Naked Science Forum

Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: Greylorn on 19/08/2017 04:26:16

Title: Is the Higgs field named incorrectly?
Post by: Greylorn on 19/08/2017 04:26:16
According to theory, the Higgs boson interacts with something called the "Higgs field" to generate the property of mass.  I propose that the Higgs field should be renamed in the interest of accuracy. 

Fields are volumes of space that are affected by the state of some particle, or configuration of particles.  For example, an electric charge produces a Coulomb or charge field centered on the charged object (e.g. electron) and diminishing with the inverse square of the distance from the object. 

Because an electron also has a small mass, it also generates a gravitational field that propagates through space according to the inverse square rule, but with a decrease in intensity when compared to its Coulomb field. 

Get the electron moving in a circle, and it will generate a magnetic field that is modeled as if emanating from the center of the electron's rotation.  The intensity of this field also diminishes according to an inverse square rule.

What these fields have in common is that they are caused by the properties of a defined physical entity, and do not exist independently of those properties.  However, the Higgs field appears to be a different thing.

Perhaps I've failed to understand things properly, but according to the little I've learned (entirely from pop-science sources) the Higgs field is a separate thing, something existing in its own right, independently of the bosons with which it allegedly interacts. 

Put another way, the boson interacts with the field but does not create the field. 

Perhaps my understanding of the entire Higgs boson concept is incorrect, but if not, shouldn't the Higgs field should be renamed the "Higgs space." 


Title: Re: Is the Higgs field named incorrectly?
Post by: Bill S on 20/08/2017 16:47:58
Quote
Perhaps I've failed to understand things properly,

Perhaps you have not fully grasped the nature of a field.  I, too, have gained most of my understanding from pop-sci, and know how easy it is to get wrong ideas.

I suggest starting by defining a field as something that:
 is present everywhere in space and time,
can be, on average, zero or not zero, and
can have waves in it.
If you are considering the quantum nature of the field; its waves are also particles.

Try to think, not of the field being generated by the waves/particles, but rather, think of the field as being there all the time, and the waves/particles as being the things that let us detect the presence of the field.

I feel sure that someone will correct this, if I am leading you astray.
Title: Re: Is the Higgs field named incorrectly?
Post by: Seth graves 92 on 20/08/2017 21:52:54
This may help, the high is everything inside the two galactic planes the actual order of the solar system... if we were a macro cell it's the cytoplasm... and it's contains a certain energy thus creating a field to observe...
Title: Re: Is the Higgs field named incorrectly?
Post by: Greylorn on 20/08/2017 21:59:09
Quote
Perhaps I've failed to understand things properly,

Perhaps you have not fully grasped the nature of a field.  I, too, have gained most of my understanding from pop-sci, and know how easy it is to get wrong ideas.

I suggest starting by defining a field as something that:
 is present everywhere in space and time,
can be, on average, zero or not zero, and
can have waves in it.
If you are considering the quantum nature of the field; its waves are also particles.

Try to think, not of the field being generated by the waves/particles, but rather, think of the field as being there all the time, and the waves/particles as being the things that let us detect the presence of the field.

I feel sure that someone will correct this, if I am leading you astray.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. 

I apologize for misleading you a bit.  Although I've learned about the Higgs field and its theoretical properties via pop-sci sources, I followed up via the internet, and discussed the issue with a theoretical mathematician friend who taught me about spaces.  My degree is in Applied Math & Engineering Physics, but it's an old degree obtained before the Standard Model was developed.  I'd hoped to become a physicist but upon realizing that quantum theory was based upon our inability to make accurate measurements at subatomic scales, chose to spend 20 years working in astronomy, where I was able to make several contributions, including a minor paper about a specific class of variable stars.  I finished my research career in microbiology before starting a small business, which has kept me in beans and beer for the last three decades while I consider the marvels and mysteries of my original passion, physics.

