Is the Higgs boson necessary to explain the source of mass and gravity?

[Andrew Mason]

I understand the theory that "forces" as we conceive them are mediated by force particles or force carriers (the gauge bosons: photons for electro-magnetic force, gluons for strong nuclear force and W-Z bosons for the weak nuclear force, ). The analogy to gravity is the graviton.

I am not sure why is the Higgs boson needed. We do not seem to need a boson to explain the source of the nuclear or electro-magnetic fields. Or do we? If not, why not and why is mass special?

Also: If, as it appears to me, the need for the Higgs boson is derived from particle theory, it does not seem to provide an explanation for the gravitational field of any "matter" that does not interact (other than gravitationally) with normal matter (eg. dark matter).

Am I misguided in suggesting that the Higgs boson, if it is found to exist and provides the physical source of mass and gravity (analogous to charge for electro-magnetic force), it must necessarily pre-date the Big Bang (assuming that dark matter predates the Big Bang, which is the current thinking)?

AM

 

[malawi_glenn]

The higgs boson field will give mass terms to both the gauge bosons of the weak interaction and the fermions (by yukawa coupling).

You have have gravity without mass, since gravity is proportional to the energy-momentum tensor.

 

[madmike159]

I am not sure why is the Higgs boson needed. We do not seem to need a boson to explain the source of the nuclear or electro-magnetic fields.
AM

We don't need a boson to describe the force between 2 charged particles , Colum’s law does that. Photon's provide something to transmit that force across space, rather than the old notion of magnetic flux. The Higgs boson gives mass to some particles, but not others.

 

[kuon]

The Higgs boson is needed to add a mass in the Lagrangian in a way that this keeps being Gauge invariant. Also, the Higgs boson makes the electroweak interactions unitary. If it wasn't there, or if it didn't couple to the particles proportionally to their mass, these interactions wouldn't be unitary, so it's a really elegant solution since it's a way to give mass to the particle of your theory, and also to make it unitary.

 

[Andrew Mason]

We don't need a boson to describe the force between 2 charged particles , Colum’s law does that.

Nor do we need a boson to describe the gravitational force between 2 masses - Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation does that quite nicely. But it does not explain the source of gravity any more than Coulomb's law explains charge.

AM

 

[malawi_glenn]

recall that the virtual boson exchanges is due only since we have no technique other than perturbation theory to solve the interactions in quantum field theory. The virtual particles are just a mathematical tool, a couple of integrals in a cross-section.

 

[FastFreddy]

Malawi,

With respect to explaining how gravity works, the idea of space curvature works ok mathematically, but doesn't really answer the questions of (1) what is gravity? and (2) what is space?

Why can't we describe gravity as the effect of very long superstrings that connect between masses? Information can certainly propagate along the superstring at some velocity v = speed of light = sqrt(F/u); F = tension and u = linear density.

 

[malawi_glenn]

What is gravity: Curvature in space-time, which particles etc. create. The motion of particles are geodesics in this space-time curvature. (that was the answer what gravity is and how it works, those questions are interchangeable in physics)

Space: The arena where physics takes place. I can help you find decent books in philosophy of physics if you want =)

This is always a trick, that one comes with an "idea" with the phrase "Why can't we?"
It is the person who has the "idea" that should argue WHY WE CAN, by demonstrating this:

i) Formulate the idea into math

ii) Postulate new observables (should not only be able to explain known phenomenon, but also predict new)

iii) The new observables should be detectable

Also this is not a post related to the original question, and hence you should make a new thread. Why asking me specific questions in a thread where "the need of higgs boson" is discussed? This is bad forum manner I would say.

Third, we don't discuss our own speculative, pet theories, here - read and follow the forum rule - that is good forum manner.

 

[Andrew Mason]

What is gravity: Curvature in space-time, which particles etc. create. The motion of particles are geodesics in this space-time curvature. (that was the answer what gravity is and how it works, those questions are interchangeable in physics)

Space: The arena where physics takes place. I can help you find decent books in philosophy of physics if you want =)

This is always a trick, that one comes with an "idea" with the phrase "Why can't we?"
It is the person who has the "idea" that should argue WHY WE CAN, by demonstrating this:

i) Formulate the idea into math

ii) Postulate new observables (should not only be able to explain known phenomenon, but also predict new)

iii) The new observables should be detectable

Also this is not a post related to the original question, and hence you should make a new thread. Why asking me specific questions in a thread where "the need of higgs boson" is discussed? This is bad forum manner I would say.

Third, we don't discuss our own speculative, pet theories, here - read and follow the forum rule - that is good forum manner.

I don't want to turn this thread into a speculative free-for-all, but it is apparent that the concept of space and mass are inextricably tied together. One cannot define an inertial frame of reference without reference to a mass. And one cannot define co-ordinates of space-time without an inertial frame of reference. So the Higgs boson, if it explains mass/inertia, is a pretty fundamental part of reality. It should to be a part of any possible universe in which gravity exists.

