TSR Physics Society

Out of interest, does the discovery of the Higgs boson have any effect on quantum mechanics...because the Higgs boson gives mass to particles and an electron is a particle, but it can also act as a wave...but a wave doesn't have mass does it? :smile:

Sorry if that's a ridiculous question (still doing GCSE so I don't know an extortionate amount on this :tongue:

)

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 962

F1 fanatic

Original post by BP_Tranquility

Sorry if that's a ridiculous question (still doing GCSE so I don't know an extortionate amount on this :tongue:

)

Posted from TSR Mobile

In the case of particles with mass like electrons or protons, the waves of quantum mechanics do have mass. A particle can behave like a particle or a wave, sometimes simultaneously. Both are theoretical constructs (things we humans created to try to explain observations) and so neither quite fits reality.

A particle 'wave' can be described by a De Broglie wavelength. The De Broglie wavelength relates the wavelength of the wave to the particle's momentum (which depends on mass). The wavelength of the wave is inversely proportional to the mass of the particle, so heavy particles have a very short wavelength.

As a slight aside, the 'Standard Model' which predicted the existence of the Higgs boson was/is entirely consistent and underpinned by quantum mechanics, so there is no discrepancy between the two.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 963

Original post by F1 fanatic

Oh, okay thanks :smile:

And in string theory, it is thought that everything is made up of oscillating strings so does the Higgs boson give mass to these 'strings'?

And in general relativity, isn't it believed that mass can become energy, which isn't made up of particles (is it?) so how does this fit in with the Higgs boson? Because according to general relativity, doesn't mass generate the effect of gravity?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 964

F1 fanatic

Original post by BP_Tranquility

Oh, okay thanks :smile:

String theory is somewhat different to quantum theory and, in my opinion, does not deserve the status it has. Quantum theory is a robust theory that has been tested probably more than any other theory and never yet been found to be wrong. Its predictions have always matched experiment. String theory has never been experimentally tested at all, mainly because it is very difficult to make an actual prediction that can be experimentally verified. It is a hypothesis for how things might work, but there is as yet no proof. That said, the oscillating waves you are talking about would be at a very small scale, much smaller than the smallest particles and smaller even than quarks. The Higgs boson is believed to give mass to particles, but the strings are several orders of magnitude smaller in size.

The statement you made about the equivalence of mass and energy can be reconciled, and in fact that's precisely how the Higgs was discovered at the LHC. If you fire particles at each other with huge energies then they collide and create new particles and mass out of the kinetic energy, one of which was the Higgs Boson. We wouldn't normally talk about energy as a particle because energy is a much bigger and broader concept. Energy can take many forms, one of which is mass energy in the form of a particle. We create particles from energy and in doing so they have the properties of mass. This mass exists or is felt by other particles because of the Higgs boson. Bosons are force carrying particles. The W and Z bosons mediate the weak nuclear force, photons mediate the electromagnetic force and higgs bosons mediate the property of mass.

As for general relativity, THAT is the big unknown in physics. Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are both fantastic theories that have been tested many times, but they are incompatible with each other. That is why people have been seeking Grand Unified Theories for the past 30 years, of which string theory is one hypothesis. What you actually describe is true of all gravitational theories though. Mass generates gravity even in Newtonian gravity. General relativity says that gravity is a curvature of space itself, so the mass curves space. It is this concept of space curvature which cannot be reconciled with quantum mechanics, and by extension particle physics.

Reply 965

excal9

Original post by F1 fanatic

String theory has never been experimentally tested at all, mainly because it is very difficult to make an actual prediction that can be experimentally verified.

string theory predicts gravity, that's fairly easy to test experimentally :colone:

it's not like it was a theory designed to from the base upwards to incorporate gravity .

Reply 966

physics4ever

just wanted to put this out there- I LOVE PHYSICS! :biggrin:

Reply 967

Had no idea there was a physics society until just now, great. Looking to apply to uni for 2014 entry for physics (obviously)

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 968

Original post by F1 fanatic

(...) The Higgs boson is believed to give mass to particles, but the strings are several orders of magnitude smaller in size.

I have just read an article about the Higgs boson, but there are two things which I don't understand. If the Higgs boson is responsible for the mass of particles, what is the role of Higgs mechanism? if the Higgs boson decays in an unthinkable short time, why this decay has no effects to the particles?

Reply 969

Original post by Kallisto

It's the Higgs field that gives particles mass by way of the Higgs mechanism. The Higgs boson is an excitation of the Higgs field that decays into other particles.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4

Reply 970

Original post by adi19956

It's the Higgs field that gives particles mass by way of the Higgs mechanism. The Higgs boson is an excitation of the Higgs field that decays into other particles.

