The Higgs Boson For Dummies

totopink · Jul 9, 2012

I'm currently half way through an avalanche of a novel that surrounds the discovery of an imaginary particle that I think is similar to the higgs boson.

I've ordered The God Particle: If The Universe Is The Answer, What Is The Question? off of Amazon so I'm going to extensively brush up on my knowledge, but can anyone give me Simple As You Like definition of what the higgs boson is?

I've got to grips with the Higgs Field but I'm not sure what the Higgs Boson actually is, probably because I've never done extensive physics so I have no sense of what a regular boson is.

espresso5 · Jul 9, 2012

I'm not a physicist, so this is probably an oversimplification (if not a somewhat incorrect way to think about it), but essentially atoms are made up of a bunch of smaller particles, elementary particles (which can't futher be broken down), which get their mass and properties when they interact with the Higgs field, which permeates all of space.
The Higgs boson is the smallest of these particles (again, this is probably vastly oversimplified) and is important because it is the last particle of the Standard Model, which predicts all these small particles, not to be detected.
I think there's so much emphasis on the Higgs boson because if it can be detected, as it looks like it might have been, then it supports the Standard Model. If not, then it opens the door for competing models, or at least different models, which is a big deal to particle physicists.

Peter Graham · Jul 10, 2012

A Higgs Boson goes into a Catholic church. The priest comes rushing forward and tries to shoo it out.

"Go away," shouts the priest. "Your very existence further challenges notions of an intercessory and divine creator. You have no place in a Church, least of all a Roman Catholic one."

"You can't chuck me out," says the Higgs Boson, "The Catholic Church needs me. Because without me, there can be no Mass."

Educational humour - can't be bad...........

Regards,

Peter

RichardGarfinkle · Jul 10, 2012

Here's an explanation I posted into the P&CE thread about this:

The Standard Model of Quantum Mechanics predicts the existence of certain particles and their behavior. It's predictions have been largely borne out (although there's that pesky problem with Einstein's theories, but as they say you can't choose your Relativities).

Anyway, the standard model classifies particles in various ways. One of the most basic is whether the particle is massless or has mass. Massless particles (like photons) move at the speed of light. Massed particles move slower than light (note to Tachyon fans: There's no evidence these guys exist, so give it a rest mass).

But there is a question as to why certain particles have mass instead of being massless. In particular (sorry about that), electrons, quarks, and a couple of particles that hold other particles together called the W and Z bosons, could be massless, but aren't. Their mass needs to be accounted for.

The physicist Peter Higgs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Higgs) created an explanation. This required the existence of a process of what's called spontaneous symmetry breaking very early in the life of the universe (as in a really small fraction of a second after the Big Bang).

Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking occurs when a process that seems like it could go any of a number of ways suddenly on its own starts acting in a particular way and keeps acting that way. It's a pretty bad name, but it comes from the underlying mathematics of quantum mechanics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontan...metry_breaking

Anyway, the Higgs field as it is called changes the characteristics of the massless versions of the particles mentioned above and makes them massed. Assuming, this is true, it accounts for why the massed particles have mass.

In order to determine if this is true, it would be necessary to detect the Higgs Field. The easiest way to do that is to find the kind of fluctuation in the field that we think of as a particle (this way madness and physics lie). But the Higgs Boson (the particle mentioned above) doesn't come to be except in very high energy conditions (like those in the very early universe). Hence the need to recreate those energetic conditions. Hence the LHC.

So, they souped up the thing to that high an energy and started slamming particles together hoping to make a Higgs Boson. They knew what kind of effects it would have if created, so they have been feverishly checking over the data to see if they have enough cause to think they succeeded.

Kenn · Jul 10, 2012

totopink said:
I've got to grips with the Higgs Field but I'm not sure what the Higgs Boson actually is, probably because I've never done extensive physics so I have no sense of what a regular boson is.

If somebody calls you a regular boson, then it's probably not a compliment

But you ask a very good question.

There are different levels of answer. Bosons are subatomic particles that are governed by certain statistics. I think you mean fundamental bosons, however, and each of these (four) transfers a force. In the case of the Higgs Boson, which is still only theoretical, it determines mass.

I'm not sure how you could have got to grips with the Higgs Field and not appreciate what the Higgs boson is. In quantum field theory, the particles are represented by fluctuations (or aberrations) in the field. The Higgs boson is one such particle in the mass field.

Wiskel · Jul 11, 2012

RichardGarfinkle said:
(note to Tachyon fans: There's no evidence these guys exist, so give it a rest mass).

But . . .Star Trek said so.

smellycat6464 · Jul 11, 2012

This is how I was taught it:

There are subatomic particles, other than protons, neutrons, and electrons, that comprise the universe. These are comprised of smaller subunits, like quarks (there are more, but that's the most common one)

The smaller particles are called elementary particles because they have no smaller unit.

