# Throwback Thursday: How The Higgs Gives Mass To The Universe (Synopsis)

“This is evidently a discovery of a new particle. If anybody claims otherwise you can tell them they have lost connection with reality.” –Tommaso Dorigo

Three years ago, we announced the discovery of the Higgs boson, the last undiscovered fundamental particle predicted by the standard model. In addition to the quarks, leptons, gluons, photon and W-and-Z particles, this was the last piece of the puzzle.

Image credit: Fermilab / E. Siegel.

But the Higgs boson meant something else: that the Higgs field was real, and was the thing responsible for giving mass to the Universe. That's not a very intuitive thing, though! So how does it work?

Image credit: GNI Phoenix International, via DIYTrade.com.
Tags

### More like this

##### How the Higgs gives Mass to the Universe
"This is evidently a discovery of a new particle. If anybody claims otherwise you can tell them they have lost connection with reality." -Tommaso Dorigo You've probably heard the news by now: the Higgs boson -- the last undiscovered fundamental particle of nature -- has been found. The fundamental…
##### Explaining the Higgs: on TV last night!
"We knew that we had indeed done something that was very different and very exciting, but we still didn't expect it to have something to do with physical reality." -Gerald Guralnik, co-developer of the Higgs mechanism Might as well make this entire week "Higgs week" here on Starts With A Bang,…
##### So just what is out there beyond the Standard Model?
"Other than the laws of physics, rules have never really worked out for me." -Craig Ferguson Earlier this week, evidence was presented measuring a very rare decay rate -- albeit not incredibly precisely -- which point towards the Standard Model being it as far as new particles accessible to…
##### How Sure are we of the Higgs?
"`It's quite hard to destroy the Earth.' Does that statement make anyone else nervous? I mean, does that sound like experience talking?" -from the comments on the LHC at slashdot Last week, I started an open thread, giving you the chance to ask about how certain we were about the validity of…

Ethan the article is a bit misleading, it reads like you think the Higg's is the universal giver of mass.

Quote: "You may have also heard that the Higgs gives mass to everything in the Universe, and that it’s a field.
The odd thing is that all of these things are true, if not intuitive."

Did you actually mean to say that?

Matt Strassler does a really good job of this
http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/the-higgs-particle/the-…

Quote: "No matter how you view it, the Higgs field is not the universal giver of mass to things in the universe: not to ordinary atomic matter, not to dark matter, not to black holes. To most known fundamental particles, yes — and it is crucial in ensuring that atoms exist at all."

Matt says it doesn't. Did he actually mean to say that? Ethan says:

quote: "Higgs gives mass to everything in the Universe"

You see, you have to give a reason for you thinking the quote might be correct, not just quote someone else who disagrees and then make the originator argue the case not made by the accuser.

Remember I am a nobody unlike WOW I am not a legend in my own mind. Now you are either an Ethan sock puppet or the greatest Ethan groupie ever.

However I could name articles from Matt Strassler, Lubos Motl, tommaso Dorigo, Sean Carroll and Sascha Vongehr as well as countless physics forums who say that statement is wrong.

If Ethan thinks something other than the standard version of physics then I think he needs to elaborate or at least qualify that he disagrees with a whole pile of other people.

For my part when I look at the standard model equations for a given atomic structure there is a mass term and a Higgs term but perhaps that just weren't as clever as WOW and couldn't simplify it.

However apparently it's case closed WOW has solved the mystery of mass and we can all stop working. All he has to do is declare something, wave some hands and its proved.

I should add if you look at Ethan's articles on MOND he insists they should have to justify the theory.

So lets be consistent here Ethan and WOW need to justify their theory current standard model says it doesn't know where most of mass comes from.

So you are providing an answer to mass so your theory extends the standard model so you need to publish.

To show it the standard view of most physicist for WOW

https://trinity.duke.edu/node/964

2. Misconception: The Higgs field generates the mass of everything.

Correction: The Higgs field generates the mass of about one percent of observable matter and possibly all of dark matter.

"Remember I am a nobody"

Remember, you said it, not me.

Playing the victim card? Again????

"Lubos Motl,"

An insane nutcase.

And, yes, you can quote them. How do you know they are right?

Have you asked them IF they are right and quoted others saying that the Higgs field does give the universe mass?

Or is this only something you tried once here, and are failing at bringing off, hence your butthurt?

And I notice that you STILL failed utterly to bring anything to the table based off your own understanding, preferring to stand behind a cardboard cutout of someone else and present THEIR arguments, whether or not you understand them, so that you cannot be blamed for being in error.

Except you are in error.Not of an argument of Higgs not being a cause of the mass of the unvierse, but of presenting an argument you do not know anything about and therefore have no basis to know whether any response to those arguments are valid contraindications.

IOW, the error is that answering you would be pointless since only someone who knows what those arguments ARE would understand whether a counter was valid. YOU don't know shit, and therefore cannot be swayed by counters to the claims.

Wow, you can prove yourself that LdB is right.

