Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MrWiggles]

So, if there is a Higgs-Boson field spread out through the entire universe, are they spread evenly, or at random, or some other third option that I didn't think of?

There the higgs boson, and then there the higgs field, where the higgs boson propagates and interacts. Its uniform, and everywhere.

Sooo...is there any hypothetical way to interact with the Higgs field?

Given that we can observe it, maybe there's some sort of quantum thingamawhatsit that'll change stuff?  </uninformed>

Well, we interact with it continuously, it what gives us our mass. Now, if you meant novel means to manipulate the higgs field. Uhh, current understanding says no. I dont particularly buy this. Each further understanding of underlying physics have open us a host of novel applications, through clever engineering. I couldnt tell you, what these application will be. Maybe having a finer understanding of mass and energy will be the lynch pin to make a net positive fusion reactor.

Well, I'm thinking that we should next figure out if the Higgs field can be manipulated via gravity or somesuch. If we can do that, we should observe whether or not the Higgs field wants to remain uniform. If that's the case...we can build giant gravitic slingshots ala the Mass Effect.

It probably couldnt be effected by gravity, due to how closely linked density (compact mass) is linked to gravity. Though I dont have a strong understanding of the supposed realtionship between the Graviton and the Higgs Field.

[Siquo]

I find it funny that everyone and their mother, even on my facebook, has an opinion on the Higgs-particle, and I don't because I still don't fully understand why it's there and how Higgs was able to predict it's existence, and hence the full implication of its finding. Also, the real physicists on my facebook are quiet about it.

Just an observation.

[Leafsnail]

You are either assuming that light has no mass or that light is infinitely fast. I was specifically challenging both of those points. Your argument is invalid because your assumption is the heart of the dispute. It would be more logical to talk about why your assumption is right and mine is wrong, not what each would entail if it were true. It's like saying "God exists because the bible says he does!".

cause > effect, not the other way around.

Photons having mass would cause a lot of effects which have not been observed (different frequencies of light moving at different speeds, Coulomb's law being invalid in certain cases, photons moving towards us clumping together due to gravity).  They push the possible mass of a photon ridiculously low.  Even if photons did have mass, not much would actually change.  It'd just mean that photons would move slightly slower than what we currently call "the speed of light", and while we'd be able to just about maybe overtake them we'd still hit the speed limit c immediately afterwards.

[palsch]

I think there is some confusion as to what the Higgs field is.

The Higg's field was added to quantum field theory (QFT) in order to give particles mass. Essentially people observed that if the universe contained a certain type of mathematically proposed field all the rest masses of particles would drop out of the theory without any extra fudging. You allow this one field to exist and suddenly your theory describes this extra feature of the universe that otherwise appears fairly random. It's a fairly elegant solution to the question of why different particles have the masses they do.

In QFT particles are seen as excitations of the various fields. So a photon is an excitation of an electromagnetic field. The Higg's boson is an excitation of the Higg's field.

As for practical uses, it's worth understanding what this discovery actually tells us. We already had a comprehensive understanding of what a Higg's boson and field should be like under the standard model, as well as a range of secondary theories proposing modifications and expansions of that model. Were practical manipulation or even just observation of such fields possible under any of these models then we would have used that method to test the theory. The fact that we needed the LHC to so much as observe the Higg's boson is the best indicator that we can't practically use this.

The entire purpose of this experiment (and other Higg's hunting) was to see if the theory of the Higg's field was true and whether our standard model explanation of particle mass was correct. Seems it is.

The only way such an experiment could possibly open such new technology would be to observe something completely unexpected, requiring an unforeseen alteration to current theories. It seems that the Higg's was pretty close to how it was expected (with some strange deviations in the tau-tau channel and an oddly strong signal coming from one of the detectors - this round of data shouldn't have been sufficient for such a strong result, statistically speaking), so I doubt that any major modifications are likely.


