Higgs Boson

[tommtomm]

"The Higgs boson may not have been found after all, warn particle physicists"

By Tecca | Today in Tech – 7 hrs ago.

[CraigD]

"The Higgs boson may not have been found after all, warn particle physicists"

By Tecca | Today in Tech – 7 hrs ago.

That's being discussed (though there've been no replies to the OP yet) in another thread, What If The Boson Is Not The Higgs ?

[belovelife]

so what is its worth, if its found false?

[tetrahedron]

In my own crazy not-even-wrong model of the fundamental particles each base spin type associates with a different, but consistent, mix of dimensionalities (redistributed over space-time-energy-mass). There are 4 boson spins (0/2,2/2,4/2,6/2, with 0/2 the same as 8/2, full circle), and 4 fermion spins (1/2,3/2,5/2,7/2, with 1/2=9/2, again full circle). But the gist of all this is that the newly found boson *could* be 6/2 and still be a boson, but not spin 0/2. Is there a way to know, from the reporting, whether they have confirmed any spin value for the new boson?

 

One other point- I always like mirror symmetry. If there are positive mass values, why can't there be negative mass ones, for particles we haven't found yet? Or quanta of negative energy. If mated with their positive siblings, instead of annihilation to positive energy (as in normal matter and antimatter), they would leave behind NOTHING AT ALL. Absolute annihilation.

 

There is always a risk in any field of only looking where the light is brightest (relative to the drunk looking for his car keys on the ground after having dropped them, proverbially). There is an interesting gap in what we think we know about fundamental particles. People have been looking for years for a fourth set of spin-1/2 fermions, to no avail (a fourth system beyond electron, muon, tauon). So we have 12 particles rather than 16 over the two lepton and two quark sets.

 

And there are 12 rather than 16 in the spin-2/2 bosons as well- the 8 colored gluons and the 4 electroweak gluons.

 

And yet we don't see any fundamental magnetic particle, or force carrier.

 

The 8 colored gluons split into two sets of three each (for matter and antimatter) that deal with hadronic matter, and two for mesonic. The electroweak gluons also split into one group of three (weak) and one electromagnetic. If there IS a missing system, I suspect it will be for MAGNETIC analogues of the electroweak gluons, one for one, so a set of three 'weak' magnetic gluons, and one magnetoelectric gluon (with precedence given to the magnetic aspect). I've wondered whether any such magnetoelectric gluon would have negative energy (thus my name for it: skoton, based on the Greek for 'dark'). Of course by symmetry this might instead be found in the spin-6/2 equivalent, if such a basic spin type exists at all).

 

The charge system of (3/3,2/3,1/2,0/3) for the spin-1/2 fermions, organized this way, shows a 'sandwich' structure (leptons as endpoints, quarks between as 'filler'). Then across we have electron, muon, tauon series. For normal stable matter the electrons and the up, down quarks are all we ever see, with the +0/3 charged neutrinos out of concern. This makes me wonder whether there is an rough system analogue here with the electroweak gluon distribution- the two W's and the photon are what we usually see, and the Z0 kind of mostly invisible. Similarly for the colored gluons for normal matter we only see 3, mesons not being the usual case for normal matter.

 

Anyway, I also envision basal 3/2 spin types, not the derivative gravitino of the string theoreticians. But because of my linking each spin type to a different mix of dimensions, these will not associate with PARTICLES as we know them (for ex. spin-1/2 fermions with 0 spatial-internal dimensionality, but extension over 1 of space, 1 of time (and others (up to 6?) dealing with mass and energy)). Instead they will extend over THREE dimensions of space.

 

A lot to take in, likely your Spidey senses (or Bull.... detectors) are kicking in by now. But I haven't gone all head-esplodey yet myself, so hopefully y'all will survive, at least in some fashion. A system as outlined partially above will interact with the Higgs somewhat differently than what one would expect based on the SM particles alone. So will the graviton, which also won't be a 'particle' as such. Heck for that matter neither will the Higgs be normal in this regard.

 

Jess Tauber

[Aethelwulf]

 

how can a sub-atomic particle have more mass that the particle it makes?

 

 

 

Craigs answer was right, but I can I say something a little unrelated to the Higgs but completely within context of this question?

 

There are actually cases in nature where the union of particles have more energy (the stuff which would contribute to the mass of the system) than the particle they make!

 

But where did this mass go if it is no longer present in the final configuration? This is the case of quarks, when a number of quarks come together, the equation [math]E=Mc^2[/math] states that they had more mass than the final particle they make. This extra energy actually turns into a type of quantum glue which holds them together tightly.

[belovelife]

interesting, it kinda makes sense, so you are saying that the strong force that binds the sub-atomic particles together, actually decreases the mass of the

boson when the proton is actually together

 

so as the boson is released, the mass increases because the proton being an atomic particle transduces the energy of the boson, by being paired with a quark,

 

to make a gluon?