Find out masses of up and down quarks (2.3 and 4.8 MeV), add masses of 2 up quarks and one down quark constituting a proton (9.4 MeV) and you find out it is about 1% of proton mass (938 MeV). Only this 1% of proton mass has its origin in the Higgs field, the other 99% have their origin in the strong interaction.

Unlike an atom, the proton would exist even without Higgs field (however it would be unstable, it would decay to a neutron that would be stable without the Higgs filed). So as you can see, 99% of the mass of the observed matter in the Universe does not have its origin in the Higgs field and the Universe would be massive even without the Higgs filed.

The day has barely begun and Wow's Ass is already being kicked up and down a thread. Pitiful...Just pitiful.

By Ragtag Media (not verified) on 01 Oct 2015 #permalink

I am with Pavel I have 99% of proton mass I need the great WOW to account for. All the great scientists in the world have not been able to put a theory under that 99% but apparently WOW and Ethan have so explain it to us.

I have nothing to comment on I admit I don't have a clue how that 99% mass comes about and there are a hell of a lot of actual real scientists who would love to know.

So the pressure is all on you WOW put up or shut up, you need to explain it because I am not going to find that anywhere as you are about to win the Nobel prize when you publish how it all works.

Can I offer a title for your paper to claim the Nobel Prize

" Transference of mass from the Higgs via the WOW effect"

"The fact that there’s a self-coupling — something special to the Higgs — makes the Higgs boson different than all the other particles, but also explains why it has mass at all." -- Don't gluons also self-couple?

And gravitons as well...

Well under our old physics gluons do indeed self couple in two different ways.

Unfortunately all that is out of date as we are waiting on the new and improved WOW theory :-)

"Wow, you can prove yourself that LdB is right."

Ah, sorry, burden of proof on the one making the claim.

Sorry no playing the wrong game. Naughty boy.

After all, LdB could try proving Ethan right, but hasn't, so why haven't you demanded he do so?

"I am with Pavel I have 99% of proton mass"

Then you're smaller than a hydrogen atom.

"I have nothing to comment on I admit I don’t have a clue"

Then why did you use someone else's claims, when you don't have a clue if they're right?

Why? Because you're a moron with an opinion, and you think your opinion is worth anyone's expertise.

Sorry, nope, Morons opinions can be summarily dismissed.

"Don’t gluons also self-couple?"

Apparently not.

"And gravitons as well…"

Nope, apparently not.

You see, they are complementary pairs of virtual particles. Higgs don't have to be complementary pairs.

If you HAD a clue, you may have had a better idea.

Ah see we are just normal plebs waiting for the great WOW to explain one of the great unsolved mysteries of science.

You can explain it right ?

You are the one making the claim, we have freely admitted we don't know the answer but hell I am in good company :-)

Come on WOW there is a Nobel Prize if you know the answer .... it's all yours all you need to do is explain it.

Wow:

Gluon carries color charge and it couples to all particles with color charge, so to itself as well.

Graviton carries energy, i.e. "gravity charge" and it couples to all particles carying energy, so to itself as well.

W-boson caries electric charge and it couples to all particles carying electric charge, so to itself as well.

Photon and Z-boson are the only exceptions among all known fundamental bosons that do not self-couple (however even they couple to itself via gravity).

So if I am going to prove Ethan / WOW theory of Higgs mass lets set you an identical challenge

I would like for you to prove to me that MOND is right and GR is wrong, I believe they call that quid pro quo.

"Ah see we are just normal plebs"

Remember, you said that, not me.

No, you're not waiting for squat., other than a chance to whinge.

You're definitely not here to learn fuck all.

"Gluon carries color charge and it couples to all particles with color charge"

Gluons bind quarks. Higgs don't have color.

"Come on WOW there is a Nobel Prize if you know the answer"

Apparently YOU think you know the answer.

After all you've said quite a lot of shit on the subject.

Wow is quite wrong here, and LdB et al are correct.

The Higgs field, as part of the Standard Model, appears as a result of spontaneous symmetry breaking and drives the "ideally" (i.e., in the symmetric formulation) massless vector bosons and fermions to have masses proportional to their couplings to the field. That means that the W and Z bosons, the electron, muon and tau leptons, and the six quarks acquire masses from the Higgs field.

However, the "mass in the Universe," at least the masses of the baryons, do NOT come from the Higgs field. They come from the energy of the gluons which bind quarks into hadrons and baryons. This is trivially obvious just from counting: the light quarks (u and d) have masses of a few MeV, while the lightest baryon, the proton, has a mass of just under 1 GeV. All that mass comes from the binding of the gluons.

Frank Wilcek, at MIT, has written extensively on this subject. One of his more accessible versions is from the 2003 MIT Annual, http://web.mit.edu/physics/news/physicsatmit/physicsatmit_03_wilczek_or… .

Wow is also wrong when he claims that gluons do not self-couple. As Pavel pointed out here, gluons carry color charge, and therefore NECESSARILY couple directly (unlike photons, which do not couple at tree level).