Dark matter may or may not be part of our universe (which did not exist before the big bang). So, if the Higgs boson exists, and Dark matter was not created in the big bang, the Higgs boson must have pre-dated the big-bang. That was kind of where my initial question was going.

AM

 

[waht]

Dark matter may or may not be part of our universe (which did not exist before the big bang). So, if the Higgs boson exists, and Dark matter was not created in the big bang, the Higgs boson must have pre-dated the big-bang. That was kind of where my initial question was going.

According to the big bang model the very fabric of the universe inflated like a balloon from a pea sized confinement and everything in it expanded. But that's just a model, we don't know for sure what really happened.

 

[FastFreddy]

My post from last night seems to be removed. It is fascinating to chat with knowledgeable people from all over the world. I live in America where freedom of speech is taken for granted. I've never experience censorship before. A lot of time and thought go into my posts. To have them edited/removed by closeminded censors breaks my heart.

I am sorry you are not free to express your ideas. I have no idea how you will discover the truth now. Maybe you will read about it someday.

 

[humanino]

the Higgs boson, if it explains mass/inertia

It seems to me, even for ordinary mass, most of it has nothing to do with the Higgs.

 

[genneth]

It seems to me, even for ordinary mass, most of it has nothing to do with the Higgs.

I'm with humanino on this one. It also feels like the whole thread is predicated on a misunderstanding of what "mass" means in the standard model. It has absolutely *nothing* to do with gravity. Nothing. Zilch. Nil.

The use of the Higgs as a mass generation mechanism is simply because we want to have certain symmetries in our theory, and mass terms put in by hand mess those up. I'll leave the reason for the desire of gauge symmetry for another time. Furthermore, as humanino has alluded to, most of the mass of hadrons come from the energy due to the need to cancel colour charge vs Heisenberg uncertainty. The "mass" due to the Higgs is some almost inconsequential proportion.

The standard model and general relativity do not mix. Just because they use the same word "mass" in similar ways, does not mean they actually use them in the same way. If you like, call them different names.

 

[FastFreddy]

I was trying to determine if a Higgs field can be treated like a particle with a large number of vibrating superstrings coming out of it. The idea is that what we experience as mass is just the tugging by all those connecting superstrings.

 

[malawi_glenn]

I don't want to turn this thread into a speculative free-for-all, but it is apparent that the concept of space and mass are inextricably tied together. One cannot define an inertial frame of reference without reference to a mass. And one cannot define co-ordinates of space-time without an inertial frame of reference. So the Higgs boson, if it explains mass/inertia, is a pretty fundamental part of reality. It should to be a part of any possible universe in which gravity exists.

Dark matter may or may not be part of our universe (which did not exist before the big bang). So, if the Higgs boson exists, and Dark matter was not created in the big bang, the Higgs boson must have pre-dated the big-bang. That was kind of where my initial question was going.

AM

So a universe only consisting of photons would not be able to exists? Just because an observed using our logic can't define inertial frames - is that a legitimate premise? I am sure that models of a universe where you only have photons exists which exerts gravity.

What has Dark Matter to do with this? Why shouldn't dark matter have been created in the Big Bang? Is there any reasons for why it shouldn't?

 

[malawi_glenn]

I'm with humanino on this one. It also feels like the whole thread is predicated on a misunderstanding of what "mass" means in the standard model. It has absolutely *nothing* to do with gravity. Nothing. Zilch. Nil.

The use of the Higgs as a mass generation mechanism is simply because we want to have certain symmetries in our theory, and mass terms put in by hand mess those up. I'll leave the reason for the desire of gauge symmetry for another time. Furthermore, as humanino has alluded to, most of the mass of hadrons come from the energy due to the need to cancel colour charge vs Heisenberg uncertainty. The "mass" due to the Higgs is some almost inconsequential proportion.

The standard model and general relativity do not mix. Just because they use the same word "mass" in similar ways, does not mean they actually use them in the same way. If you like, call them different names.

Very very good post!

 

[malawi_glenn]

I was trying to determine if a Higgs field can be treated like a particle with a large number of vibrating superstrings coming out of it. The idea is that what we experience as mass is just the tugging by all those connecting superstrings.

This is a very very speculative question, you have not even defined what your "superstrings" are and how they work.

Dude, if I aksed "can the Higgs boson be treated like a pink elephant which interacts with other coloured elephants?" you would think I have no idea what I am talking about etc.

Can you stop the speculations and the bad question technique, we are trying to be professional here - don't ask things like "why can't we" etc, in science we motivate WHY our choice of prescription is superior - not why it shouldn't work.

