[Dave Lev (OP)]

Based on the following:

The rightmost particles are unstable, and quickly decay into the stable particles to the left.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_(particle_physics)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model
The other quarks have very high energies, and can only be created for an instant in our most powerful particle accelerators. These emulate the extreme energies that existed for a moment during the Big Bang, when these heavy particles would have been stable (for a moment).

The CERN accelerator has the requested magnetic power to run the beam at ultra high speed in order to create the higgs boson.
So, is it feasible to create higgs boson by pure/infinite energy, without using accelerator and magnetic power?

[Bill S]

So, is it feasible to create higgs boson by pure/infinite energy, without using accelerator and magnetic power?

This is a bit above my "pay-grade", but where would you find, and how would you harness, that sort of energy?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

This is a bit above my "pay-grade", but where would you find, and how would you harness, that sort of energy?

By using a Bang, any sort of Bang.

[Bill S]

Discounting “The Big Yin”, and avoiding slipping into US slang : did you have any particular “bang” in mind?

BTW; some years ago I found a copy of “The Big Bang” in the popular science section in a bookshop.                                                                                                   
Only when I saw the sub-title: “The Only Sex Manual You’ll Ever Need” did I realise it had been misplaced.

[Bored chemist]

This is a bit above my "pay-grade", but where would you find, and how would you harness, that sort of energy?

By using a Bang, any sort of Bang.

No "bang" that we can generate would be able to do this.
That's why we go to the trouble of building accelerators.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

did you have any particular “bang” in mind?

Let's use the Big Bang, with infinite energy as an example.
So, is it technically feasible to set higgs bosons just by an infinite energy (Without acceleration and magnetic power)?

[Bored chemist]

What is the difference between using "some sort of bang" to smash particles together and using an accelerator to do it?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

What is the difference between using "some sort of bang" to smash particles together and using an accelerator to do it?

In any sort of bang particles normally do not smash together.
Technically, due to the nature of the bang, each particle normally moves to different direction.
Hence, the chance for collisions between particles due to a bang is very limited.
However, in our case we try to convert energy into higgs boson which is the building box for all the upper levels of quarks & particles
So, assuming that there is a bang of energy without particles at the first moment:
How can we convert that energy itself into higgs bosons?
In our mighty local acceleration, we actually, use an energy to create strong magnetic power which had been used for the acceleration and the higgs boson creation.
So, can we technically create higgs bosons from energy without magnetic power?

[Bored chemist]

There's nothing special about magnetism in accelerators.
You can make one without it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_particle_accelerator
There are two practical advantages to using magnets and they both arise from the fact that a magnetic field will make the path of a charged particle curved.
By making the path curved you can get it to go round in a circle- so you don't need  so much land to build on.
Also, you can make the same particle go round many times and thus "re-use" the same accelerator over and over again to get a higher energy.

Incidentally, there is a downside to it- as the particles change direction, they give out radiation. That's a problem because you have to screen it  and also it's (usually) a waste of energy.

[evan_au]

In any sort of bang particles normally do not smash together.

When you hear a bang (explosion, thunder, whip crack, etc), what you hear is a shock wave, which comes from particles smashing together.

Even in a humble car crash, what you hear is vibrations caused by particles smashing together.

So, is it feasible to create higgs boson by pure/infinite energy, without using accelerator and magnetic power?

The Higgs field is everywhere in space, and is thought to contribute mass to subatomic particles.

The Higgs Boson is a propagating disturbance in this field, and can be created by a sufficiently energetic collision (much higher energy than 127 GeV/c²).
But it decays after 10^-22 seconds.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson#Particle_mass_acquisition

However, quantum theory says that even something as massive as the Higgs Boson can appear and disappear by itself at any time, provided the time is really, really short (considerably less than 10^-22 seconds). This is the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle.