By Michael Kelsey (not verified) on 02 Oct 2015 #permalink

Wow is quite wrong here, and LdB et al are correct.

Yeah, you've claimed this before, but not really managed to get it right. that time. How about this time?

The Higgs field, as part of the Standard Model, appears as a result of spontaneous symmetry breaking... That means that the W and Z bosons, the electron, muon and tau leptons, and the six quarks acquire masses from the Higgs field.

OK, nothing at all to do with what I said. Maybe where I got it wrong is explained later..?

However, the “mass in the Universe,” at least the masses of the baryons, do NOT come from the Higgs field.

Hmmm. Looks like this is going to be it. Lets see where the mass comes from.

They come from the energy of the gluons which bind quarks into hadrons and baryons

Oh. But the gluons are IN those baryons. They're definitely in this universe. What gives them THEIR mass, then, because that, then, would be the thing that makes the mass of at least those things in the universe that aren't baryons.

Maybe you get to that later? Lets look.

This is trivially obvious just from counting: the light quarks (u and d) have masses of a few MeV, while the lightest baryon, the proton, has a mass of just under 1 GeV. All that mass comes from the binding of the gluons

OK, so not there, then. All you're saying is that most of the mass of the visible matter are the binding of the constituents of the system. But we're looking for what makes THEIR mass exist. Maybe later?

Frank Wilcek, at MIT, has written extensively on this subject. One of his more accessible versions is from the 2003 MIT Annual, http://web.mit.edu/physics/news/physicsatmit/physicsatmit_03_wilczek_or… .

Well, not there.

It only explains what makes up most of the mass. NOT what causes those bits to be massive.

So it looks like you've got it wrong again, Mike.

Wow is also wrong when he claims that gluons do not self-couple.

Really? Maybe you've been using a different meaning for self-couple, then.

As Pavel pointed out here, gluons carry color charge

Well "color" me pink, I thought I knew that! Apparently I don't.

NOT.

and therefore NECESSARILY couple directly (unlike photons, which do not couple at tree level).

Yeah, like I thought, you're using a different meaning for self-couple, as in they interfere with each other directly and perturb each other by interaction.

Odd thing is, so do charged particles.

Yet it's not called self-coupling.

And if the meaning would cover it, then it really doesn't demonstrate Pavel's point as being a valid rebuttal, since everything self-couples if they can attain a binding.

Gluons don't create color in another gluon. Electrons don't create charge in another lepton. They react to the existence of the inherent charge or color, but don't figure in to the value of it.

@WOW you said "You’re definitely not here to learn fuck all."

How can I learn if you won't teach us, you are the only one from what I can tell that thinks they know the answer?

I politely asked did Ethan mean to say something because as far as I know that statement was wrong. I have always been told the express reverse, so very similar to someone claiming GR is wrong.

So if someone tells me GR is wrong am I supposed to believe them?

Perhaps it is only if Ethan / WOW tells me GR is wrong then I am supposed to believe them?

As you appear to speak for Ethan as a sock puppet or best friend groupie with shared knowledge, I think it you need to teach us.

As you pointed out we can add another to our list who doesn't know Frank Wilcek.

So how are you expecting me to learn what WOW knows when everyone I would go to guide me will give me the wrong answer.

If WOW won't teach me can he at least point me at someone who might be able to teach me because a lot of those I would go to are going to give me the wrong answer.

Ethan quotes Tommaso Dorigo in the article so does that mean Ethan/WOW thinks he is going to give me the right answer?

@Wow:

1) Please look up, either on Wikipedia or in a proper physics textbook, what the term "self-coupling" means. You clearly don't know, and are imposing your own incorrect interpretation to claim others are wrong. Once you've done that, please come back and explain, with citations, where I am wrong.

2) Gluons are massless. Their mass, by itself, does not contribute to the masses of baryons. The energy stored in the color field, of which gluons are the quantized representation, gives mass to baryons (i.e., not the Higgs field). Please review, either on Wikipedia or in a proper graduate level physics text, the basics of quantum chromodynamics. Then come back and explain what is wrong.

3) If you are not familiar with estabilished experts in a field, and are not familiar with the basic science of that field, then you are not competent to express an opinion on whether that field is correct or incorrect. Doing so is one of several indications of crackpottery.

By Michael Kelsey (not verified) on 02 Oct 2015 #permalink

@ Wowzer, Please see the "First Law of Holes".

@ Michael K
Mike,
Does this guy have it right?

"To understand how this works, one should think first not in terms of the mass m of the proton but in terms of its mass-energy E = mc2, the energy associated to its mass. The right conceptual question to ask is not “where does the proton’s mass m come from”, after which you calculate its mass-energy E by multiplying m by c2, but rather the reverse: ask “where does the proton’s mass-energy E come from”, and then calculate the mass m by dividing E by c2.

