The main reason I ask is because the two main theories of gravity (Newtonian and General Relstivity) need matter/mass in order to lead towards the force of gravity. If the Higgs Boson and its field give objects mass, than wouldn't it intuitively be needed to create gravity? I know that the standard model hypothesizes the graviton. However, I can't wrap my head around the independence of the Higgs boson and the force of gravity if GR needs mass/matter to lead to gravity.
What type of event could cause a sudden Higgs field electroweak phase transition, leading to the collapse of the universe?
Would it be a purely random event or could there be any direct causality?
-How does 'Spontanious symmetry breaking' apply to this?
I'm not a physicist by any means, but just starting to do some reading up on Higgs field phase transition and I'm finding it absolutely fascinating!Would love to learn more and hear any of your thoughts on this!
What sort of event/occurrence/state (microstate/macrostate?) could theoretically cause this sudden and spontaneous collapse of the universe?
“When a particle interacts with the Higgs field, it switches its handedness from left to right or right to left. This switch needs to happen for the field to give the particle mass. “
On the foundation that mass is a property of interaction with the Higgs field and the fact that gravity can be described as a scalar property of mass, did it not raise any eyebrows that then gravity may be a result of interaction with the Higgs field? Perhaps it creates a sort of Gaussian strain on the surrounding bosons akin to bonds in a molecule, or perhaps Higgs bosons being given energy by matter maybe transfer some of that energy into nearby Higgs bosons akin via collisions, tapering off with distance from that object, which could explain the bending of spacetime beyond just the physicality of the object. Maybe I'm dumb, I only know a little about this stuff, but it's too eerily close to not bring up. Plus this effect would also be, scalar so regardless of the boson's scalarity, the resulting interactions would be.
I am confused as to why the photon, a boson sub-atomic particle does not interact with the Higgs Field unlike fermion particles?
How, does the Higgs field, work. I understand the concept of the Higgs field, I just don't understand the mechanism of its interaction with matter particles to "simulate" and for all purposes define mass. I've heard something about weak hypercharge, and changing the, spin on particles, to make them subject to change, therefore time, therefore massive? but, that doesn't explain gravity (ok Im guessing thats an, energy warps spacetime. And massive things have more energy, and therefore warp spacetime more, thing) but in the explanation I saw, that also only applied to electrons.
TL;DR: What is the Higgs fields mechanism of, defining mass?
I watched a YouTube video a while back that discussed something about mass rising from electrons that...I can't remember so it's hard to explain...are constrained in some field that "slows them down" (wrong analogy) and essentially gives them mass. Is this the Higgs field or something else?
I'm trying to find out but for the life of me I can't find a proper explaination of this anywhere online. If I'm mistaken in the title, please correct me.
Hello Smart People,
I'm no physicist, but an enthusiast and man of science. I know that E8 theory is not a widely accepted thing, but with my limited knowledge on all other candidates on unifying theories, this one looks the most promising. Are there any serious researches conducted in CERN, testing the predictions of this theory? Or are we expecting to find particles that fit the E8 lattice? What is the general stance of particle physicist on this theory? What is the latest progress with this?
I'm just curious, and eager to learn more, so if you have any info I'd be glad to hear.
Have a great day!
Higgs is the name of the character played by Troy Baker, and as I was rewatching the latest trailer, it suddenly occurred to me that his name is a reference to the Higgs Field in physics. The Higgs Field is, essentially, an energy field existing omnipresently throughout the universe, and contains Higgs bosons which are responsible for providing mass to particles via their passing through said field, wherein their mass and energy become transferred over to one another. Without this field, particles would essentially exist only as energy, and have no gravity. This process is known as the Higgs Effect.
In the context of Death Stranding, a massless entity would be defined as a spirit. In this case, the spirits would be those who have fallen victim to the Death Stranding, trapped in the underwater plane, having been rendered as "formless" spirits, that are only able to interact with the physical plane by using the black liquid as a medium.
My guess is that the reason Troy Baker's character was named Higgs is that he is able to give massless beings mass, by using the golden mask he wears to manipulate bosons contained within the Higgs Field, thus granting spirits a physical form. Or he simply dials the Higgs Field up to 11, enabling him to draw out the energy of the deceased spirits present within the black liquid, amalgamating them to create that feline monster we saw in the previous trailer.
Has anyone thorougly examined the parallels between quatumn mechanics and Alan watts general philosophy? It seems to me in the nature of fields and particles is embedded all of his truths about dual seemingly contradictory states.
See the diagram to the left of the speaker here.
I can't wrap my head around what a field is..
Do all fields share similar properties?
Are they inter related at all?
Is it a mathematical concept to help physics or is it a real tangible thing?
I was wondering if the Higgs Field could be manipulated the same way electric and magnetic fields are manipulated to affect mass?
Also how does the Higgs Field relate to the Higgs boson?