And I could be wrong, but I thought the higgs boson was officially discovered. It's sigma 5 on a bell curve...I mean, .1% probability of miscalculation is sigma 3, so I think its safe to assume it exists. I read somewhere theres like a 1 in 3.5 million chance it was a mistake

The higgs boson is a type of elementary particle that doesn't form larger,or composite, particles, like hadrons (mesons, or baryons). Instead, it comprises something called the higgs field.

Think of the higgs field like a body of water, and the higgs boson as the water molecules forming the body of water.

The way other particles interacts with this field determines the properties its mass. things that would interact with the higgs field greatly would have highly massive properties. So think an umbrella in this water, since it fans out and has a high surface area, it will interact with the higgs field more, move slowly, etc.

On the flip side, more "streamlined" things, such as a needle in water, can zip through easily, fast, and with little resistance. since there is little interaction with the higgs field, the matter in question doesn't have a lot of mass.

On the other flip flip side, things with no mass, like light (photons for example) will pass through undisturbed (this is where the analogy breaks down a little because photons refract in light, but you get what I'm saying, right?)

Just a disclaimer, size and shape does not determine how something interacts with the higgs field, I'm not saying protons have more surface area than electrons or something like that, but for some reason which I don't know of, more massive things interact with the higgs field more

happy writing

RichardGarfinkle · Jul 11, 2012

They discovered a Boson with the appropriate mass for the Higgs. That's some confirmation, but it doesn't on its own prove Higgs' theory about the Higgs field giving mass to certain otherwise massless particles.

Paul · Jul 11, 2012

nice explanations.

smellycat6464 · Jul 11, 2012

RichardGarfinkle said:
They discovered a Boson with the appropriate mass for the Higgs. That's some confirmation, but it doesn't on its own prove Higgs' theory about the Higgs field giving mass to certain otherwise massless particles.

ahhh, good point

Lil · Jul 11, 2012

Try this:
http://vimeo.com/41038445

DavidZahir · Jul 11, 2012

SciShow from Hank Green on this subject

And Hank Green's explanation of the Higgs Boson

Wiskel · Jul 12, 2012

Fascinating thread. Thanks to all the contributors.

My physics education stopped at A level.

Where i'm losing the explanation is that in my limited understanding of matter, force and energy, I'm not sure how to understand the concept of the Higgs field.

The only type of fields I have an awareness of are magnetic and electromagnetic. While I can't understand exactly how a magnetic field is present, i can understand it's at least generated by something else.

Presumably for something to intereact with the Higgs field, the field has to have a presence of some kind to interact with.

What's the best way for an educated novice to understand the suggestion that all things exist in a (presumably) uniform Higgs field. Where does that come from?

Craig

Wiskel · Jul 12, 2012

DavidZahir said:
SciShow from Hank Green on this subject

And Hank Green's explanation of the Higgs Boson

Actually, these go some way to answering my question.

Quote of the day has to be "matter is massy, stuff is . . . stuffy, things are . . . thingy."

I'll accept fields are fieldy as an answer.

Either I'm a geek, and the rest of the world should shun my geekiness, or some of the funniest people alive are scientists.

Craig

RemusShepherd · Jul 12, 2012

Wiskel said:
Where i'm losing the explanation is that in my limited understanding of matter, force and energy, I'm not sure how to understand the concept of the Higgs field.

The only type of fields I have an awareness of are magnetic and electromagnetic. While I can't understand exactly how a magnetic field is present, i can understand it's at least generated by something else.

Presumably for something to intereact with the Higgs field, the field has to have a presence of some kind to interact with.

What's the best way for an educated novice to understand the suggestion that all things exist in a (presumably) uniform Higgs field. Where does that come from?

Okay, you understand the electromagnetic field. If you move a magnet in an EM field, it experiences force, right?

The Higgs field is the same way. If matter moves through a Higgs field, it experiences force toward other particles of matter in the field. The force that arises creates the concept of mass, with masses attracted to each other due to gravity.

The main difference between the EM and Higgs field is that the EM field is generated by an object, while the Higgs field exists all throughout the universe.

smellycat6464 · Jul 12, 2012

Wiskel said:
What's the best way for an educated novice to understand the suggestion that all things exist in a (presumably) uniform Higgs field. Where does that come from?

Craig

Oh don't we all wish we knew that haha

Planck and some other big to dos have hypothesized on what happened in the first 10^-40-ish secondths of the universe, but considering the laws of our universe tend to not work so well in a state of infinite density, we're limited to guess work.

