Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?

  • 39 Replies
  • 7238 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1862
    • 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!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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 »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1862
    • 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!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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 :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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 :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline flr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 302
    • 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!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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 »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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 »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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'
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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'.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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 »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline flr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 302
    • 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
  • ****
  • 302
    • 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
  • ******
  • 1280
    • 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?
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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 »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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'?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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 »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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 »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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 »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #25 on: 16/03/2013 13:04:50 »
Lattices won't work. Can't put that one strongly enough. I know I used it too to describe a equilibrium getting disturbed, but it do not take into consideration observer dependencies. Neither does it explain 'fractions', and fractions is incredibly important to defining spin etc. You will have to find another way to define basic math to make it work.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #26 on: 16/03/2013 14:48:59 »
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'?
Maybe space is nothing but a geometry of dimensions and the fabric we speculate about is only the re-organization of dimensions thru the influence of energy. I realize this doesn't explain things like how a virtual particle comes into being unless one assumes that the definition for energy is much more basic than just assigning a simple value to it. When we speak about the four forces as being different forms of energy, I'm not so sure that we may not be misleading ourselves. Maybe all four forces are only different representations of a single attribute? A simple change in the natural geometry of space/time.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #27 on: 16/03/2013 22:10:10 »
Maybe :)

Or the standard model is correct, which it seems to have been 'mostly' so far, and then we need a Higgs. What I get most irritated about is the inability to explain it simply, and correctly. We have this idea that for something to make sense you should be able to simplify it down to some few elegant equations that sort of 'catches it all'. I don't think this do that, because if it did you could start your explanation from those, maybe? Hmm, thinking of the stress energy tensor maybe not the simplest choice, would it be? Or the field equations :) Still, then there is my feeling that the Standard model is one description, and that 'behind it', another will lurk. But I guess it's close to what particles are, although I don't think it agrees with relativity.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #28 on: 16/03/2013 23:19:44 »
Maybe :)

Or the standard model is correct, which it seems to have been 'mostly' so far, and then we need a Higgs.
Yes, of course we need to consult the standard model because it has lead us this far and been very accurate in most cases. My point about the four forces is however, not really in disagreement with the standard model. The notion that all four forces were contained within one super force at the moment of the Big Bang has gained acceptance among cosmologists today. But I feel that, just because this super force divided itself into the four we observe today, does not suggest that they are independent one from another. It may suggest, as I have said before, that they are only different geometric representations of the same basic attribute. Sometime within the next few years, I suspect that string theory will give us a better understanding about the Higgs. But even then, gaining a mental image of this will be even more difficult than string theory is as we speak.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #29 on: 16/03/2013 23:36:35 »
Well, if you want a particle universe defined from a field, then this is it. But it don't fit how I think about relativity. Because the 'field' is in our regime, and so are relativity. They should fit together, but I can't make them do it. Maybe some other guy here know how the field can show us those macroscopic observer definitions?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline LetoII

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 64
    • View Profile
Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #30 on: 18/03/2013 16:00:43 »
nice question but isnt stationary impossible in space?

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1862
    • View Profile
Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #31 on: 18/03/2013 17:13:52 »
Quote from: LetoII
nice question but isnt stationary impossible in space?

My understanding is that it is impossible to claim that anything is stationary in an absolute sense.  It is equally impossible to claim that something is moving in an absolute sense.  If we are neither moving, nor stationary relative to space, what is our relationship to space?

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #32 on: 18/03/2013 17:39:57 »
Quote from: LetoII
nice question but isnt stationary impossible in space?

My understanding is that it is impossible to claim that anything is stationary in an absolute sense.  It is equally impossible to claim that something is moving in an absolute sense.  If we are neither moving, nor stationary relative to space, what is our relationship to space?
Perhaps our understanding of movement is wrong. There is a view of reality that suggests that it is only a change in time. And because there is no movement thru time, only quantum shifts of 5.39106 X10^-44 sec. with no intervening positions, motion is an illusion.
« Last Edit: 18/03/2013 17:43:27 by Ethos_ »
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #33 on: 19/03/2013 16:21:29 »
Well, if you define it from yourself, and what you measure locally in a uniform motion there is no 'energy' due to what speeds you might define relative a subsequent acceleration. So in that sense the acceleration haven't changed a thing for you locally. If you measure it relative another object in a space you can define the relation to have changed but you are free to define it to you or the other, and that's 'relative motion'. It all depends on what you think and how you define it. Einstein, and as far as I get it, defined a uniform motion to be equivalent all other uniform motions, and as you can define it as non-changing any relationships locally, you are free to define it as being 'at rest'.

