an interesting thought.  At least I thought it interesting although I'm not an expert by any means on the subject. But anyways, what if during the extremely violent explosion of a super nova, which will inevitably create a black hole, the higgs boson/field is disrupted so mush that it is destroyed.  (For those who aren't familiar with the higgs boson or field, it is the particle that gives everything mass.)  This could possibly effect only an extremely small point in space, maybe the size of a higgs boson particle.  This space where the higgs was destroyed could be what we know as a singularity.  And if this did happen it could hypothetically cause hyper-distortion to the space around it.  Because of this area with no "space" everything around it would want to move to it.  I imagine it would be the same as matter moving to the least dense area.  This is just a thought and could and most likely is completely wrong but some feedback and expansion on this idea would be appreciated it!

Your assumptions are wrong on many accounts.  The Higgs Field does not "give everything mass".  It is responsible for giving mass to elementary particles only.  It does not give mass to protons and neutrons, nor does it give mass to the Higgs particle itself.  Furthermore, the source of gravity is not mass.  It is from energy and momentum.  Mass is not needed for there to be gravity, and gravity itself affects particles with no mass. A photon has no mass, yet can be "trapped" by a black hole and is influenced by gravity.  The Higgs field and a black hole are not directly related. 

So yes, you are completely wrong (your words) and you should abandon this line of thought.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1830
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: Mordeth
...the source of gravity is not mass.

True, mass is not the only source of gravity, but it is a source, your statement says otherwise.  Did you mean that?

Quote
So yes, you are completely wrong (your words) and you should abandon this line of thought.

Einstein was wrong in some of his lines of thought, but still developed them into revolutionary conclusions.  Keep thinking, Dan, and keep doing what you are doing - putting your ideas out there to check them.
« Last Edit: 08/09/2015 04:04:17 by Bill S »
 

Offline DanAriet

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Thanks for the feedback guys! You definitely shed some more light on the topic for me which I appreciate. 
 

Offline mathew_orman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
Existence of those entities is hypothetical...
There are no instruments nor methods to distinguish those from photons, electrons or ions...
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3929
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Mass can only be expressed through energy which is in effect motion. If it were possible to make a particle absolutely stationary with not even quantum fluctuations then it would simply not exist as it would have no energy at all. This motion of elementary particles through the Higgs field is what we measure as the mass of said particles. Correct me if I am wrong. Something has to happen to the Higgs field at and inside the event horizon. Mass has no degrees of freedom in this region. The Higgs field is then forced into a one dimensional state. This has to be important.
 

Offline mathew_orman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
It is irrelevant.. Right or wrong in domain of a hypothetical theory which has not proven it's self make no physical influence on reality...
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 125 times
    • View Profile
It is irrelevant.. Right or wrong in domain of a hypothetical theory which has not proven it's self make no physical influence on reality...
This statement is illogical.
Many things have had significant impact on reality before their existence was even hypothetical.
 

Offline mathew_orman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
You are right: "This statement is illogical." Can you explain what you mean?
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1879
  • Thanked: 145 times
    • View Profile
It is irrelevant.. Right or wrong in domain of a hypothetical theory which has not proven it's self make no physical influence on reality...

Theories don't have any influence on reality, other than people can make use of theories to do things in the physical world. We can make predictions based on a theory, and if it's a good one, we can predict something that has never been observed before, and then observe it. This is a great way to support a theory, but it can never "prove the theory is right..." and it certainly doesn't mean that the universe works differently because of a new theory.

Reality is what it is, whether or not we can understand it, and theories are attempts to understand reality.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3929
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
If virtual particle pairs in the vacuum are unaffected by gravity due to their fleeting nature then the Higgs field is an entropy sink enabler in its one dimensional form. So that ultimately entropy would convert mass to virtual particles at the event horizon. Just my two penneth.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

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