So, 'bout that Higgs-Boson?

[Backroads]

New Particle

[Traveler]

New Particle

The article is not well researched. There are lots of errors in the article. First off Bosons do not have mass and never by themselves move at speeds less than the speed of light. The author is obviously confused concerning the difference between particle physics and quantum physics. The author is also confused with the standard model and the symmetric subset of the standard model of particle physics.

But the author was right about one thing - the data is increasing supportive that the Higgs boson has been found. And as it turns out the Higgs boson is its own anti-particle. Which leaves me wondering why the article concerned itself with the decay rate of the Higgs boson as someday being the cause of a catastrophic end to the universe?

The Traveler

[Dr T]

Thanks Backroads and Traveler. I do not get how they come to the conclusion when the world will end?

[Vort]

First off Bosons do not have mass and never by themselves move at speeds less than the speed of light.

What on earth are you talking about?

[Vort]

First off Bosons do not have mass and never by themselves move at speeds less than the speed of light.

What on earth are you talking about? Are you thinking of photons rather than bosons?

[Vort]

Thanks Backroads and Traveler. I do not get how they come to the conclusion when the world will end?

The same model that predicts the existence of the Higgs boson also predicts that, depending on the mass of the Higgs boson, the universe may be unstable. So confirmation of the existence of the Higgs boson can be seen as a confirmation of the model that predicts it, and therefore a confirmation of sorts of the predicted instability of the universe. At this point, it's all mumbo-jumbo, and in any case has nothing to do with the existence of human beings or even of the earth itself, both of which are expected to be long extinct in the very distant past before such an event occurs.

[Dr T]

Thanks Vort

[Traveler]

What on earth are you talking about? Are you thinking of photons rather than bosons?

I do not understand your question - since photons are bosons, just not the only bosons. You may want to Google bosons vs fermions.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

The same model that predicts the existence of the Higgs boson also predicts that, depending on the mass of the Higgs boson, the universe may be unstable. So confirmation of the existence of the Higgs boson can be seen as a confirmation of the model that predicts it, and therefore a confirmation of sorts of the predicted instability of the universe. At this point, it's all mumbo-jumbo, and in any case has nothing to do with the existence of human beings or even of the earth itself, both of which are expected to be long extinct in the very distant past before such an event occurs.

You may want to recheck your sources - the Higgs boson has no mass.

The Traveler

[pam]

You may want to recheck your sources - the Higgs boson has no mass.

The Traveler

What is your source that says it doesn't. I just googled several articles and all of them mention it having mass even if tiny.

[Vort]

You may want to recheck your sources - the Higgs boson has no mass.

125.3 ± 0.4 (stat) ± 0.5 (sys) GeV/c²

126.0 ± 0.4 (stat) ± 0.4 (sys) GeV/c²

According to articles published in Physics Letters B, as quoted on Wikipedia.

[Vort]

You may want to recheck your sources - the Higgs boson has no mass.

125.3 ± 0.4 (stat) ± 0.5 (sys) GeV/c²

126.0 ± 0.4 (stat) ± 0.4 (sys) GeV/c²

According to articles published in Physics Letters B, as quoted on Wikipedia.

For comparison, this is over 130 times the mass of a proton.

[Vort]

I do not understand your question - since photons are bosons, just not the only bosons. You may want to Google bosons vs fermions.

Traveler, you are confused. Photons are not bosons. Bosons are a type of matter.

[Traveler]

Traveler, you are confused. Photons are not bosons. Bosons are a type of matter.

quiting from Wikipedia

In particle physics, bosons (pron.: /ˈboʊsɒn/[1]), pron.: /ˈboʊzɒn/[2]) comprise one of two classes of elementary particles, the other being fermions. The name boson was coined by Paul Dirac[3] to commemorate the contribution of Satyendra Nath Bose[4][5] in developing, with Einstein, Bose–Einstein statistics—which theorizes the characteristics of elementary particles.[6][7] Examples of bosons include fundamental particles (i.e., Higgs boson, the four force-carrying gauge bosons of the Standard Model, and the still-theoretical graviton of quantum gravity); composite particles (i.e., mesons, stable nuclei of even mass number, e.g., deuterium, helium-4, lead-208[Note 1]); and quasiparticles (also known as Cooper pairs).

An important characteristic of bosons is that there is no limit to the number that can occupy the same quantum state. This property is evidenced, among other areas, in helium-4 when it is cooled to become a superfluid.[8] On the contrary, two fermions cannot occupy the same quantum space. Whereas fermions make up matter, bosons, which are "force carriers" function as the 'glue' that holds matter together.[9] There is a deep relationship between this property and integer spin (s = 0, 1, 2 etc.).

same article

Properties of bosons

Bosons contrast with fermions, which obey Fermi–Dirac statistics. Two or more fermions cannot occupy the same quantum state (see Pauli exclusion principle).

Since bosons with the same energy can occupy the same place in space, bosons are often force carrier particles. In contrast, fermions are usually associated with matter (although in quantum physics the distinction between the two concepts is not clear cut).