These "virtual" Higgs Bosons can appear without a massive accelerator - but they will be much less common than less massive particles like virtual photons or virtual gravitons.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle#Compared_to_actual_particles

[Dave Lev (OP)]

There's nothing special about magnetism in accelerators.
You can make one without it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_particle_accelerator
There are two practical advantages to using magnets and they both arise from the fact that a magnetic field will make the path of a charged particle curved.
By making the path curved you can get it to go round in a circle- so you don't need  so much land to build on.
Also, you can make the same particle go round many times and thus "re-use" the same accelerator over and over again to get a higher energy.

Incidentally, there is a downside to it- as the particles change direction, they give out radiation. That's a problem because you have to screen it  and also it's (usually) a waste of energy.

Yes, that is correct.
However, could it be that Magnetic power is vital for the the particles creation process?
In order to understand it let's look at the following explanation about the proton mass:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark#Mass
"Mass
Two terms are used in referring to a quark's mass: current quark mass refers to the mass of a quark by itself, while constituent quark mass refers to the current quark mass plus the mass of the gluon particle field surrounding the quark.[73] These masses typically have very different values. Most of a hadron's mass comes from the gluons that bind the constituent quarks together, rather than from the quarks themselves. While gluons are inherently massless, they possess energy – more specifically, quantum chromodynamics binding energy (QCBE) – and it is this that contributes so greatly to the overall mass of the hadron (see mass in special relativity). For example, a proton has a mass of approximately 938 MeV/c2, of which the rest mass of its three valence quarks only contributes about 9 MeV/c2; much of the remainder can be attributed to the field energy of the gluons.[74][75] See Chiral symmetry breaking. The Standard Model posits that elementary particles derive their masses from the Higgs mechanism, which is associated to the Higgs boson. It is hoped that further research into the reasons for the top quark's large mass of ~173 GeV/c2, almost the mass of a gold atom,[74][76] might reveal more about the origin of the mass of quarks and other elementary particles.[77]"

It is stated clearly that: "a proton has a mass of approximately 938 MeV/c2, of which the rest mass of its three valence quarks only contributes about 9 MeV/c2"
So, all the other ( (938 - 9) MeV/c2 = 929 MeV/c2) is coming from the "gluons that bind the constituent quarks together, rather than from the quarks themselves".
However, the "gluons are inherently massless, they possess energy...".
So, what kind of power/conditions are needed in order to get that energy of the "gluons" which binds the quarks together?
Could it be that among the requirements for ultra high pressure & temperature we must also have Magnetic/Electric power?
Could it be that in this way we can technically transform Energy into mass?
Think about it - In Atomic bomb we actually release some energy which is locked in the Atom (by converting mass into energy).
So, technically, could it be that the Mass in the Atom, proton or even quark gives us its current Energy?
 

[yor_on]

?

Einstein defines the electromagnetic field as observer dependent. So you need both a EM field and a observer, in motion relative it, or co moving with it, to define it one way or another. As you say gluons are massless particles, similar to 'photons/bosons'. Presuming there is something even more fundamental than gluons you possibly could release as a byproduct, some 'energy' in a interaction, otherwise no as I think?

But I'm not sure what you are thinking of here. It's like Evan wrote, indeterministic behavior at that very small quantum scale and maybe that's all that are needed.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

In any sort of bang particles normally do not smash together.

When you hear a bang (explosion, thunder, whip crack, etc), what you hear is a shock wave, which comes from particles smashing together.

Even in a humble car crash, what you hear is vibrations caused by particles smashing together.

So, is it feasible to create higgs boson by pure/infinite energy, without using accelerator and magnetic power?

The Higgs field is everywhere in space, and is thought to contribute mass to subatomic particles.

The Higgs Boson is a propagating disturbance in this field, and can be created by a sufficiently energetic collision (much higher energy than 127 GeV/c²).
But it decays after 10^-22 seconds.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson#Particle_mass_acquisition

However, quantum theory says that even something as massive as the Higgs Boson can appear and disappear by itself at any time, provided the time is really, really short (considerably less than 10^-22 seconds). This is the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle.