As to photons having mass, they don't but they do have momentum. The E=mc² confusion comes from that not being the complete equation for this purpose. That would be E² = m²c⁴ + p²c², where p is the momentum. Photons have a momentum without having mass, with their energy coming from that momentum. This might seem odd, but momentum is a quantum observable here, separate from (but similar to) the mass x velocity of classical mechanics.

I find it funny that everyone and their mother, even on my facebook, has an opinion on the Higgs-particle, and I don't because I still don't fully understand why it's there and how Higgs was able to predict it's existence, and hence the full implication of its finding. Also, the real physicists on my facebook are quiet about it.

Just an observation.

Actually describing the Higg's field and reasons for it's existance is pretty damned hard, involving quantum mechanics not even every physicist is going to know or be interested in. Most low energy physicists and those in other non-particle physics fields tend to get a little frustrated that everyone assumes this sort of atom smashing is the entirety of modern physics, or even just where most progress is being made.

This is probably the most popular image I've seen from physicists on the topic;

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Lagslayer]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

You are either assuming that light has no mass or that light is infinitely fast. I was specifically challenging both of those points. Your argument is invalid because your assumption is the heart of the dispute. It would be more logical to talk about why your assumption is right and mine is wrong, not what each would entail if it were true. It's like saying "God exists because the bible says he does!".

cause > effect, not the other way around.

Photons having mass would cause a lot of effects which have not been observed (different frequencies of light moving at different speeds, Coulomb's law being invalid in certain cases, photons moving towards us clumping together due to gravity).  They push the possible mass of a photon ridiculously low.  Even if photons did have mass, not much would actually change.  It'd just mean that photons would move slightly slower than what we currently call "the speed of light", and while we'd be able to just about maybe overtake them we'd still hit the speed limit c immediately afterwards.

I never said a light particle had much mass, but even the tiniest amount of mass is enough to blow up the whole theory because we are dealing with infinity. And since the speed of light is finite, it can be surpassed. If a light particle has mass, then it must be a measureable fraction of the mass of a larger particle. The amount of energy needed to as fast or faster than the photon would just be multiplied by the %mass increase of the larger particle vs the photon. But you can't reach infinity. c≠∞, we already know this, and we all already accept this. My dispute is that light particles are not without mass, and as such, I'm skeptical about anything that is derived from the assumption that they do not.

If the higgs field is just basically the medium of particles through which magnetism/mass whatever works, I don't see this conflicting with either theory.


As one final disclaimer, I have not taken a physics course, but I have heard the theories. I can't take the precise measurements, but I can see the boundaries of the theories in relation to infinity and zero.

[Darvi]

c isn't infinite, but the energy required to reach it is.

[Starver]

I like that. I want humanity to realize collectively how pants-shittingly, intensely disturbing the vast intricacy of the universe is.

To (in probably a minor, and generally insignificant way, mis-)quote someone of some standing in the field: "The Universe is not just stranger than you imagine, it's stranger than you can imagine."

[Starver]

Also, the real physicists on my facebook are quiet about it.

A lot of them were probably hoping that it would not be found.  Because that means science has to work harder to work out what's there instead.  Finding (apparent[1]) evidence for its existence leaves something more akin to boring paperwork, in comparison.

Although, regardless of whether we have the correct "how", there's still a lot of digging (perhaps an infinite amount, with diminishing returns at each level of understanding that we breach) before it ever gets to anything close to "why".   And I like that.


[1] Because all that we see for 'definite' could so easily be still just a mere shadow of the true fundamental nature of the universe.  Something like aether and basic gravity being a large part of the mechanism of, before independant frames of reference came to mean anything and there was something to be said for bent and curved space-time...

[Leafsnail]

If a light particle has mass, then it must be a measureable fraction of the mass of a larger particle. The amount of energy needed to as fast or faster than the photon would just be multiplied by the %mass increase of the larger particle vs the photon.