Now this is more of a thought exercise than something I actually think is probable, but I'd like to know just what speaks against what follows below. But first, for those of you who don't know, a short summary of the concepts mentioned in the title and relevant for my question, according to my own limited understanding. Feel free to scroll down if you are already familiar (or read it and feel free to
make fun of me for correct me where I'm being wrong about certain details):
False vacuum of the Higgs Field: This video from kurzgesagt gives a very simple overview but essentially, the Higgs field might not be in its ground state and might (colloquially speaking) collapse at any moment at any point in space, kicking off a chain reaction and spreading outward at the speed of light, turning physics on its head in the affected area and, from our perspective, destroying everything in it.
Survivorship bias: The typical situation of a soldier who is the (almost) lone survivor of his squad/unit/etc. and who survived against the odds wondering why they lived, when in actuality while it was unlikely that they survived, it might have been likely that someone survived to end up asking exactly that question. The same logical flaw that's at play if a lottery winner says "everyone go buy lottery tickets, it works!"^^1 or if someone, who has beaten cancer despite ignoring their doctors orders and instead drinking lots of carrot juice, says everyone else having been diagnosed should do the same because them being alive is proof it's effective, ignoring the many people who have already done just that and died, so those people aren't present to say it doesn't.
The Fermi paradox: With the universe being so old and other stars being so abundant, even if life is very unlikely to occur on any given planet, it should still be ubiquitous enough that some civilisation should up until now have expanded enough to have some presence in our solar system, so where are they and why have we never been openly contacted? Or seen any kind of radar emissions or anything of the sort when looking out there, anything at all that might look like signs of intelligent life?
The great filter: A response to the Fermi paradox saying that there might
So basically yesterday I was looking up about false vacuum and I read a lot about the Higgs field , Higgs boson or Higgs particle but there was so much information on so many different sites that it was hard trying to understand it. So bottom line is can the Higgs field cause any destruction to us besides the false vacuum? If it can is it likely to happen or not? And bottom line so basically CURRENTLY vacuum decay will pretty much never happen in our lifetimes even if it tunnels through? This will be the last post I make about this and I’ve never meant to spam on this subreddit.
As the quarks gain their 1% of mass from this interaction. They why don't photons too react with the field,does this has to do anything to their speed?
Could there be a limit to the density of Higgs bosons achievable such that beyond a certain volume the mass of an object is capped or reaches a limit and proceeding to a “singularity” is simply not possible
I was thinking about this earlier today, specifically because a memory about this question being answered came to surface. I think it was something about particles being able to go past the speed of light or something, but it's been a while and I'm not sure. Hence, why I'm asking you guys! What would happen if the Higgs Field suddenly ceased to exist?
Neophyte here, looking for answers to my intuitions, with little to no understanding of mathematics; despite my best efforts I'm probably mixing things up.
Also English is not my primary language (French guy here).
Your eyes might bleed a little while reading this, if so, my sincerest apologies in advance.
My understanding of fields in QFT is that they are some sort of invisible, universal, superposed, interacting 3D grids.
Question(s) 1 : Strong and Electroweak Gauge fields, Higgs field, Fermionic field... Do we have any idea where those fields come from ? How do they interact ? Could there be more of them?
Question 2 : Is the collapse of the wave function the result of the interaction of an initial field with another field upon "observation" ?
My admittedly uninformed intuition is that mabye two fields interact when they vibrate at compatible frequencies, like for example how water molecules resonate when subjected to 2.45 GHz electromagnetic waves, or like striking the E chord on a well-tuned guitar creates a 329.63 Hz wave.
That would explain how some fields don't interact at all with others, like Photons and the Higgs field, or mabye through an intermediate field.
Mabye particles would only partially "real" because they are either incomplete for our "reality" until they have interacted with all the "right" fields.
Mabye some other particles could be "noise", the "fruitless", incomplete (reality-wise) results of the vibrations of one field with another.
Mabye some other particles could be the result of the interaction between fields that that don't interact with ours, while still generating gravity. I'm thinking of dark matter here.
Mabye in our "reality" some of the fields that we know of are actually two (or more) intrinsically interwoven fields... but that are actually different at first. Which could explain a lot of phenomenons like why it is impossible to determine both the position and momentum of one particle, or the mathematical need for virtual particles, or the wave function and it's collapse.
Thanks to anyone who read this, and even bigger thanks to anyone who takes time to respond ! QFT is such a fascinating field of study ! I'm 32, and I wish I had heard about it a lot earlier in my life.
We had to quantum collapse 17 universes the last time.
If that's a confusingly worded question, it's because I'm a little confused myself after watching this PBS SpaceTime video.
So I gather that mass, as a property, is just the natural consequence of energy interacting with the Higgs Field - not with the actual Boson itself. Maybe it's more accurate to say that mass appears to exist when particles are slowed down by the Higgs Field? I'm not sure. But that all begs the question of what does the Higgs Boson actually do? Is it a force carrying particle like the other bosons? What force would it even carry? Or am I completely misunderstanding everything about this?