These "virtual" Higgs Bosons can appear without a massive accelerator - but they will be much less common than less massive particles like virtual photons or virtual gravitons.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle#Compared_to_actual_particles

Thanks Evan

So, Higgs Bosons can appear without a massive accelerator.
That is clear.

Now there is a question if all the other Bosons/Quarks/Gluons can appear without accelerator.
Even if we assume that all the other Bosons/Quarks can appear without accelerator, there is still big question mark about the gluons:
With regards to the proton example -
We have found that gluons bind the three quarks together. However gluons contribute 99% (929 MeV/c2) of the total proton mass while all the quarks together contribute less than 1% (9 MeV/c).
It is stated that the gluons are inherently massless, they are actually possess of energy.
If that is correct, we can easily understand that the proton should be consider as a process of Energy cell (As 99% of its mass is energy).
So what could be the source for that energy in the gluons?
How the gluons could appear without accelerator and especially without Magnetic/Electric power?

[evan_au]

So what could be the source for that energy in the gluons?

Quarks and Gluons carry "color charge", a property that is something like the "electric charge" on electrons.
While there is only 1 type of electric charge, there are 3 types of color charge, and this results in different mathematical properties.

Quarks and Gluons feel an attraction from the "color charge", via flux tubes that have a maximum length about the width of an atomic nucleus. This force of attraction is spread out over the volume of the nucleus, and Force x Distance = Energy.

You could start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon

[Dave Lev (OP)]

So what could be the source for that energy in the gluons?

Quarks and Gluons carry "color charge", a property that is something like the "electric charge" on electrons.
While there is only 1 type of electric charge, there are 3 types of color charge, and this results in different mathematical properties.

Quarks and Gluons feel an attraction from the "color charge", via flux tubes that have a maximum length about the width of an atomic nucleus. This force of attraction is spread out over the volume of the nucleus, and Force x Distance = Energy.

You could start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon

Thanks

Our scientists have quite deep understanding about the Atom building blocks and the requested energy which is locked in the Atom.
So let me ask:
Do we have an idea what it takes to create an Atom or even molecules from a pure energy?
Let's assume that we have unlimited energy.
However, we have no particles at all.
There is nothing to accelerate and noting to collide with anything.
How can we set any sort of Atom based on that starting point?
We know that "quantum theory says that even something as massive as the Higgs Boson can appear and disappear by itself at any time, provided the time is really, really short (considerably less than 10-22 seconds)"
So, that Higgs Boson can't help us to achieve our goal for an Atom.
Never the less, let's assume that we have an accelerator - unlimited in its size, energy, pressure, temp and even includes Unlimited Magnetic/electric power.
Let's assume that with those updated starting point we can extend the Higgs Boson life time.
Let's also assume that under a very specific Pressure, temp, magnetic/electric power we could even set the quarks.
However, there are different varieties of quarks. Could it be that for each kind of quark different Pressure, Temp, Magnetic/Electric power is needed?
Let's assume that we have set the requested quarks for the proton and keep them stable long enough as a steady stream in the accelerator.
However, how can we now take the specific requested quarks and glue them together by the Gluons in order to set protons and neutrons?
Could it be that we must set further setup for the Pressure, Temp, Magnetic/Electric power in the accelerator?
In the same token could it be that further setup for the Pressure, Temp, Magnetic/Electric power is needed to produce an Atom from proton & Neutron and also Higher levels of Atoms and moleculars?
If no, please advice how can we create one full Atom from one unlimited bang of energy (assuming that there were no particles before the bang)?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The temperature at the core of the Sun is estimated to be as high as 10 ^ 6 c.
So, this actually represents the Nuclear fusion process for making Helium Atoms out of hydrogen Atoms.

I wonder if we have any idea what should be the temperature during the Atom creation process:
For setting proton and neutron by bonding quarks together by Gluons and for setting Atom by bonding Proton and Neutron together.