Here's a quote from https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_field (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_field). "The Higgs field is an energy field that is thought to exist everywhere in the universe. The field is accompanied by a fundamental particle called the Higgs boson, which the field uses to continuously interact with other particles."  (This is but one example of related explanations.)

This explanation is somewhat ambiguous.  For example, what kind of energy are they talking about?  Every energy form I learned about in formal physics studies was related to definable physical properties such as matter, motion, charge, etc., by clear formulas with "E" on the left hand side. 

I could not find such a mathematical description of the Higgs energy "field."  Perhaps you or someone who know more than I could point me in the right direction.  My ignorance is not for lack of trying to eliminate it. 

But more importantly, as I explained poorly in my OP, is the question of whether or not the Higgs field is properly named.  It would seem obvious that if the Higgs "field" is to function in accordance with the longstanding principle that the laws of physics are consistent and unchanging throughout the universe, it must maintain constant properties throughout the universe.  That seems to me to be something we would expect of a space, rather than a field. 

You are correct of course that, at least theoretically, an electric field is infinite in extent-- even the small field generated by an electron.  Two points, however, should be considered in the context of the OP:

1.  The effective extent of such a point-sourced field is limited to small volumes surrounding the source.  At greater distances the field becomes lost in the noise generated by other fields, its effects undetectable.  Even without noise, it would prove impossible to detect a weak inverse-square field generated by an electron one parsec distant.

2.  The effect of a point-sourced inverse-squared field will vary as a function of distance from the point.  This property cannot apply to the Higgs "field," which must behave by the same rules everywhere in spacetime. 

The HF cannot be generated by quantized particles because these are not distributed equally throughout space.  For example, an HF generated by bosons or whatever would be concentrated within clumps of matter within a galaxy, and would necessarily fall off in the space between galaxies. 

If you hark back to the days before Michelson, Morley, and Einstein, you'll find the "aether," a hypothetical substance which supported the propagation of e/m waves.  The aether was thought to be a substance pervading all space with equal density and consistency.  The aether was thought to be a property of space itself, otherwise its consistency could not make sense and light-speed would fluctuate in a detectable manner. 

Of course the aether has gone the way of phlogiston (never mind that physicist John Schulenberger has shown in a suitably published paper that the Michelson-Morley experiment could not have detected the aether).   My point in mentioning this is to suggest that the properties attributed to the Higgs Field are much more consistent with the properties of an entire space than with a field contained within such a space. 

Looking forward to your thoughts on this, and perhaps those of others, and with luck an interesting discussion. 

Title: Re: Is the Higgs field named incorrectly?
Post by: Bill S on 21/08/2017 16:34:27
What’s that old expression about teaching your grandmother to suck eggs? Could be what I’m doing here. :)

On the principle that I might learn something from continued discussion; here goes; one small step at a time:-

Quote
You are correct of course that, at least theoretically, an electric field is infinite in extent-- even the small field generated by an electron.

I’m not clear as to why you seem to consider that a field is something that is generated by a particle.  Seemingly you object to the idea that a field exists in space, and that a wave/particle is a disturbance in that field.  Why?

 I might not go as far as John Wheeler in suggesting that there is only one electron in the Universe, but could it not be that electrons are identical because they are disturbances in an otherwise uniform field?