(Bonus question - does any of this tie into why the speed of light is related to why or how energy can become mass in the first place? Because that's what I was actually trying to figure out when I went down this rabbit hole.)
I've been wondering lately if the Speed Force allows speedsters the ability to move slightly to mostly unhindered through the higgs field? If the higgs field gives all particles mass and without it everything would be massless and moving faster than the speed of light maybe the Speed Force can lift the load to a certain extent. I don't know. I think its better than the Speed Force just being some magic deus ex machina.
Sean Carrol uses the analogy of a crowded party where a physicist and Angelina Jolie show up and both try to get to the bar. Angelina finds it difficult to cross the room because everyone wants to meet her. She has much mass. The physicist has little trouble getting to the bar. He's a lightweight. The Higgs field he describes as something like molasses and particles with an affinity for the Higgs field get stuck in it and this appears to us as "mass".
OK, this analogy has some rather serious flaws: For example, Newton's laws: an object in motion remains in motion (Even a heavy object does not stop once it is set in motion in space, especially a heavy object.) High mass only resists acceleration, not motion itself. The two analogies above treat the Higgs field like some kind of friction force.
Moreover, mass generates gravity. The more massive the particle, the more gravity it puts out. So is the Higgs mechanism intimately tied to gravity?
So a better layman's explanation is needed ... How does the Higgs field impart the quality of "mass" to other particles?
If I'm making some wrong assumptions about the nature of the field or how the machine works, please forgive me and try to give an explanation.
I'm attempting to understand if the fields can be described as being synonymous with spacetime under GR.
Almost a year ago I was running a 35 phase quaternion generator at 4.101GHz. I was running some older SRN software (probably my first mistake) and when I hit the vectoring lever, the windows in my garage shattered.
Quite immediately I noticed that the density of the Higgs Field was roughly doubled or tripled, making everything more dense near where the quaternion core was during the cascade event. Over the first few days it seemed as if the anomaly was decreasing in magnitude, but I didn't have the equipment necessary to test it, my scales got all wonky anywhere near the lab in my garage.
Long story short, it's been about 10 months and the anomaly has only increased in size. Everything in my garage weighs twice as much as it should. How can I return the Higgs Field to normal levels?? This is starting to freak me out, and I don't want to attract the attention of the VXIB. Thanks!
I'm reading a semi-technical book on the theory and discovery of the Higgs boson and its quantum field and the chapter that describes the mechanism for how it breaks symmetry is interesting but i want more information. Why does the Higgs field have a bump at the bottom of its potential energy curve? And why didn't it settle into the depressions around this bump initially? Finally why do these lowest potentials correspond to false vacuum states as opposed to actual zero values for the field? I might just have to keep reading but I'm curious
I am a high school student who is very interested in Quantum Mechanics and Particle physics and has taken the time to read (though not finished) many books on these topics (QED, A Brief History, and a few more) to further expand my knowledge along with research done on the internet through various means.
I am currently reading Sean Carroll's "The Particle at the End of the Universe", which talks about the in-depth search as CERN and the LHC for the Higgs Boson which occurred back in 2012.
In the second chapter the book mentions quantum fields (which I personally understand at the degree the book requires to convey most of the rest of the information). However, it then goes on to mention symmetries between these fields and how:
> "The weak nuclear force, in particular, is based on a certain kind of symmetry. If that symmetry were unbroken, it would be impossible for elementary particles to have mass."
What is it about the Higgs field and especially its symmetry to other fields that, if not there, would prevent all particles from having mass? Would a non-symmetrical quantum field not allow the property of a particle that it's associated with to be a fundamental property of that particle? And what is the fundamental meaning of broken and unbroken symmetries?
I'm thinking about what if at a certrain degree of expansion of the universe, or even at the point where the expansion stops, the higgs field becomes unstable and releases all its energy. This would be a blast.
I'm a little confused about symmetry breaking. Take this from wikipedia:
>In the standard model, at temperatures high enough that electroweak symmetry is unbroken, all elementary particles are massless. At a critical temperature, the Higgs field becomes tachyonic; the symmetry is spontaneously broken by condensation, and the W and Z bosons acquire masses.
Does this mean that at sufficiently high energies, particles recover the symmetry and particles which were made massless by the Higgs mechanism approach a massless state? Or is the symmetry something that once broken in the early universe, can't be unbroken, something that's inherent to the vacuum we live in and not dependent on the particles within it and their energies? Otherwise how could a particle at high energies appear massless when it's always at rest in it's own frame of reference? But then what does temperature mean in the absence of particles and how can it be said that the Higgs field turned on at a particular point in time in the universe and at a particular temperature if the field being on or off is just a matter of how fast something's going? Hoping someone can clear up my confusion before I go off on too many tangents trying to interpret the meaning here.
if The higgs field gives mass to particles and is proven to be real , and gravity is a property of objects with mass , would it be right to say that gravity is a property of the higgs field ?