It’s useful to classify the contributions to the proton’s mass-energy into three groupings
◾A) the mass-energy (or “rest-energy”) of the quarks and anti-quarks that it contains (the gluons, being massless particles, contribute nothing)
◾B) the motion-energy (or “kinetic energy”) of the quarks, anti-quarks and gluons as they move around
◾C) the interaction-energy (or “binding energy” or “potential energy”) stored in the strong nuclear forces (more precisely, in the “gluon fields”) that are holding the proton together

What Figure 3 suggests is that the particles inside the proton are rushing around at high speed, and there are many massless gluons in the proton, so contribution (B) is bigger than contribution (A). Typically, in most physical systems, (B) and (C) turn out to be of comparable size, though often (C) is actually negative! So the proton mass-energy (and similarly the neutron mass-energy) is mostly coming from a combination of (B) and (C), with (A) a small contributor. And therefore this is also true of the proton and neutron mass; they are arising not so much from the masses of the particles they contain but from the motion-energies of the particles they contain and from interaction-energy, associated with the gluon fields that exert the forces holding the proton together. "

http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics…

By Ragtag Media (not verified) on 02 Oct 2015 #permalink

"@Wow: "

Mike, please look up on Wikipedia yourself.

That doesn't explain what gives it mass. YOU are talking about what makes up the mass. YOU are going "You don't even exist! Most of your mass is water!!!!".

"2) Gluons are massless."

They have energy. Energy = mass. E=mc2

"3) If you are not familiar with estabilished experts in a field"

If you are not familiar with WHAT THE FIELD IS, then please refrain from talking bollocks.

"It’s useful to classify the contributions to the proton’s mass-energy into three groupings"

It is if you want to determine where the mass comes from.

But bugger all use for finding out what gives it that mass. Which is the name of the damn thread.

But at least this bit IS trying to be useful.

"@ Wowzer, Please see the “First Law of Holes”."

Wiki is also worthless, the subject self-coupling talks about self-energy.

Please find out what a subject IS before spouting off your mouth, Mike.

"They have energy. Energy = mass. E=mc2"
You don't know that GR holds once you get to the subatomic levels of via quantum mechanics.
.

By Ragtag Media (not verified) on 02 Oct 2015 #permalink

"You don’t know that GR holds"

We don't know that it will be general relativity, but we're talking about *INERTIAL* mass, not gravitational.

Higgs.

You need to take the shove out of your mitts and stop digging.

Get on the program.

"Get on the program."
I am trying but there is conflicting crap all over the place.

By Ragtag Media (not verified) on 02 Oct 2015 #permalink

They conflict because they're talking about different things.

The paper Mike pointed to shows where the mass comes from.

This topic is what gives that mass its mass. NOT where it comes from.

And you've introduced another one, gravitational mass, as opposed to inertial (or invariant) mass. GR doesn't say anything about WHAT makes a mass. It only talks about the bending of the metric of space.

"This topic is what gives that mass its mass. NOT where it comes from."
More confusion there as well, HIGGS Boson AND HIGGS Field.
The "Field" is where the mass came from in the article:

"But the water comes from the Higgs field, and it also fills the balloon that is the Higgs boson: the Higgs field gives mass to all the particles that couple to the Higgs field, including the Higgs boson itself!"

So it IS about WHERE it came from as well.

By Ragtag Media (not verified) on 02 Oct 2015 #permalink

"More confusion there as well, HIGGS Boson AND HIGGS Field."

Well, not really. Any more than the photon and the electric field. Or wave theory of light and particle theory of light. They are two different ways to describe a model of what you are talking about. They BOTH describe the SAME feature.

Gravity and inertial mass aren't the same feature.

"So it IS about WHERE it came from as well."

Nope. This "Where" is "what makes up the mass of the compound object". Not "Where does it get the mass from". And I believe you're getting this deliberately confused now because this isn't going the way you expected.

"And I believe you’re getting this deliberately confused now because this isn’t going the way you expected."
And I believe your a fucking idiot. Why the hell would I try and get shit deliberately wrong when I am passing along WTF I am reading? Hell your the one with the shitty teaching skills SO are YOU deliberately making it confusing on purpose to waste peoples time ?

"“This “Where” is “what makes up the mass of the compound object”. Not “Where does it get the mass from”. t”.
From that "confusing" statement , I gather Santa Claus is where the presents come from under the tree not where they (compound objects) came from Elves work shop.

By Ragtag Media (not verified) on 02 Oct 2015 #permalink

And now we see that you really were just waiting for this, and your earlier queries were just filler until you could get something to complain about, else why would you drop the quest to get comprehension of what's going on for a whine about how your comments are appearing to be to me?

"From that “confusing” statement "

Sorry, I can't fix the moron in you.

That water ballon? Where does its mass come from? "The water in it!", but that isn't saying where the mass comes from, it only changes what your question will have to answer to answer the original.

Where does the mass of the WATER come from? Answering that would then say where the mass for the water comes from.

If you go "From the neutrons and protons in the atoms!", then you need to answer where THEY get their mass from.

And if you say "The GLUONS!", then where did THEY get their mass from?

If you claim "They're MASSLESS!", then you have to explain how massless particles can cause mass, no matter how many there are of them.