I guess that’s two steps, but my maths has never been that good. :)
Title: Re: Is the Higgs field named incorrectly?
Post by: jeffreyH on 21/08/2017 17:55:52
You cannot detect an electron field. An electron is a disturbance in this field. The electron is the source of both an electric and magnetic field. Without an electron or alternatively a proton these fields would not be there. The disturbance in the combined electromagnetic field is the photon. The Higgs field is like the electron field. The Higgs boson is the disturbance in this field. It is the vacuum expectation value that plays a part in donating a mass term to elementary particles. The graphical representation is like a Mexican hat. It involves symmetry breaking.
Title: Re: Is the Higgs field named incorrectly?
Post by: jeffreyH on 21/08/2017 19:33:22
For a description of vacuum expectation value please consult the following.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_expectation_value
Title: Re: Is the Higgs field named incorrectly?
Post by: Bill S on 21/08/2017 23:14:38
Jeffrey, your posts are not usually confusing.  I don’t always understand them, but that’s a different thing.
This time I’m confused; so it’s probably my lack of understanding.
Quote
You cannot detect an electron field. An electron is a disturbance in this field.
This seems to say that an electron is a disturbance in a (pre-existing?) field.
Quote
The electron is the source of both an electric and magnetic field.
How can it be the “source” of the field, and a disturbance in it?  Are you differentiating between an “electron field”, whatever that might be, and the e/m field?
Quote
Without an electron or alternatively a proton these fields would not be there.
If the field is not already there, where does the electron (or proton) come from?
Title: Re: Is the Higgs field named incorrectly?
Post by: Bill S on 22/08/2017 00:31:29
On the subject of field/space relations, I found a quote which may be, or be adapted from, Matt Strassler.

"The Higgs field permeates space, and alters space; it does not fill space in the way that air fills a room". 
Title: Re: Is the Higgs field named incorrectly?
Post by: Greylorn on 22/08/2017 05:31:20
What’s that old expression about teaching your grandmother to suck eggs? Could be what I’m doing here. :)

On the principle that I might learn something from continued discussion; here goes; one small step at a time:-

Quote
You are correct of course that, at least theoretically, an electric field is infinite in extent-- even the small field generated by an electron.

I’m not clear as to why you seem to consider that a field is something that is generated by a particle.  Seemingly you object to the idea that a field exists in space, and that a wave/particle is a disturbance in that field.  Why?

 I might not go as far as John Wheeler in suggesting that there is only one electron in the Universe, but could it not be that electrons are identical because they are disturbances in an otherwise uniform field?

I guess that’s two steps, but my maths has never been that good. :)
Bill,
I knew both grandmothers; neither sucked eggs, in public anyway, and I never heard the expression you referenced.  So far it seems that what you're doing here is engaging some curiosity.  Seems a good thing to do.  And I like the idea of working in single steps.  To that end, you wrote: "I’m not clear as to why you seem to consider that a field is something that is generated by a particle."

I'll hark back to Physics 301b in 1961, fundamental stuff.  A Coulomb (electric) field surrounds an electric charge, such as the charge on an electron.   This field produces a (Newtonian) force on objects capable of interacting with that force, typically things that are electrically charged.  The Coulomb force is proportionate to the charges involved and the inverse square of the distance between them. 

Back then, charges were associated with the known fundamental particles, electrons and protons.  These days they are understood be the properties of another level of particles, quarks and some leptons.  Here's one of many links that are slightly constructive:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark)

      Personally, I thought that atomic physics theory was bunk when I first studied it back in 1962 and predicted that we would continue to build bigger particle accelerators, which would produce more particle garbage, that would in turn be explained by increasingly complex and arcane theories, which is exactly what happened, as you'll see if you pursue the subject, even via the internet. Nonetheless, throughout the original and all following theories, charge is a quantized property invariably associated with a particle, whether quark or lepton. 

Since charge seems to generate an electric field (which is what we actually can measure to infer the existence of charges), I'm inclined to go with classical physics and associate electric fields with the particles known to carry charge. 

Gravitational fields likewise.  They require matter, which is made of particles. 

I do not know of any fields described by physics principles that are not generated by particles.  That's why I accept the observations and the physics behind it. 

You also asked, "Seemingly you object to the idea that a field exists in space, and that a wave/particle is a disturbance in that field.  Why? "

Perhaps I described my views incompetently.  Fields can only exist within a space.  I'm trying only to make a distinction between fields and spaces, by proposing that the Higgs "field" is actually a space.   I figured this might be difficult, as it is proving to be.

An e/m wave or particle moving within a field (if it is capable of interacting with that field's properties) will of course be a disturbance within that field.  This does not imply that the particle is created by the field. 

For example, creating very strong electric fields will not, to my knowledge, create charge carrying particles such as electrons or protons within that field.  Strong gravitational fields are not known to create matter. 

