As a lay person, I found that a clear and understandable explanation, which in my experience suggests it is a wild wild over simplification - but enjoyable nonetheless A question for the more expert amongst you. Is the Higgs field unique in its interaction with other fields, or are there other similar fields which similarly change the way that other fields (and associated particles) behave?
How the Higgs field gives mass to elementary particles
31–40 of 111 posts
Re: How the Higgs field gives mass to elementary particles
#32Imagine some preindustrial scientist being awakened in the modern era to find that the aether has been first debunked for more than a century and then rediscovered, but with different rules.
Aether was a substance filling all space, while QFT fields like higgs are not physical at all (but rather give rise to physical properties)
Re: How the Higgs field gives mass to elementary particles
#33Imagine some preindustrial scientist being awakened in the modern era to find that the aether has been first debunked for more than a century and then rediscovered, but with different rules.
Re: How the Higgs field gives mass to elementary particles
#34> Quantum field theory, the powerful framework of modern particle physics, says the universe is filled with fields. Examples include the electromagnetic field, the gravitational field and the Higgs field itself. For each field, there’s a corresponding type of particle, best understood as a little ripple in that field. The electromagnetic field’s ripples are light waves, and its gentlest ripples are the particles of l…
Using wind, as an example, we can measure the wind speed/direction at various points in a given space. We don't need to know what wind is to feel its effects. Instead, we might view it as a force wave that propagates through space and interacts with everyday objects. The measurements of this force that we take at various points in space across a given area form what we might call the Wind Field. We don't need to know the nature of the medium these wind waves propagate through in order to study wind and how it interacts with other objects. This is the field perspective.
Of course, we know that wind is really an effect of air molecules moving through space. That is, the medium for wind is the atmosphere. This gives us deeper insight into what wind is and how it works. This is the medium perspective.
According to the book, we don't know what the media for the elementary particles are or if there even are any. Our intuition based on waves that we see in everyday life tell us that there must be some medium through which the wave can propagate, but thus far we have found no such medium for waves such as light.
We just know there are measurable properties that we can measure across points in space and we have created mathematical objects (fields) to represent this. From there, we can construct theories and make predictions based on these models.
Re: How the Higgs field gives mass to elementary particles
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
First, worth noting that "the EM field" (the thing that shows up in the wave equation) in this case is specifically the EM 4-potential. This doesn't work if you try to treat "the EM field" as the strength of the E and B fields or something - it has to be the 4-potential. I got tripped up by this at one point Second, this isn't pinning the field in space , it's pinning the magnitude of the field to be close to some va…
What trips me up is that we don't think of the field being a real physical thing. But isn't the field really the _true_ physical thing, and the wave is just a concept we overlay on it? Like, water is the real physical thing, and the wave is just an arrangement of the water that we recognize as humans. Isn't it the same with the EM and electron fields etc?
Waves are mathematically-friendly possible configurations of the underlying system.
It's mathematically valid to choose the most convenient configurations for analysis because the systems are (pretty) linear, so we can just project any actual state into a sum of wave states, apply our mathematical model, and add it all back to get the new real state.
A lot of physical phenomena are composed of pretty predictable distributions of wave states, so projecting from a realistic state to a sum of wave states is usually straightforward enough.
For example, a moving particle looks like the sum of a bunch of waves all closely grouped around a particular wavelength.
Re: How the Higgs field gives mass to elementary particles
#36Imagine some preindustrial scientist being awakened in the modern era to find that the aether has been first debunked for more than a century and then rediscovered, but with different rules.
Aether has a specific definition and it still does not exist. It was not rediscovered. QFT is not aether-like. Aether was a substance filling all space, while QFT fields like higgs are not physical at all (but rather give rise to physical properties)
I think this is a nonsense cop-out and bad ontology. What does it mean to "be physical" if not to be causally downstream of other physical effects?
Re: How the Higgs field gives mass to elementary particles
#37> Quantum field theory, the powerful framework of modern particle physics, says the universe is filled with fields. Examples include the electromagnetic field, the gravitational field and the Higgs field itself. For each field, there’s a corresponding type of particle, best understood as a little ripple in that field. The electromagnetic field’s ripples are light waves, and its gentlest ripples are the particles of l…
Re: How the Higgs field gives mass to elementary particles
#38Imagine some preindustrial scientist being awakened in the modern era to find that the aether has been first debunked for more than a century and then rediscovered, but with different rules.
Aether has a specific definition and it still does not exist. It was not rediscovered. QFT is not aether-like. Aether was a substance filling all space, while QFT fields like higgs are not physical at all (but rather give rise to physical properties)
Interestingly enough what I did manage to find is a lecture given by Einstein in 1920 where he argues that the ether is in fact essential towards the understanding of general relativity, and that it could be through the ether that gravity and electromagnetism are unified:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358617464_Ether_and...
Re: How the Higgs field gives mass to elementary particles
#39Is that really so? I've never heard this analogy, so the whole premise seems a bit of a straw man...
Re: How the Higgs field gives mass to elementary particles
#40Imagine some preindustrial scientist being awakened in the modern era to find that the aether has been first debunked for more than a century and then rediscovered, but with different rules.
Aether has a specific definition and it still does not exist. It was not rediscovered. QFT is not aether-like. Aether was a substance filling all space, while QFT fields like higgs are not physical at all (but rather give rise to physical properties)
Phew, I feel better now. Non-physical scalar and tensor fields permeating all of expanding spacetime in a non-physical manner give rise to physical behavior via local nonphysical wavefunction collapse that we call excitations.