Bosons may be either elementary, like photons, or composite, like mesons.

All observed bosons have integer spin, as opposed to fermions, which have half-integer spin. This is in accordance with the spin-statistics theorem, which states that in any reasonable relativistic quantum field theory, particles with integer spin are bosons, while particles with half-integer spin are fermions.

While most bosons are composite particles, in the Standard Model, there are five bosons which are elementary:

• <LI sizset="false" sizcache02395721098477827="57 145 155">the four gauge bosons (γ · g · Z · W

  ±

  )
• the Higgs boson (H

  0

  ).

Additionally, the graviton (G), a hypothetical elementary particle not incorporated in the Standard Model, if it exists, must be a boson, and could conceivably be a gauge boson.

Composite bosons are important in superfluidity and other applications of Bose–Einstein condensates.

The mass of a boson comes from the equasion of E=M*C(sq) And since bosons travel at the speed of light "C" - the mass is the energy of the particle. Unlike fermions (particles of mass which cannot travel the spead of light) bosons only are considered to have mass based on the fact that they can only exist at the speed of light.

The idea of the Higgs boson is that the property of mass is inherited from the Higgs boson - therefore any fermion (that has mass and cannot travel at the speed of light) they obtain that mass by possessing a Higgs boson. Thus when a fermions are shattered the Higgs boson can be detected.

The Traveler

[Vort]

You are correct, Traveler. Thank you for the clarification. I was thinking of baryons, not bosons. Baryons are matter that make up e.g. protons and neutrons. Bosons are, as you say, force carriers, and are related to gravitons and photons. In fact, under the electroweak unification, photons can be considered a type of boson. The Higgs is a special case which, as you note, is considered to give mass to matter. As such, it does not travel at c and has rest mass, so I believe your point about its mass "coming from the equation E=mc²" is still mistaken -- though at this point, I'm not confident in anything I thought I knew or remembered. At one point twenty or so years ago, I had a tentative understanding of bosons. It is obvious to me now that I have been thinking wrongly about the Higgs boson for many years. Thank you for pointing out my error.

I would note in passing that the existence of the Higgs boson itself is not a particularly monumental discovery, as it is being treated. Most (not all) particle physicists assumed its existence. Rather, it is the characterization of the Higgs field associated with the boson that will confirm or rewrite the graduate physics texts.

[Traveler]

You are correct, Traveler. Thank you for the clarification. I was thinking of baryons, not bosons. Baryons are matter that make up e.g. protons and neutrons. Bosons are, as you say, force carriers, and are related to gravitons and photons. In fact, under the electroweak unification, photons can be considered a type of boson. The Higgs is a special case which, as you note, is considered to give mass to matter. As such, it does not travel at c and has rest mass, so I believe your point about its mass "coming from the equation E=mc²" is still mistaken -- though at this point, I'm not confident in anything I thought I knew or remembered. At one point twenty or so years ago, I had a tentative understanding of bosons. It is obvious to me now that I have been thinking wrongly about the Higgs boson for many years. Thank you for pointing out my error.

I would note in passing that the existence of the Higgs boson itself is not a particularly monumental discovery, as it is being treated. Most (not all) particle physicists assumed its existence. Rather, it is the characterization of the Higgs field associated with the boson that will confirm or rewrite the graduate physics texts.

To be honest - I do not think anyone really understands this stuff and what was written for graduate physics texts 6 months ago is already out of date. Part of the problems is that it is hard to get raw data - which is almost as closely guarded as time on colliders. Another major problem is that most journalists are enough removed from the actual data and understanding of particle physics that they muddy the water through their articles.

You are spot on in your assessment of the Higgs field - which at this point we still do not know for sure exists. Or the theory that mass is accumulated from particles consisting of a Higgs boson passing through a Higgs field. Another possibility (theory) is that the Higgs boson allows particles to exhibit the “properties” of their mass into the mix of “things”. The more “popular” theory is the Higgs field - but as more discoveries are accumulated associated with what happens when the Higgs boson is “revealed” it will diffidently change what we think we know and thought we knew.

The one point about the Higgs particle being the G-d particle; is also greatly misunderstood in the religious community. What the discovery dose show is that the symmetrical model now has another point to brag about. What I believe the Higgs boson shows about the creation of things is that the creator followed precise laws and demonstrates a profound devotion to principles of consistency rather than whimsical magic or what many in the religious community reference as “supernatural”. The Higgs boson in essence brings to light an understanding that the creation is not really so mysterious and that man is more capable of understanding today; things that we did not understand yesterday and furthers the gap between science and traditional religion.

PS. It is refreshing to have your input - I appriciate your style.

The Traveler

[Captain_Curmudgeon]

I have been reading descriptions of how the universe ends, given the instability posited by the GeV value of the Higgs Boson, and they uniformly remind me of something I heard in Sunday School (back in the 40s and 50s) about the Apocalypse: the Heavens would roll up like a scroll.