Your question touches on the who's on first issue, chicken or egg?  Which comes first, field or particle?  Cosmology is a fascinating subject, but if I discussed it I'd be kicked down to the speculative forums which are populated by people I'd normally meet in a country dance hall.  Did I meet John Wheeler there awhile back?  One of us must have been too inebriated to recall.    -G
Title: Re: Is the Higgs field named incorrectly?
Post by: Greylorn on 22/08/2017 05:38:05
Jeffrey, your posts are not usually confusing.  I don’t always understand them, but that’s a different thing.
This time I’m confused; so it’s probably my lack of understanding.
Quote
You cannot detect an electron field. An electron is a disturbance in this field.
This seems to say that an electron is a disturbance in a (pre-existing?) field.
Quote
The electron is the source of both an electric and magnetic field.
How can it be the “source” of the field, and a disturbance in it?  Are you differentiating between an “electron field”, whatever that might be, and the e/m field?
Quote
Without an electron or alternatively a proton these fields would not be there.
If the field is not already there, where does the electron (or proton) come from?
Bill,
Your thinking is straight and your questions are right on.  Good job of sorting out ideas from balderdash. :)  -G
Title: Re: Is the Higgs field named incorrectly?
Post by: jeffreyH on 22/08/2017 06:24:56
It is quantum field theory.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-electron-field-as-distinct-from-the-electromagnetic-field
Title: Re: Is the Higgs field named incorrectly?
Post by: Bill S on 22/08/2017 20:47:25
Thanks for the link, Jeffrey. 

The first quote is from the first answer.

Quote
The term “electron field” implies that the electron particle we observe in experiment is the quantum of a field, just like the photon is the quantum of the electromagnetic field.

Would I be right in interpreting this as saying that the term “electron field” simply designates the observable effect an electron has on a pre-existing field?

A later quote says:

Quote
The photons are carriers of the electromagnetic field - the electrons are sources of that field

If the electromagnetic field permeates space, I still fail to see how an electron that arises as a disturbance in that field, can be the cause of the field.

Using the analogy of a stone thrown into a still pond; the disturbance certainly effects the surface of the water; it could perhaps be described as a “field” radiating outward on the surface, but it could not be construed as being the cause of the pond, or even of the surface.

I know that this sort of analogy doesn’t necessarily work well with QM, but the terminology, surely, has to make sense.
Title: Re: Is the Higgs field named incorrectly?
Post by: Greylorn on 22/08/2017 22:28:40
On the subject of field/space relations, I found a quote which may be, or be adapted from, Matt Strassler.

"The Higgs field permeates space, and alters space; it does not fill space in the way that air fills a room".
This is exactly how the aether was understood, before it fell out of favor early in the 20th century.  I'm beginning to think that the Higgs "field" is essentially the aether, reinvented. 

The aether was not referred to as a field or a space, but a property of space.  Had it been understood as a space in its own right, it might still be a viable and functional concept. 
Title: Re: Is the Higgs field named incorrectly?
Post by: jeffreyH on 22/08/2017 22:43:42
The electron field is distinct from the electromagnetic field. It is a fermion field. The electromagnetic field is a boson field. The boson being the photon. This is a subtle distinction but important.

PS The electron does not arise as a disturbance in the electromagnetic field. It is a disturbance in the electron field.
Title: Re: Is the Higgs field named incorrectly?
Post by: Bill S on 23/08/2017 00:40:29
Quote from: Jeffrey
PS The electron does not arise as a disturbance in the electromagnetic field. It is a disturbance in the electron field.

Are you saying that the electron gives rise to the electron field; then becomes a disturbance in the field to which it has given existence?

Quote
The electromagnetic field is a boson field. The boson being the photon.

I would not argue with that, but:-

Someone said of Hinduism that one could be a Hindu and believe what one liked.  Later someone applied this to the Church of England.  I’m not at all sure if it is true of either, but could it be true of physics?