Then you have the question of 'c', if you accelerate your frame of reference relative infalling light (from fixed stars for example), using that as your confirmation of a speed. If you now go the front of that relativistically moving 'spaceship'  and turn on your flashlight, is there a speed where you won't expect the light from that flashlight to move at 'c', relative you?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #34 on: 19/03/2013 16:41:05 »
All of it relative uniform motions. In a acceleration turning on that flashlight things will behave differently when it comes to blue shift perceived relative yourself, by a thought up spaceship existing in front of yours (at rest with yours), to you countermanded by the 'gravity' you find yourself to feel. And that's the 'bending of space' or a 'preferred direction' by 'gravity'. And I'm simplifying the relationships a lot here :)
=

that wasn't a very good explanation. Better to consider it from a spaceship, being at rest with whatever speed you defined before accelerating, but placed in front of you. He must find the light to blue shift. You will not though, as you and the flash light are defined as being 'at rest' with each other. Although that becomes a tricky thing in acceleration as you have constant displacements of all points due to the acceleration. Anyway, it's all about comparisons between different frames of reference in relativity. And each frame of uniform motion becoming locally equivalent. And? I would define that as being 'at rest', locally defined and measured.
« Last Edit: 19/03/2013 16:50:59 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #35 on: 19/03/2013 17:05:42 »
As I think then. If you want to define a speed you need another frame of reference. But, although using light as that frame may fit from a conception of a whole universe, and using some fixed star as your definition, locally any uniform motion will give you 'c', and in a two way experiment at rest with you I don't expect the light to blue shift due to what speed you defined relative that acceleration before. If you can prove me wrong there we have a definition of how uniform motions differ from each other, and locally so with all being 'at rest' relative each other macroscopically.

But to me it also has to do with 'scales' and what they may mean for introducing new 'frames of reference', relative each other? I'm not sure there? I better point out that even if you introduce new frames of reference Einstein will have the last laugh here. As he will have defined it correctly although what consist of a frame of 'uniform motion' then becomes relatively smaller, per definition :)

To make it wrong I suspect you will need to prove that no 'uniform motion' exist, anywhere.

And of course, it's also about how to define something being 'at rest'?
Can two spaceships, accelerating together, be defined as being 'at rest' with each other?

That becomes a real tricky one to me.
==

Keep jumping over words when I write :)
ah well.
« Last Edit: 19/03/2013 18:08:30 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #36 on: 10/05/2013 09:59:17 »
There is one more thing. To assume the Higg boson explaining mass then presume that it has explained what a 'rest mass' is. And if one presumes that, one then also must presume that it explains gravity, as that is directly related to rest mass. Which indeed would make it a Toe of sorts to me. As we then find Higg bosons not only defining a mass, but also somehow, and quite mysteriously so, lining up geodesics for that mass.

Higg do not explain gravity to me, neither do I find it to explain a rest mass, uniformly moving in a vacuum. And I still need someone to explain how it define observer dependencies, from a 'global' definition.

I don't think you can use local definitions and principles to define a 'globally same common universe', 'closed', and being of one magnitude 'energy'. As what I'm talking about is local definitions of energy, relative what might be considered as 'global definitions'. I don't hold to mix mathematical propositions and definitions, without checking how the principles and definitions fit this idea of a 'global field'. Using locality and strictly local definitions to define a globally same universe, is not correct as I think, unless someone can show me how it knit together the observer dependencies, experimentally verified.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #37 on: 10/05/2013 10:15:55 »
And using 'c' to describe that global definition, will only tell me that you're as much in the dark, as I am :)
Unless you really can explain from what and where 'c' must exist, locally the same as well as being what join 'frames of reference', which then should pass what we can measure into some theoretical domain.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1862
    • View Profile
Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #38 on: 10/05/2013 13:38:18 »
Returning to the OP, I have had some thoughts on the subject:

The Higgs field permeates space, and alters space; it does not fill space in the same way that air fills a room. 

How, then, can we visualise the mechanism by which the Higgs field gives mass to elementary particles, such as the electron?  We will try to visualise it, first, by thinking of a more familiar field, the electromagnetic (EM) field.  It too permeates space, where, on average, its value is zero; only locally is it non-zero.  At a time and place at which it is non-zero it may have visible effects, for example, a person's hair might stand up.  Thus we can think of the EM field as being turned on (non-zero) or turned off (zero).  Manifestly, the EM field, when it is turned on, does not have the same effect on everything.  Some things react with it, others do not.  For example, an elastic band, even if it were as fine as a human hair, would show no visible reaction.

Unlike the EM field, the Higgs field, is, on average,  non-zero throughout space.  In other words, it is permanently turned on.  Those things  which react with it, the known elementary particles, react with it all the time simply by being in its presence.  No motion is necessary.       
 

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #39 on: 10/05/2013 21:59:09 »
Still doesn't explain rest mass, unless you assume it to be some sort of pressure, always being 'on' when meeting mass. And your explanation doesn't take up observer dependencies. Also, how would you define a geodesic from it?
=

Imagine a equal pressure around all particles in uniform motion. How would that lead to a preferred direction, aka Earths gravity, pointing in one direction toward Earths 'approximate middle', for us all?
« Last Edit: 10/05/2013 22:05:48 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."