The energy from the interactions between quarks and gluons accounts for the excess mass, or is that old and no longer relavant?

By Ragtag Media (not verified) on 02 Oct 2015 #permalink

"The energy from the interactions between quarks and gluons accounts for the excess mass"

How?

And if it's a positive energy, why doesn't it cause the baryon to fall apart, release that energy, and become lighter, like it does with the radioactive elements?

"confirmed-scientists-understand-where-mass-comes-from"

AGAIN, we're going here with "What are the bits that make mass", NOT "what gives it mass".

ok, you seem to be trying to coach me along here and I appreciate it. However, I don't have much steam left so I won't keep you hanging. I will rest up and reply later tonight. Perhaps Michael will also contribute more. And Deniers input would also be a welcomed resource.

By Ragtag Media (not verified) on 02 Oct 2015 #permalink

"ok, you seem to be trying to coach me along here and I appreciate it. "

No problem.

Mike will likely keep on the other topics as to what constitutes the mass of things,rather than why they have mass at all. Remember to keep answers separate.

Dear Ethan, is there any ~reason assumed why the Higgs does not couple to photons and gluons?

You said: "They can be represented by massless sponges, too, except they are water repellent sponges on top of that." - How can any thing be repellent to anything, when there is no prima vista "reasonable" (hence "massive") entity, that is hence able to exclude interaction? Is this a special kind of being absent?

By tomatenmark (not verified) on 03 Oct 2015 #permalink

As LdB said way back in comment 1, this really does amount to high-school physics - no, it's grade-school subtraction.

In MeV/c^2, the Higgs mass of the quarks in a proton add up to 11. The mass of a proton is 938. Therefore 922 of the 938 units, or 98%, of the mass of a proton is not Higgs mass.

Same for neutrons. Since protons and neutrons make up (almost) all the baryonic mass of the universe, we can say that 98% of the baryonic mass of the universe is not from the Higgs mass.

I realize that my little contribution won't stop the dick-measuring contest that certain people seem to want to have, but those certain people might want to note that it's really easy to tell who is wrong here.

"Dear Ethan, is there any ~reason assumed why the Higgs does not couple to photons and gluons?"

They have zero inertial mass. Therefore they cannot be coupling with the Higgs field, since the strength of that coupling is the cause of the mass.

"As LdB said way back in comment 1, this really does amount to high-school physics – no, it’s grade-school subtraction. "

And wrong.

"In MeV/c^2, the Higgs mass of the quarks in a proton add up to 11. The mass of a proton is 938. Therefore 922 of the 938 units, or 98%, of the mass of a proton is not Higgs mass."

No, 98% of the mass of the proton is not the mass of the quarks.

"I realize that my little contribution won’t stop the dick-measuring contest that certain people seem to want to have,"

I realise that you wanted to wave your eeney peenie around in a dick waving exercise, however, you really DO need to understand what you've learned, not just memorised it.

Quite right, Frank. And not even a good one, since it's obvious by about his second post - if not his second word - in any comment thread.

If you are not familiar with estabilished experts in a field, and are not familiar with the basic science of that field, then you are not competent to express an opinion on whether that field is correct or incorrect.

This pantsing is almost enough for me to turn off the killfile to see its antics.

Doing so is one of several indications of crackpottery.

From what I've seen, W. isn't so much a crackpot as an effectively content-free blusterer.

Frank, nope, wrong.

Sorry.

This means you can't neglect showing the error of the statement.

You too, Nads. You can't just go claiming that I'm a crackpot so that you don't have to show the error.

WOW from what you just said your error is obvious but it's to funny watching your performance to tell :-)

What I will say is that you are like all the pseudoscience nutters ... DEMANDING WE PROVE YOU WRONG

Your just like all the lunatics, crazies and whackjobs out there that claim GR is wrong, QM is wrong and we can't prove them wrong ... your a nutter.

IT'S YOUR CLAIM IT'S UP TO YOU TO PROVE IT

"What I will say is that you are like all the pseudoscience nutters … DEMANDING WE PROVE YOU WRONG"

Which is PRECISELY what you did here:

I politely asked did Ethan mean to say something because as far as I know that statement was wrong. I have always been told the express reverse, so very similar to someone claiming GR is wrong

You wanted Ethan to prove you wrong.

But you are a fan of Lubos, so you're really here to aggravate Ethan to get back at him on Motl's behalf.

Your just like all the lunatics, crazies and whackjobs out there that claim GR is wrong, QM is wrong and we can’t prove them wrong … your a nutter.

I quoted it directly because the evience for either of us to have claimed either GM or QM are wrong are exactly the same.

NONEXISTENT.

If you're going to make shit up, why spend extra effort thinking of new fantasies when there's a pre-built one right there in front of me?

"IT’S YOUR CLAIM IT’S UP TO YOU TO PROVE IT"

IT WAS YOUR CLAIM: SEE POST #1. PROVE IT.