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/131968/what-is-the-electromagnetic-field-and-what-is-the-higgs-field

Quote
…. [T]he concept "electromagnetic" is stretched , there are electric fields and magnetic fields in classical electrodynamics, which combined create the classical electromagnetic wave. The electromagnetic wave is composed in a functional way by electric and magnetic fields but is not a field per se.
Title: Re: Is the Higgs field named incorrectly?
Post by: jeffreyH on 23/08/2017 05:54:22
The electron field, the proton field and the fields for other particles are part of gauge theory.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_gauge_theory
Title: Re: Is the Higgs field named incorrectly?
Post by: jeffreyH on 23/08/2017 12:58:46
The symmetry breaking of the Higgs field sounds all mysterious. Think of a perfect sphere. No matter which way it is rotated it appears the same. If we put a dot on the surface a rotation will change the appearance of the sphere. Lorentz invariance is like the perfect sphere. The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames. Lorentz transformations do not change this. In the case of particles they should be massless. This massless particle symmetry is broken by the Higgs mechanism. The point of symmetry of the potential is on top of the Mexican hat. If it 'rolls' down to the brim it is no longer symmetrical. Without this mechanism all particles would be massless and likely indistinguishable.
Title: Re: Is the Higgs field named incorrectly?
Post by: dutch on 23/08/2017 19:31:16
If you hark back to the days before Michelson, Morley, and Einstein, you'll find the "aether," a hypothetical substance which supported the propagation of e/m waves.  The aether was thought to be a substance pervading all space with equal density and consistency.  The aether was thought to be a property of space itself, otherwise its consistency could not make sense and light-speed would fluctuate in a detectable manner. 

I'll answer the aether part of the discussion with the following (and it also helps visualize fields):

Quote
Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:

It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories

The Higgs Field is one of many fields that permeate all of space. Because of the symmetries of Relativity you can't ascribe a rest frame (a rest velocity) to the fields but they can contain non-zero levels of energy existing as vacuum fluctuations (indirectly observed in experiments on the Casimir Effect and many other experiments). If an excitation is at just the right energy it can exist in a stable (or semi-stable form if they can easily decay into daughter particles like the heavier Higgs Boson easily does) quantized form we call a particle. If a fluctuation has a little too much or too little energy it can only exist for a very brief duration of time due to the Uncertainty Principle. Many fluctuations exist far off their energy/mass shell and exist as virtual particles we can't directly detect.

Different fields can interact with one another and ALL particles have an associated field. Particles are quantized excitations of their associated field. Perhaps as some theories suggest all these fields are just different modes of the same underlying field (different ways a single unified field vibrates). The Higgs Mechanism takes a field like the electron field where the electron should move at light speed and interacts with it. This interaction slows the excitations of the electron field down turning some of the electron's energy into rest energy (mass). The analogy is like a rock star getting slowed down while moving through their crowd of fans. This allows the electron to have a speed other than light speed. If the Higgs Mechanism didn't exist most likely all particles would move at the speed of light.

Charged particles like electrons and protons interact with the electromagnetic field (also called the photon field) but the photon is the excitation of that particular field. The magnetic and electric fields are different aspects of the same field. Other force causing fields like gravity also have relativistic magnetic analogs (frame dragging ect) so the magnetic field is just an aspect of the fully relativistic electromagnetic field.








Title: Re: Is the Higgs field named incorrectly?
Post by: Bill S on 24/08/2017 13:39:25
A few good things to think about, there, Dutch.

Quote
The analogy is like a rock star getting slowed down while moving through their crowd of fans.

As in David Miller’s original, in which the celebrity was Margret Thatcher; this does perpetuate the idea that the giving of mass depends on motion through the Higgs field, which is not the case.