 

so then, what happens to the quarks as the boson is released

 

 

and why does it appear that the mojority of the hydrogen in the collision went right through eachother

[Aethelwulf]

interesting, it kinda makes sense, so you are saying that the strong force that binds the sub-atomic particles together, actually decreases the mass of the

boson when the proton is actually together

 

so as the boson is released, the mass increases because the proton being an atomic particle transduces the energy of the boson, by being paired with a quark,

 

to make a gluon?

 

so then, what happens to the quarks as the boson is released

 

 

and why does it appear that the mojority of the hydrogen in the collision went right through eachother

 

The quarks are actually held together by the exchange of the gluon Boson. All quarks are actually considerably heavier than the atomic nuclei and if they did not give up this energy in the form of gluons, there would be nothing to hold them together when forming the nucleus of an atom.

 

''and why does it appear that the mojority of the hydrogen in the collision went right through each other''

 

In what cases?

[belovelife]

the collitision animation

[Aethelwulf]

the collitision animation

 

Can you show me where the animation is?

[belovelife]

at the beginnin of the thread, in the original post

[Aethelwulf]

at the beginnin of the thread, in the original post

 

I still don't see an animation, so I followed the link and saw a collision map of particles, is that what you are talking about?

 

Particles can't go through each other unless there are no forces acting on them. An axion particle for instance, (completely hypothetical) but an axion can move almost untainted through ordinary everyday matter because it does not interact electromagnetically. But we can assume in your case, we have particles that will interact. You can shoot a whole load of particles at each other and find only a small number of them actually interact through scattering. We determine that process through a scattering matrix using an initial state and a final state [math]S_{if} = <f|S|i>[/math].

Edited July 16, 2012 by Aethelwulf

[belovelife]

......In a much-hyped announcement yesterday (July 4) from the world's largest atom smasher,

 

the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland, scientists reported evidence of a new "Higgs-like" particle

 

with roughly 125 times the mass of the proton.

 

............

 

 

 

how can a sub-atomic particle have more mass that the particle it makes?

 

am i missing something?

 

goto evidence of a new higgs-like particle

 

about 3/4 of the way down

[maddog]

There is no real explanation of just how or why an object having no mass can exist before it acquires its mass, simply because one cannot just ignore the well-accepted facts about inertia. Without mass, objects do not exist except as figments of you-know-what. That is the 1st obstacle no one has yet addressed, but certainly should have been right off. Until that brick wall is torn down, forget about logical discourse.

Like you I do not understand the enameration of "explaining away" mass in principle. I was since I heard of the Higgs Boson thinking it would never be found, ending up like the neglected aether in history. Now that a particle of the expected energy has been found I am more perplexed. So if I am to accept the existence of the Higgs for now, I am more in preponderance of how this existence interacts with gravity or the graviton.

 

Due to Supersymmetry, we are required to add the supersymmetric partners: Goldstino for Goldstone Boson, Gravitino for the Graviton, and the Higgsino for the Higgs?

It is these supersymmetric partners are considered Fermions (spin = 1/2), (I guess) like the neutrino mediate the force process governed by the Boson. If so what force does the Higgs carry (property of mass?). If so how is that a force? So if the Goldstone is the interacting particle between the Higgs and the mass needing particle, what (or how) is the particle/field interacting with the Higgs and the Graviton? The Goldstino??? It just gets so complicated.

 

I had this explained to me once while I was studying Astrophysics, just not enough to satisfy me or give that warm fuzzy feeling of completeness.

 

maddog

[belovelife]

thats why i like my model

 

simple

 

teachable in high school

makes sense

 

easily understood

 

explains more

 

etc

 

[maddog]

... But the gist of all this is that the newly found boson *could* be 6/2 and still be a boson, but not spin 0/2. Is there a way to know, from the reporting, whether they have confirmed any spin value for the new boson?

Uh, yeah... The Higgs Boson is considered a scalar Boson (spin 0). I am not sure how a "scalar field" can be a field. Of course, I have not worked through Quantum Field Theory (QFT) as this is a second year grad course. I wasn't able to make sense of the rest.

 

One other point- I always like mirror symmetry. If there are positive mass values, why can't there be negative mass ones, for particles we haven't found yet? Or quanta of negative energy. If mated with their positive siblings, instead of annihilation to positive energy (as in normal matter and antimatter), they would leave behind NOTHING AT ALL. Absolute annihilation.

Negative energy has been considered, yet is thought of as "exotic" in nature. Negative energy is like a debt you eventually have to pay back. In most equations the minus sine is given to the time variable (antimatter), so that mass is always considered positive. Negative mass would have the opposite behavior to gravity as does mass (Think "flubber").

 

And yet we don't see any fundamental magnetic particle, or force carrier.

Because of Maxwell (& his equations), Electricity & Magnetism have been combined into a single force. I have a friend who thinks Magnetism generates Electricity. This is really odd. This would be thinking that the top of an egg and the bottom of an egg are actually different eggs (neglecting for the moment we are not attempting to determine "top" or "bottom"), when in reality we are speaking about the same egg.

 

maddog

Edited July 31, 2012 by maddog