Prove it! No, you prove it! Naught, you have to prove it! No, you! Come on, just prove it, it's easy to prove, just read what I have written (I saved the proof for you to tell)!

Obviously there will be no proof that satisfies everyone, so why care about it? Just calm down and have a fag.

Especially Wow is a funny guy whilst the others obviously have lots of fun dealing with him. So what's wrong about it?

Yes, arguing with a troll can be fun if you are well aware of it :-) and also if you don't mind being called a moron etc (see # 17 as an example)

"Yes, arguing with a troll can be fun if you are well aware of it"

Not really,Frank. Arguing with you is quite tiring.

"Prove it! No, you prove it! Naught, you have to prove it! No, you! Come on, just prove it, it’s easy to prove, just read what I have written (I saved the proof for you to tell)!"

Odd, Petey, you whine about me doing it, yet you do it and LdB and Frank and so on and so forth, but only I get the special mention.

LdB thinks that Ethan is wrong because someone else says something different. LdB wants me to prove them wrong.Yet I am the only one mentioned.

Why?

Because the problem isn't the argument's poor track, but me. You hate me, personally, and this is a stick to beat me over with.

Unfortunately, over the internet, you can't hit someone with a stick, so I don't give a rats' ass that you want to beat me up. I'll just return the favour with much greater accuracy.

LdB thinks that Ethan is wrong because someone else says something different. LdB wants me to prove them wrong.Yet I am the only one mentioned.

Based on Ethan's reply in the questions of the week post, he agrees with LdB et al., and the original misunderstanding seems to be a case of unclear wording; when he said 'mass,' he was referring to the (rest) mass of the fundamental particles, not the mass of their composites which may indeed include mass contributions from other sources.

Based on Ethan’s reply in the questions of the week post, he agrees with LdB et al., and the original misunderstanding seems to be a case of unclear wording; when he said ‘mass,’ he was referring to the (rest) mass of the fundamental particles, not the mass of their composites which may indeed include mass contributions from other sources.

I'm of the opinion that invariant mass is an improvement over "rest" mass. Suppose a particle (neutral pion, Higgs, whatever) undergoes a γγ decay. The invariant mass of the system is that of the original particle. The invariant masses of the decay products (the photons) are still zero.

^ That is, "(the photons, which are never at rest)."

aight, get your tally-whackers back out on the table, I am closing in on it. The higgs field does not give mass.
Think of it this way. M=ec2

By Ragtag Media (not verified) on 05 Oct 2015 #permalink

@Ragtag #70: If you are not competent in the maths of quantum field theory, and spontaneous symmetry breaking in high-dimensional QFT, then your statement is simply nonsense.

If you are competent, then I am sure that you can explain, reasonably clearly, how your hypothesis is structured.

By Michael Kelsey (not verified) on 05 Oct 2015 #permalink

"Based on Ethan’s reply in the questions of the week post, he agrees with LdB et al."

Based on WHAT in Ethan's reply?

Because based on Ethan's reply, he agrees with me. And himself.

"The higgs field does not give mass."

Yes it does.

Here's proof: E=mc^2.

"If you are competent, then I am sure that you can explain, reasonably clearly, how your hypothesis is structured."

I am working on it and will be publishing a paper when I am done, the "reasonably clearly" part is the hurdle. If I am incorrect so be it and back to the drawing board.

"I can accept failure, everyone fails at something. But I can't accept not trying."

Michael Jordan

By Ragtag Media (not verified) on 05 Oct 2015 #permalink

@72:

Based on WHAT in Ethan’s reply?

Based on this: "Now, composite, bound combinations of these particles have other sources for their mass: protons get their mass from the strong force, for example. But yes, the Higgs gives mass to everything. Most importantly, without a mass — if the quarks were all massless — bound states like protons would not be possible. So while there are other sources for some forms of rest mass, there’s quite possibly nothing at all with a rest mass without the Higgs."

The fact that protons get some of their mass from the strong force is exactly what Pavel said in @7. Its what LdB and Ken agreed with, and its what you've been arguing against since then.

Because based on Ethan’s reply, he agrees with me. And himself.

No comment on whether he agrees with you. As I said before, I think the confusion was a result of some initially unclear wording and that's all; I don't think Ethan's original post was ever intended to dispute the contribution of strong force binding energy to proton mass.

Is there no chance at all that the Higgs particle that was found is not really the Higgs particle but instead just a normal particle with similar energy etc.?

"Based on this: ..."

Then quoting this bit:

So while there are other sources for some forms of rest mass, there’s quite possibly nothing at all with a rest mass without the Higgs.

Which reinforces my claim.

And not noticing. Duh.

"The fact that protons get some of their mass from the strong force is exactly what Pavel said in @7. "

And BUGGER ALL to do with what gives it mass. It merely means its mass comes from the binding.

NOT what gives that binding MASS.

Get it yet?

"No comment on whether he agrees with you"

Well given you don't say he disagrees with himself and he said "higgs gives everything in the universe mass", and I am saying, YES HIGGS GIVES EVERYTING MASS, it would be impossible to construct a scenario where he agrees with what he said and yet disagrees with me repeating it.