Hopefully, I'll be able to return to some other points when time permits.
Title: Re: Is the Higgs field named incorrectly?
Post by: jeffreyH on 24/08/2017 18:24:02
It would be better if each fan the rock star encountered passed them a heavy autograph book to sign. Therefore increasing the rock star's inertia. The rock could receive the book in his right hand and pass it back from his left hand. Mimicking the handedness of particles.
Title: Re: Is the Higgs field named incorrectly?
Post by: Bill S on 24/08/2017 18:37:39
Quote from: dutch
The Higgs Field is one of many fields that permeate all of space. Because of the symmetries of Relativity you can't ascribe a rest frame (a rest velocity) to the fields…..

Are you saying that it makes no sense to talk of motion relative to the Higgs field?  If so, I would agree with that.

Quote
…..ALL particles have an associated field. Particles are quantized excitations of their associated field.

 Unless I am misinterpreting this, we are in agreement here, too.  Particles are excitations of their associated fields, they may have an observable effect on the field, e.g. they may enable us to detect the field, but they do not (necessarily?) give rise to the field.
Title: Re: Is the Higgs field named incorrectly?
Post by: Bill S on 24/08/2017 18:41:45
Quote from: Jeffery
It would be better if each fan the rock star encountered passed them a heavy autograph book to sign. Therefore increasing the rock star's inertia. The rock could receive the book in his right hand and pass it back from his left hand. Mimicking the handedness of particles.

Nice one, Jeffrey, but you have still not got rid of relative movement in the process.  :)
Title: Re: Is the Higgs field named incorrectly?
Post by: jeffreyH on 24/08/2017 18:46:54
On that point it is interesting to read up on lattice gauge theory where spacetime is 'quantized'. This breaks up the continuum and removes infinities as best as I can remember.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattice_gauge_theory

Title: Re: Is the Higgs field named incorrectly?
Post by: yor_on on 04/09/2017 10:04:15
" My point in mentioning this is to suggest that the properties attributed to the Higgs Field are much more consistent with the properties of an entire space than with a field contained within such a space."

Nice observation and true. It should be that way if it is correct.

The question then becomes, what makes a 'SpaceTime'? The Higgs field? I don't expect that to be correct, I would expect it as a 'property' of SpaceTime, but not SpaceTime itself
Title: Re: Is the Higgs field named incorrectly?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 04/09/2017 11:53:21
Yep if a field is created by the presence of body.

The field and the field , the chicken and the egg, what came first. Matter cannot travel faster than the speed of light, because matter is given its form in space and a gravitational field becomes apparent, and to attempt to infuse matter with more energy than the speed of light breaks thisrelationship leading to destruction and energy release! Likewise the mass is only apparently present when the boson is, but an underlying field is always present.  A causation field

I really do agree with you about the futility of researching this to such a degree, they are now seeking another higgs boson, becausee the one didnt match, and im sure that after that they will be off again.

All these fields seem to be point to the need of a god field, wherein all fields are ultimatley the off spring of this single field, perhaps a 'MIASMA ' of some sort.  I may need a £50bn particle accelerator to discern it, plus a cushy job for 40 years.
Title: Re: Is the Higgs field named incorrectly?
Post by: Greylorn on 24/09/2017 11:16:41
" My point in mentioning this is to suggest that the properties attributed to the Higgs Field are much more consistent with the properties of an entire space than with a field contained within such a space."

Nice observation and true. It should be that way if it is correct.

The question then becomes, what makes a 'SpaceTime'? The Higgs field? I don't expect that to be correct, I would expect it as a 'property' of SpaceTime, but not SpaceTime itself

yur_on,

Surprising to find someone who actually comprehends the difference between fields and spaces.  Appreciated! 

However, I wrote nothing referencing "space-time," which is another topic entirely.  Since Big Al died, I'm not convinced that anyone actually understands that concept, self included.  I do not understand why you would introduce the unnecessary complication of space-time into a conversation intended to resolve problems. 

The trick behind solving physics problems is to isolate the relevant variables and eliminate irrelevant variables, not to introduce more variables.  Kind of like basic mechanics-- set up a configuration of things subject to forces, analyze their geometry and apply basic force equations with motion (and therefore time) out of any equations.  In other words, freeze time for an instant so as to take motion out of the picture, then analyze whatever vectored forces might act upon the geometrical configuration so as to cause motion.  My OP was deliberately time-independent. 