Uh... that's not how relativistic momentum works.  But in any case light having mass wouldn't change the fact that there is clearly a speed limit (which would have to be very close to the speed light travels at).  So you could maybe have slightly faster than light travel, but it wouldn't be very exciting.

[kaijyuu]

I was under the impression that photons have zero rest mass, but non-zero mass when moving. This is why a black hole can draw them in; you need mass to be affected by gravity.



One fun fact about the speed of light most people don't realize is, it's only a "speed limit" for an outside observer. If it takes you 100 years to go from point A to point B, doubling your speed will reduce it to 50 years (from your perspective), no matter how fast you're initially going. So you could theoretically go from one side of the galaxy to the other in a few moments. It's just those that are "stationary" to you will see your journey as taking far more time. By the time you reach where you were going, your origin and destination will have had tens of thousands of years pass, despite it only taking a few moments for you.

A not so fun fact is that despite this, we'll almost certainly never visit other galaxies, no matter how fast we can accelerate ourselves, due to the expansion of the universe being faster than the speed of light at significant enough distances. Maybe a couple of the close ones are potentially reachable, but the far edge ones are beyond our grasp (the light our galaxy's emitting right now will never reach them either).

[Lagslayer]

If a light particle has mass, then it must be a measureable fraction of the mass of a larger particle. The amount of energy needed to as fast or faster than the photon would just be multiplied by the %mass increase of the larger particle vs the photon.

Uh... that's not how relativistic momentum works.  But in any case light having mass wouldn't change the fact that there is clearly a speed limit (which would have to be very close to the speed light travels at).  So you could maybe have slightly faster than light travel, but it wouldn't be very exciting.

The bold part is where your theory completely falls apart. If you can go slightly faster than the absolute maximum speed, why not even faster? Just because we have not apparently observed anything faster than light does not mean it can't be done.

I was under the impression that photons have zero rest mass, but non-zero mass when moving. This is why a black hole can draw them in; you need mass to be affected by gravity.



One fun fact about the speed of light most people don't realize is, it's only a "speed limit" for an outside observer. If it takes you 100 years to go from point A to point B, doubling your speed will reduce it to 50 years (from your perspective), no matter how fast you're initially going. So you could theoretically go from one side of the galaxy to the other in a few moments. It's just those that are "stationary" to you will see your journey as taking far more time. By the time you reach where you were going, your origin and destination will have had tens of thousands of years pass, despite it only taking a few moments for you.

A not so fun fact is that despite this, we'll almost certainly never visit other galaxies, no matter how fast we can accelerate ourselves, due to the expansion of the universe being faster than the speed of light at significant enough distances. Maybe a couple of the close ones are potentially reachable, but the far edge ones are beyond our grasp (the light our galaxy's emitting right now will never reach them either).

Having zero rest mass I could attribute to our equipment not being sensitive enough to measure it. We can barely measure it when it's going as fast as it normally does, let alone when there's no obvious movement of the particles. As for the galaxy expanding, that expansion is slowing, and eventually everything will collapse back together into another massive black hole (which I suppose would explode again upon reaching critical mass/energy/volume ratio). As far as reaching other galaxies, if my theory is correct, you could just theoretically go faster with more energy pumped into the system. Not sure where you are going to get that much energy, however.

[Starver]

And since the speed of light is finite, it can be surpassed.

I believe you're still not understanding things here.  There's a speed-limit in the universe.  As yet, unlike the speed of sound (which is nothing like the same kind of limit, anyway), there is no known way that anything can pass through this universal limit.  We call it the Speed Of Light because light 'particles'(/'waves', whatever) travel this fast, due to their particular qualities, but it's also the apparent (at least, last time I checked it up) speed of gravitational influence, and also regulates all the other fundemental forces and interactions, including (if you deal with tham as independent and not components of the electromagnetic force already covered) the charge/magnetic ones.

If (for some reason) what we thought of as photons were actually <c conveyors of information, but with the same constant of 'c' in its other practical uses, then light would be different.  (Or we'd be ignoring the 'true' light, or something...)