"I don’t think Ethan’s original post was ever intended to dispute the contribution of strong force binding energy to proton mass."

And nowhere have I disputed that either.

Go look.

"Is there no chance at all that the Higgs particle that was found is not really the Higgs particle but instead just a normal particle with similar energy etc.?"

Yeah, but it's about the same as being a postman, going to an address where a Mr J Smith lives, he's been described to you as "about 50, about 5' 9" blond, a little overweight" and being answered at the address by someone about 50, male, about 5' 9", answering "yes" to the "Are you the owner of the property" being a Mr Simmons, 51 years old ,5'10" tall and having moved in last week.

@ Frank #76 Look Up "techni-higgs particle"

"And BUGGER ALL to do with what gives it mass. It merely means its mass comes from the binding.

NOT what gives that binding MASS.

Get it yet?"
Nope, what you are describing is nothing more than a mirror trick. The Higgs can be the field that gives the appearance of mass much asa mirror reflects to show something but is not actually that something.
The simple analogies of the particles moving through the higgs "molasses " SLOWING THEM DOWN makes the mass appear. Makes this apparent.

A close definition:
"Mass itself is not generated by the Higgs field- the creation of matter or energy would conflict with the laws of conservation. However, mass is "imparted" to particles from the Higgs field, which contains the relative mass in the form of energy. Once the field has endowed a formerly massless particle the particle slows down because it has become heavier."

By Ragtag Media (not verified) on 06 Oct 2015 #permalink

The fact that protons get some of their mass from the strong force is exactly what Pavel said in @7. Its what LdB and Ken agreed with, and its what you’ve been arguing against since then.

I take it that W. hasn't bothered with Michael Kelsey's suggestion to get a clue about QCD. Let's try it this way: get rid of the Higgs field. Not a zero vacuum expectation value (which can also be worked out), but nothing.

The strong force is unaffected, so gluons and quarks are still confined. Chiral symmetry is still broken, you still get a condensate, and the W and Z still get mass. More importantly, so do nucleons:

"We have already remarked that the nucleon mass in the $latex \overline{\textrm{SM}}_1$ Gedanken world with massless quarks would be decreased from its real-world value by less than 10%, because the great bulk of the nucleon masses arises not from quark masses, but from conﬁnement energy. The small masses of the up and down quarks are an inessential element of the big picture."

""Get it yet?”
Nope"

Not my problem then. You're a moron.

"I take it that W. hasn’t bothered with Michael Kelsey’s suggestion to get a clue about QCD."

I take it that Nads still hasn't bothered to learn that I already have several clues about QCD, and that where the mass comes from doesn't matter, all that mattes is what gives that mass its mass.

"The strong force is unaffected, so gluons and quarks are still confined. Chiral symmetry is still broken, you still get a condensate, and the W and Z still get mass. More importantly, so do nucleons:"

Like protons and neutrons. Who get their mass from the Higgs.

"the great bulk of the nucleon masses arises not from quark masses, but from conﬁnement energy."

But they are STILL the mass of the nucleons. Which get their mass from the Higgs field.

Let's see if I missed anything:

<killfile>

Ah, sure enough.

“The strong force is unaffected, so gluons and quarks are still confined. Chiral symmetry is still broken, you still get a condensate, and the W and Z still get mass. More importantly, so do nucleons:”

Like protons and neutrons. Who get their mass from the Higgs.

“the great bulk of the nucleon masses arises not from quark masses, but from conﬁnement energy.”

But they are STILL the mass of the nucleons. Which get their mass from the Higgs field.

There's no Higgs field in the Gedanken world, Mr. Reading Comprehension. Did you even try looking at the paper?

Invariant mass m₀² = E² − ‖p‖², same as it ever was.

^ "&lt/killfile&gt"

^^ Oh, FFS.

Yes, Nads, best not to think. Just killfile.

Saves you the bother of learning, saves me the bother of trying to explain the deliberately ignorant.

There’s no Higgs field in the Gedanken world,"

There's no mass in a gedanken world, either. Just like god has no mass. Because it's entirely fiction. And worlds of imagination have no mass. Unless you imagine it does, in which case, it's only there because you imagined it.

However, in the REAL world, there IS a higgs field. And it gives mass to the nucleons. Most of its mass may not be from the quarks that constitute it, but its entire mass is still there and still affected by the Higgs boson.

There’s no mass in a gedanken world, either.

Rather plainly, there is. This is the entire point that keeps bouncing perfectly elastically off your cranium. You either don't understand the paper or are too lazy or timid to attempt it.

You do not understand what a theory paper is and appear never even to have read one – turning interactions on and off is not "entirely fiction."* You do not understand confinement energy. You do not understand mass–energy equivalence.** You do not understand confinement and screening. Despite the assertion that "I already have several clues about QCD," you do not understand symmetry breaking and, by extension, group theory, viz., anything much more about Standard Model itself than pictographs. Oh, wait, that would accidentally include trying to understand the semiotics*** Feynman diagrams. I'll try again:

You would not know a Lagrangian from a Guinea worm emerging from your foot but would likely respond similarly if forced to confront either.