Do I have this right that the Higgs mechanism is the decay of the Higgs boson which caused the particles which are known in particle physics (photon, electron, proton, neutron etc.)? is it right that the Higgs mechanism is caused in the Higgs field? :hmmmm2:

Reply 971

Original post by Kallisto

The Higgs field evenly permeates the universe, the Higgs mechanism causes mass as particles travel through the Higgs field. It is the interaction of particles and the field. The excitation of the Higgs boson is irrelevant to all of this. It is merely caused because E = mc^2 (and its fuller equation) so when at CERN they make a lot of energy by smashing protons into each other they create mass which occasionally comes in the form of the Higgs boson.

Some describe the Higgs mechanism with a simple analogy. It is like someone walking through a crowd of people. If that person is unpopular then they will pass through with ease and not gain much mass, if they're a celebrity then people will flock around them and cause them to slow down, they've gained a lot of mass.

As far as I'm aware no one yet knows why the photon has no mass and why quarks do have mass. Or if they do I'm sure I won't understand it

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4

Reply 972

Original post by adi19956

The Higgs field evenly permeates the universe, the Higgs mechanism causes mass as particles travel through the Higgs field. It is the interaction of particles and the field. (...)

That is my line of thought: The Higgs mechanism causes the mass of particles. -> the mass of particles depends on the interaction between the particles and the Higgs field. -> That is why the Higgs mechanism is define as the interaction of them.

As far as I understood you a Higgs boson may come into being, if the protons are smashing into each other. What about other particles? I have read that it is very, very, very rarely and unlikely that a Higgs boson come into being.

Reply 973

Original post by Kallisto

A Higgs boson can appear if there is the right amount of pure energy, but I don't know what level that is. The use protons because they're easy to accelerate what with the charge and stuff. For some of the time in the LHC they smash heavier particles together for a different experiment, but I can't remember what they are. I think they're lead nuclei.
You're right the Higgs boson almost never appears, but because they do so many collisions it doesn't matter. They filler out most collisions and only choose the ones that look significant as well as choosing some random ones as well. It also decays almost immediately so they have to detect it via the particles it decays into, but again I have lack of knowledge here. I don't know what it decays into and I don't know if it would do that consistently and I don't know if they try to detect particles after a few decays of chains of particles

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4

Reply 974

I was watching Star Trek when a certain thought came to my mind. Hypothetically, if a warp drive became possible to do, could this be used to escape the gravitational pull from the event horizon of a black hole? E.g if there was a spaceship that was on the event horizon of a black hole, could it use warp drive to escape the event horizon and avoid falling into the singularity?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 975

mrppaulo

Original post by BP_Tranquility

Does it depend on the distance of the enterprise from the singularity? The schwarzschild radius of a black hole exists at the distance at which the kinetic energy of light isn't enough to escape gravitational attraction. It can be derived from the escape velocity:

v=sqrt(2GM/r)

rearrange it then you get the equation for Schwarzschild radius assuming your speed in that of light (c):

r=2GM/(c^2)

so then whatever the speed above light is can be substituted in and the radius from the singularity equated will be the limit of whether the enterprise escapes or not.

This is unless your asking about the warp drives capability to warp the space-time field around the ship in which case I have no idea :tongue:

But if it was exactly on the event horizon then I would say yes? (...waits to be corrected :redface:

)

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 976

Original post by mrppaulo

v=sqrt(2GM/r)

rearrange it then you get the equation for Schwarzschild radius assuming your speed in that of light (c):

r=2GM/(c^2)

But if it was exactly on the event horizon then I would say yes? (...waits to be corrected :redface:

)

Interesting...Thanks- hopefully, they'll be able to test it out within our lifetimes! :biggrin:

I was referring to the first idea, but come to think of it, could you escape the Event Horizon of a black hole by warping space-time around it? What effect would this have on the black hole? :rolleyes:

Reply 977

mrppaulo

Hey so I don't know whether I am allowed to promote my physics blog on here? But I have been running it for a while now with mainly just updates on news from around physics but today I decided to start a series called Spotlights to just shed some light on basic things in physics with the added equations. Probably far to basic for most people here but thought you may be interested in having a look :smile:

physicshorizon.wordpress.com

Any advice or feedback would be appreciated :biggrin:

Reply 978

mrppaulo

Original post by BP_Tranquility

Interesting...Thanks- hopefully, they'll be able to test it out within our lifetimes! :biggrin:

As a black hole is an infinite potential well in space time I wouldn't have thought warping space-time around it would cause much significant effects. :tongue:

Reply 979