But minds much more succinct than mine can probably sum this up in far less space.  And perhaps without introducing any further misunderstandings due to bad phrasing.  I look forward to seeing this, but...  I just had to say...


(If there's a way to make FTL transport/communication work, though, it's likely to be by "cheating".  Shortcuts between different bits of space, warping the space so that it's locally a matter of staying <=c, that sort of thing.

A not so fun fact is that despite this, we'll almost certainly never visit other galaxies, no matter how fast we can accelerate ourselves, due to the expansion of the universe being faster than the speed of light at significant enough distances. Maybe a couple of the close ones are potentially reachable, but the far edge ones are beyond our grasp (the light our galaxy's emitting right now will never reach them either).

It's my impression that the "big rip", the time-scale at which the (apparent) expansion takes now-visible distant galaxies outside of our visible radius (or we go outside of their beamable-event horizon) is still a long way off for any practical-to-visit galaxies[2].  Unless we are for some reason sticking to BDR-technology, as noted below.



[2] I think the big problem will be, for the further places, is that by the time we reach them, they have aged twice as much (assuming a SoL journey retracing their original light[3]) as they did while the light managed to reach us, and that they'd be burnt out husks of no import except for studtying in a 'stellarchaeological' manner.  But I'm not sure exactly where the magnitudes of age cross either dividing line.

[3] Perhaps slightly more due to them 'retreating', but the real humdinger might be if we just didn't have the velocity to even get close to a SoL return.  Because (who knows) a generation or five-hundred later Earth-dwellers (or those from New-Earth, depending on the situation) might well be sending out expeditions with the better technology, which overtake (or by-pass) the earlier expeditions, and be waiting (or have given up the ghost) by the time the earlier people get there...

[Leafsnail]

The bold part is where your theory completely falls apart. If you can go slightly faster than the absolute maximum speed, why not even faster? Just because we have not apparently observed anything faster than light does not mean it can't be done.

You misunderstand me.  If light has mass then it is not travelling at the fastest possible speed.  That doesn't mean that there is no fastest possible speed - all it means is that light doesn't travel at it.  Observations of objects at relativistic speeds show that there pretty much has to be a speed limit (at the very least you can't accelerate past this limit) due to the way that increasing the energy of an object has a smaller and smaller effect on its speed, converging to a limit.  This is a fundamental implication of relativity that remains whether or not light has mass.  You really should look up the way relativistic momentum and energy works before continuing this argument, since as far as I can tell you seem to be applying the approximations of Newtonian physics way outside the limits they are roughly valid within.

[alway]

Relativistic acceleration is asymptotic. One of the most fundamental parts of relativity is the Lorentz transformation; which is why the speed of light is the limiting speed; the equation itself is asymptotic as velocity approaches c.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Consequences
It's why all the effects of relativity work the way they do.
The Lorentz factor is equal to:
1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)
There is a 1-sided asymptote as v approaches c, with any value of v above c resulting in non-real values.
It is referred to as the Lorentz transformation due to the equation being able to be used to translate between coordinate systems using the relative velocities of 2 observers; it describes the spatial contraction, time dilation, and pretty much the core of what we think of when we think of relativity.

[Blargityblarg]

Lagslayer: A bloke named Lorentz came up with an equation:

M = m/(sqrt(1-(v^2-c^2)))

where M is effective mass, m is rest mass, v is velocity relative to observer and c is C.

As v approaches c, sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2)) approaches 0, so M approaches infinity.

A considerably more famous equation is E=Mc^2, where E is total energy of an object, M is the effective mass and c is again C. Since, as v approaches c, M approaches infinity, E also approaches infinity. This is why you need an infinite amount of energy to accelerate something to lightspeed; it has an infinite mass, and the extra energy must come from somewhere.

E: Ninja'd, also my science might be a little shaky, but it's been a couple years since I did physics.