All you can do is mindlessly intone variations on "It only explains what makes up most of the mass. NOT what causes those bits [sic] to be massive." You appear to have a surfeit of foregone conclusions and bluster combined with a gross deficit of reasoning skills.

To all lights, you are more likely to quantum-tunnel your way out of a giant paper bag than you are to think your way out.

You did not even understand Ethan's response:

"Now, composite, bound combinations of these particles have other sources for their mass: protons get their mass from the strong force, for example. But yes, the Higgs gives mass to everything. Most importantly, without a mass — if the quarks were all massless — bound states like protons would not be possible."

Indeed, a free proton would decay in ~15 ps. Neutrons, however, wouldn't. But that would require reading the paper to understand. Or, I dunno, recalling your own comments:

“The energy from the interactions between quarks and gluons accounts for the excess mass”

How?

And if it’s a positive energy, why doesn’t it cause the baryon to fall apart, release that energy, and become lighter, like it does with the radioactive elements?

Yah, you nailed that one. Because "radioactive elements" "fall apart." It's totes the same thing. Sweet Jesus, this appears to be the closest that you've come to saying something rational, and the best you could make of it is this blob.

However, in the REAL world, there IS a higgs field. Most of its mass may not be from the quarks that constitute it, but its entire mass is still there and still affected by the Higgs boson.

The real Higgs boson does exactly two things: (1) demonstrate that the field exists and (2) promptly decay. That's it.

Oh, but wait, you discharged this bilge close to shore:

“To be more precise it should be the ‘Higgs Field’ to prevent confusion with the ‘Higgs Boson’.”

Well, we use photon and electric field without confusion, so I don’t think it *necessary*. They’re just using two different models of reality.

No, this is a dismaying illustration that you have no idea what you're talking about. "We" (tinw) "use" electrons to talk about EM fields, rather than exchange mechanisms. "Virtual particles" are a crappy analogy (I presume it's skulking around somewhere).

If you use the terms interchangeably, one might wonder whether EDF or some such already has an inch-thick file on you.

Then again, there's this, which came first:

Yes, Nads, best not to think.

"Remember, you said it, not me." The irony, it burns.

Just killfile. Saves you the bother of learning, saves me the bother of trying to explain the deliberately ignorant.

The only things to "learn" from you is that you tirelessly clutter up the comments with replies to the equally useless R.M. (who you could killfile), have atrocious English composition skills, and are phenomenally impressed with yourself for no discernible reason. I'm more than happy to be free from your "trying to explain the deliberately ignorant," which I can but hope represents a rare flash of self-awareness.

I wasn't certain about the simile that sprang to mind, but further investigation suggests that it was spot-on, given that it turns out donkeys territorially mark the scat of jennies:

You are a braying ass. You're going to have to work the leftover footnoote out for yourself.**** (Heh. Heheh. Oh, screw it.)

If you're never wrong, you also never learn.

* Chiral here, both spontaneous and exact.

** Although I now see that you've invoked it to jaw-droppingly mindless effect:

“2) Gluons are massless.”

They have energy. Energy = mass. E=mc2 []

Gee, I guess that's why photons have mass, too. You can't even keep track of your own self-contradictions, but speaking of photon masses, do you understand how photons acquire an effective mass in superconductivity? You do understand that this branch of condensed-matter physics is where the whole idea for the Higgs mechanism came from, right?

*** No, really. Wait for the olorkay argekay to roll some prima donna.

****

"Dear Ethan, is there any ~reason assumed why the Higgs does not couple to photons and gluons?”

They have zero inertial [sic] mass. Therefore they cannot be coupling with the Higgs field, since the strength of that coupling is the cause of the mass.

This is word salad. You've declared, by fiat, that gg → H fusion cannot exist?

^ "'2) Gluons are massless.'

"They have energy. Energy = mass. E=mc2 [sic]"

^ I really should have noted this bit of derangement:

But you are a fan of Lubos, so you’re really here to aggravate Ethan to get back at him on Motl’s behalf.

Keep in mind that LdB only mentioned Luboš in passing:

However I could name articles from Matt Strassler, Lubos Motl, tommaso Dorigo, Sean Carroll and Sascha Vongehr as well as countless physics forums who say that statement is wrong.

And this is what it took to unleash a weird "shill" conspiracy? W. here is trying to double down on a bona fide ad hominem, which I can scarcely imagine coming from anything but a hilarious smackdown, since most people are able to tell sh*t from shinola.

"If you’re never wrong, you also never learn."

The irony, it burns.

" There’s no mass in a gedanken world, either.

Rather plainly, there is. This is the entire point that keeps bouncing perfectly elastically off your cranium."

Well, then the point is worthless, since we don't LIVE IN a gedanken world of spherical cows, infinite plates, and so on.

"Keep in mind that LdB only mentioned Luboš in passing:"

Why?