 

[madmike159]

Can you stop the speculations and the bad question technique, we are trying to be professional here - don't ask things like "why can't we" etc, in science we motivate WHY our choice of prescription is superior - not why it shouldn't work.

The only answer we have for philosophical questions like these is the Anthropic Principle.

 

[malawi_glenn]

My post from last night seems to be removed. It is fascinating to chat with knowledgeable people from all over the world. I live in America where freedom of speech is taken for granted. I've never experience censorship before. A lot of time and thought go into my posts. To have them edited/removed by closeminded censors breaks my heart.

I am sorry you are not free to express your ideas. I have no idea how you will discover the truth now. Maybe you will read about it someday.

If you don't like the rules, don't post?

This is not a forum of freedom of speech, this is a forum where we discuss and ask and asnwer questions on contemporary accepted physics. This forum is meant to be a resource for students and others, who want to learn physics - for school - for fun - for career etc. We do not allow speculative posts and links to such - since it can be confusing. Also, this is science, and we deal only with well worked and accepted theories, results etc.

I ask the same question as Pontius Pilate asked/answered Jesus: What is Truth?
Physics is not about finding the truth, it is about facts. I now quote Indiana Jones: "If you want to learn about the truth you should take the philosophy class".

Physics is about describing nature into mathematical language and find phenomenon which can sustain and develop our technical society. Also it is about unification, symmetry and beauty: it is about how to find the most elegant and and most general and symmetric solution. We are trying to find a description of nature, that we can understand by some means. Truth? What is truth?

 

[malawi_glenn]

The only answer we have for philosophical questions like these is the Anthropic Principle.

I can not see how that is related to the lesson I gave how one make progress in physics by having the correct attitude?

 

[madmike159]

What I ment is that when people as why is something like it is we can't answer. Physics and maths can describe how some thing works, but not why it works in the way it does.

 

[malawi_glenn]

What I ment is that when people as why is something like it is we can't answer. Physics and maths can describe how some thing works, but not why it works in the way it does.

well that is true in some sense, but my intention was to show that it is not a good technique to ask "Why is not the Higgs boson be taught of an oscillating soda bottle?" where in the first place the "soda bottle " has not even been defined.. very bad technique and attitude

 

[Andrew Mason]

So a universe only consisting of photons would not be able to exists? Just because an observed using our logic can't define inertial frames - is that a legitimate premise? I am sure that models of a universe where you only have photons exists which exerts gravity.

For a universe consisting only of photons, there would be no space or time. A photon would have no meaning because it can only be detected by matter. So a universe of photons would be a universe of nothing.

What has Dark Matter to do with this? Why shouldn't dark matter have been created in the Big Bang? Is there any reasons for why it shouldn't?

Astrophysical data leads to the conclusion that Dark matter is non-baryonic. http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept05/Gondolo/frames.html" . The possible candidates for dark matter (eg. neutrinos) do not explain it. So Dark matter is some new form of matter that has gravitation and inertia but does not otherwise interact with our matter.

AM

 

[atyy]

There is no mass in pure general relativity - you have Einstein's field equation which relates the metric to the energy-momentum tensor, and matter is defined as a bunch of fields which have an energy-momentum tensor. Mass arises in general relativity as an approximation when we map it in certain limits to Newtonian gravity.

In quantum field theory, mass is a dispersion relation ie. something in an equation about how frequency and wavelength are related.

The Higgs is only about mass in the electroweak bit of the standard model.

 

[malawi_glenn]

For a universe consisting only of photons, there would be no space or time. A photon would have no meaning because it can only be detected by matter. So a universe of photons would be a universe of nothing.

Astrophysical data leads to the conclusion that Dark matter is non-baryonic. http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept05/Gondolo/frames.html" . The possible candidates for dark matter (eg. neutrinos) do not explain it. So Dark matter is some new form of matter that has gravitation and inertia but does not otherwise interact with our matter.

AM

So in a universe where no life can evolve, it can not exists either?
You are doing too much philosophy here I guess. Photons can interact with photons via QED interactions. Loosen up dude :-)


Yes the DM is probably not baryonic, it can be supersymmetric particles for instance, is your premise to your conclusion that DM was created before the big bang that only bayoninc matter was created at the big bang? Why should we take that premise as valid?

 

[Andrew Mason]

So in a universe where no life can evolve, it can not exists either?
You are doing too much philosophy here I guess. Photons can interact with photons via QED interactions. Loosen up dude :-)

But the only way to detect a photon or a photon-photon interaction is with matter. (without matter, a photon has no source. How would a photon originate?). In any event, photons cannot define an inertial frame of reference. Without an inertial frame of reference there can be no space or time.

Yes the DM is probably not baryonic, it can be supersymmetric particles for instance, is your premise to your conclusion that DM was created before the big bang that only bayoninc matter was created at the big bang? Why should we take that premise as valid?