In that context, your question would reduce to the more fundamental, "what makes space?"  My answer is simply, "nothing."  If I tried to elaborate, this conversation would be transferred to the zombie sections of this forum.  But I think that according to the rules, you could answer the simplified version of your own question without killing the entire topic.  I'd certainly be interested in your answer.

Title: Re: Is the Higgs field named incorrectly?
Post by: Greylorn on 24/09/2017 11:27:27
Yep if a field is created by the presence of body.

The field and the field , the chicken and the egg, what came first. Matter cannot travel faster than the speed of light, because matter is given its form in space and a gravitational field becomes apparent, and to attempt to infuse matter with more energy than the speed of light breaks thisrelationship leading to destruction and energy release! Likewise the mass is only apparently present when the boson is, but an underlying field is always present.  A causation field

I really do agree with you about the futility of researching this to such a degree, they are now seeking another higgs boson, becausee the one didnt match, and im sure that after that they will be off again.

All these fields seem to be point to the need of a god field, wherein all fields are ultimatley the off spring of this single field, perhaps a 'MIASMA ' of some sort.  I may need a £50bn particle accelerator to discern it, plus a cushy job for 40 years.
Petro...
You seem to be taking a constructive approach to the question, but if you were to rephrase your comments so as to distinguish between fields and spaces, I could produce a non-ambiguous reply.   As you've phrased your comment, a "god field" would require a "god." 

This "god" typically expands into the omnipotent and almighty God of Christianity, an entity defined to be without limits and therefore not relevant to any intelligent conversation.   
Title: Re: Is the Higgs field named incorrectly?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 24/09/2017 15:09:12
Basicaly i do agree. If a field is a force that is only apparent in the presence of a body in a localised area then you would have to say the higgs field is named incorrectly, as from my understanding of it, it is supposed to permiale space, like a "Miasma" of some sort, being equal in all directions. Gravitational fields are in relation to a locality and have varying potential, although they are said to have potential to infinity.

 God field is merley a reference to the "god particle" Higgs, and now it seems like theres more. (Not really relevant  but if god is what man doesnt understand, before then learning of it, and this new persective thus creating new things he doesnt understand, pretty much everythint is of this nature). Since every sientific generation seems to think it has found the absolute, as with atoms, they have indeed found the god particle of there generation, at great expense and little use, this will likely be superceeded very cheaply in future. Its greatly troubling that this god mistake is repeated by every generation, and even though they are scientists, they never seem to learn from it, but I suppose if they didnt believe in there god particle, the next generation would have no reason to appear scientific by making the next breakthrough . Psycology isnt a science, so its only to be expected.
Title: Re: Is the Higgs field named incorrectly?
Post by: Greylorn on 27/09/2017 05:03:58
Basicaly i do agree. If a field is a force that is only apparent in the presence of a body in a localised area then you would have to say the higgs field is named incorrectly, as from my understanding of it, it is supposed to permiale space, like a "Miasma" of some sort, being equal in all directions. Gravitational fields are in relation to a locality and have varying potential, although they are said to have potential to infinity.

 God field is merley a reference to the "god particle" Higgs, and now it seems like theres more. (Not really relevant  but if god is what man doesnt understand, before then learning of it, and this new persective thus creating new things he doesnt understand, pretty much everythint is of this nature). Since every sientific generation seems to think it has found the absolute, as with atoms, they have indeed found the god particle of there generation, at great expense and little use, this will likely be superceeded very cheaply in future. Its greatly troubling that this god mistake is repeated by every generation, and even though they are scientists, they never seem to learn from it, but I suppose if they didnt believe in there god particle, the next generation would have no reason to appear scientific by making the next breakthrough . Psycology isnt a science, so its only to be expected.
The generalized "god" mistake you reference is doomed to be repeated because cosmologists have adopted classic Hebrew monotheism as their model-- the belief that a single extremely complex thing or entity is somehow responsible for the existence of the universe.  They've turned Occam's Razor from a simple perspective, into a simplistic fundamental paradigm to which both religions and science remain joined at the cranium. 
Title: Re: Is the Higgs field named incorrectly?
Post by: yor_on on 01/10/2017 16:18:51
"In that context, your question would reduce to the more fundamental, "what makes space?"  My answer is simply, "nothing." "

Heh :)
You seem to ponder the same sort of questions there, what is 'nothing'?