I was hoping you could tell me. As far as I can tell, the Big Bang does not explain the creation of matter that does not interact with baryonic matter.

The Big Bang is considered to be the source of baryonic matter: ie. quarks, protons, neutrons (and electrons which are, of course, leptons but are an essential part of baryonic matter). Photons result from the electromagnetic properties baryonic matter so is plausible that photons were a product of the Big Bang nucleosynthesis. Similarly, neutrinos are produced by interactions of baryonic matter or particles that interact with baryonic matter. So it appears that, under current theory, all baryonic matter and the things that interact with matter derive from the Big Bang ie. here is no evidence that is inconsistent with such a hypothesis.

But for non-baryonic dark matter, which cannot interact with baryonic matter, there is no particular reason to believe that it formed in the Big Bang. Although there is no evidence that is inconsistent with non-baryonic dark matter forming in the Big Bang, the formation of galaxies (which is the reason we know dark matter exists) suggests that the pre-big bang universe had some structure, possibly consisting of dark matter.

AM

 

[malawi_glenn]

so if we considered a universe where matter and antimatter was created in equal amount, and annihilated, we would have a universe with only photons (and possible Z bosons, due to neutroino annihilations)

non baryonic matter interact via gravity, stop think that it does not interact! :-(

I don't know where you have been taught about cosmology and particle physics, can you tell us the books you used in class? Maybe you just need some fresh references and textbooks?

Photons existed earlier than Nucleosynthesis, so the current theory you are referring to is the current theory that I am thinking of. All professors I had on cosmology and particle physics tell me that dark matter was created in BB and that is has not so much to do with structure formation.

Structure formation are believed to be due to quantum fluctuations prior to inflation which then growed - DM is not involved. So again, you are referring to things that I have never heard of.

Maybe this thread could be moved to cosmology forum??

 

[Andrew Mason]

so if we considered a universe where matter and antimatter was created in equal amount, and annihilated, we would have a universe with only photons (and possible Z bosons, due to neutroino annihilations)

non baryonic matter interact via gravity, stop think that it does not interact! :-(

I meant that it interacts only by gravity. That is the only way we can detect it. It does not interact with nuclear or electromagnetic fields.

I don't know where you have been taught about cosmology and particle physics, can you tell us the books you used in class? Maybe you just need some fresh references and textbooks?

Photons existed earlier than Nucleosynthesis, so the current theory you are referring to is the current theory that I am thinking of. All professors I had on cosmology and particle physics tell me that dark matter was created in BB and that is has not so much to do with structure formation.

Structure formation are believed to be due to quantum fluctuations prior to inflation which then growed - DM is not involved. So again, you are referring to things that I have never heard of.

Since we really don't know what dark matter is, it is hardly "known" that it was created in the Big Bang. The article that I cited indicates that this question of what Dark matter is is still open.

I meant to say that photons were created in the Big Bang, not in the nucleosynthesis that followed in the first few minutes after the Big Bang.

We do not have any theory of what existed prior to the Big Bang. There is no data. As far as I can tell, there is nothing to exclude the possibility that non-baryonic gravitating matter existed prior to the Big Bang. My intent here was not to speculate on whether that is the case. It is merely to determine whether the Higgs Boson is necessarily a product of Big Bang. AM

 

[nrqed]

I don't want to turn this thread into a speculative free-for-all, but it is apparent that the concept of space and mass are inextricably tied together. One cannot define an inertial frame of reference without reference to a mass. And one cannot define co-ordinates of space-time without an inertial frame of reference. So the Higgs boson, if it explains mass/inertia, is a pretty fundamental part of reality. It should to be a part of any possible universe in which gravity exists.

Dark matter may or may not be part of our universe (which did not exist before the big bang). So, if the Higgs boson exists, and Dark matter was not created in the big bang, the Higgs boson must have pre-dated the big-bang. That was kind of where my initial question was going.

AM

I wanted to say that I find your point very interesting. I know that some people ridicule any new ideas beyond established theories, but that's not the attitude needed to make progress in physics.

Unfortunately, just throwing out ideas is also not good enough to make progress, they have to be based on some concrete models. Still, I found your idea intriguing. It might be that in a quantum theory of gravity, spontaneous symmetry breaking of the Standard Model group will be intimately linked to the gravitational force. But without any specific theory, this is talk (but interesting talk)


Regards

 

[malawi_glenn]

As far as I know from what I have read, the higgs field was 'created' when the temperature in the universe cooled sufficiently. Gravity played role prior to the particle having mass since gravity is proportional to the energy momentum tensor. (yes all particles was massless before the higgs field *frooze out*)

Since we don't exactly what the dark matter is consisting of, we can not say when it was created - that is perhaps the most humble viewpoint.

If the dark matter is supersymmetric particles, do you think they was created in the big bang?