SpaceTime is, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime,  "any mathematical model that fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single 4‑dimensional continuum."

Well, yea. That's one mainstream cosmological definition of our universe. Or you can see the 'universe' as a result of 'laws, properties and principles' communicating. Not as 'hands on' maybe but definitely more flexible. One way to look at it is from the 'whole', aka what you see looking out at the universe.

Another is to define it as if what we see is a result of those underlying 'laws, properties and principles'. And then ask what might 'emerge' from them.

'c' is a very important concept when thinking of it that way.
Title: Re: Is the Higgs field named incorrectly?
Post by: Greylorn on 02/10/2017 23:44:15
"In that context, your question would reduce to the more fundamental, "what makes space?"  My answer is simply, "nothing." "

Heh :)

You've come up with the dead-on correct answer: Nothing.  If you consider the metaphysical fundamentals required for a universe to exist, whatever your perspective or beliefs, upon burrowing into their core you'll find it necessary to accept the existence of at least one Absolute Miracle. 

Something must have existed without cause.  Western religionists define an omnipotent God as that Miracle; likewise, Western scientists (probably all scientists) might define the "singularity" as that miracle, if they had any philosophical insights. 

I prefer to treat "space" as an essential Absolute Miracle-- something that has no origin, no creator-- something that has always existed.  However, to be useful, space must have, I think three properties.  In addition to existence it must exhibit a fundamental force of some sort, and it must have a boundary condition. 


You seem to ponder the same sort of questions there, what is 'nothing'?

SpaceTime is, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime,  "any mathematical model that fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single 4‑dimensional continuum."

Well, yea. That's one mainstream cosmological definition of our universe. Or you can see the 'universe' as a result of 'laws, properties and principles' communicating. Not as 'hands on' maybe but definitely more flexible. One way to look at it is from the 'whole', aka what you see looking out at the universe.


I'm with you on this.  You could omit "laws" from your description because "principles" does the job, and laws are the kinds of arbitrary rules that people make up to control the behavior of nitwits lacking common sense.  (No jaywalking!) 

Another is to define it as if what we see is a result of those underlying 'laws, properties and principles'. And then ask what might 'emerge' from them.

'c' is a very important concept when thinking of it that way.
Evaluating properties and principles used to be what real physics was about, back when I fell in love with it.  Now, it's mostly mathematical nonsense.  I remain in love with the young woman from my college youth, and care little for the fat and wrinkled old crone into which she's morphed.  Keep the faiith!

I wonder about your "c" comment, particularly what ideas lie behind it.

It seems to me that the properties of "c" demand the existence of a medium (e.g. the aether).  Theoretically the existence of such a medium has been disproved, but as John Schulenberger's paper, "Isomorphisms of hyperbolic systems and the aether" points out, the famous Michelson-Morley experiment could not have detected the aether.  Thus its existence is not disproved.  Googling the Schulenberger paper brings up more stuff, of course.  http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03605308008820135
Title: Re: Is the Higgs field named incorrectly?
Post by: yor_on on 07/10/2017 23:58:59
Yes, 'c' is indeed a weird idea. You could derive it from Maxwells equations. As I understands it, that's how Einstein explained his way to the idea. And then it falls upon others to define what implications an aether would have on those equations. Actually I'm unsure how you see that an aether is needed, still keeping in line with the demands of relativity? An aether that is 'relative' or as a 'golden standard?