And that's assuming the higgs particles came from the inception of the universe. It's possible a composite, precursor particle decomposed into the higgs bosons, adding more depth to this rabbit hole of cosmic history

Who knows, the big bang theory is only a theory, maybe we got here by some other way

IMHO only the man upstairs, or the man with a time machine can give us that answer

RichardGarfinkle · Jul 12, 2012

smellycat6464 said:
Oh don't we all wish we knew that haha
Planck and some other big to dos have hypothesized on what happened in the first 10^-40-ish secondths of the universe, but considering the laws of our universe tend to not work so well in a state of infinite density, we're limited to guess work.

And that's assuming the higgs particles came from the inception of the universe. It's possible a composite, precursor particle decomposed into the higgs bosons, adding more depth to this rabbit hole of cosmic history

Who knows, the big bang theory is only a theory, maybe we got here by some other way

IMHO only the man upstairs, or the man with a time machine can give us that answer

Theory in science does not mean, only a theory.

May I suggest having a look at this.

http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249614

I put these up on the Comparative Religion board for just such a discussion.

Kenn · Jul 12, 2012

RichardGarfinkle said:
Theory in science does not mean, only a theory.

May I suggest having a look at this.

http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249614

Richard, I'm not sure I agree with you there. A theory might well be just that. The big bang is a theory, as is/was the steady state theory and the oscillating universe theory. Another example is string theory - not exactly strongly confirmed, as you suggest, is it?

RichardGarfinkle · Jul 12, 2012

Kenn said:
Richard, I'm not sure I agree with you there. A theory might well be just that. The big bang is a theory, as is/was the steady state theory and the oscillating universe theory. Another example is string theory - not exactly strongly confirmed, as you suggest, is it?

Sometimes the term gets used sloppily, but it behooves one to check before saying, "just a theory."

Kenn · Jul 12, 2012

RichardGarfinkle said:
Sometimes the term gets used sloppily, but it behooves one to check before saying, "just a theory."

It is also important to appreciate there is a difference between a consensus and scientific evidence (which is all too commonly confused nowadays). Big Bang is the popular theory at the moment and it fits some (but not all) of the evidence. It might be right, but then again...The important thing is to to keep re-examining theories as new evidence is collected, even if it means rejecting some of them.

I think your definition of scientific theory is too rigid, in that substantiated can mean argued (mathematically). So, while a theory is not pure fiction, it might not be based on fact.

benbradley · Jul 12, 2012

Lil said:
Try this:
http://vimeo.com/41038445

That's a great video, I posted it the other day in the original Higgs thread. Looking it over again, the first three minutes explains the known (and suspected) subatomic particles, and the rest of it explains how the LHC and the two experiments they're running (Atlas and CMS) smash particles together in order to detect the Higgs boson.

They're effectively looking for a needle in a million haystacks, so they look through billions of haystacks.

Actually, it's even worse than that. They're not looking for actual needles, they're looking at the lengths of each haystalk. The Higgs boson supposedly generates a stalk that is 2.5 inches long, but for every higgs boson, there's a million other reactions that generate a stalk that long, as well as stalks of different sizes. So there's just a few more 2.5 inch-long stalks than if the Higgs boson didn't exist.

The graph in the video shows how it's statistical - they don't have any way of saying WHICH reactions were caused by the Higgs boson, they can only say there's enough extra "stalks" at that energy level to account for the hypothesis that the Higgs boson would generate those many extra particles at that energy level.

Kenn said:
Richard, I'm not sure I agree with you there. A theory might well be just that. The big bang is a theory, as is/was the steady state theory and the oscillating universe theory. Another example is string theory - not exactly strongly confirmed, as you suggest, is it?

The "official" meanings are:
A theory in ordinary language is the same as a hypothesis in science.
A theory in science is a well-established fact in ordinary language.

But no scientific finding, theory, law, whatever, is ever set in stone. A theory in science can be overturned with enough new data.

And yes, these get confused even among scientists. String Theory may well have been a hypothesis all along, even though they call it String Theory. Perhaps "String Theory" is just the name of the hypothesis. And yes, that gets as confusing as the "Who's On First?" dialog, where even a simple and honest "I don't know!" gets the other participant even more angered and frustrated.

Even in the above video, at 6 minutes he (Daniel Whiteson, Experimental Physicist) says "And then you have two theories that predict the data." He clearly means, scientifically speaking, two hypotheses.

Kenn · Jul 12, 2012

benbradley said:
The "official" meanings are:
A theory in ordinary language is the same as a hypothesis in science.
A theory in science is a well-established fact in ordinary language.

And who exactly made this 'official'?

There is a separate class of theories based on mathematics. Einstein referred to them principle theories.

benbradley · Jul 12, 2012

smellycat6464 said:
This is how I was taught it:
...
And I could be wrong, but I thought the higgs boson was officially discovered. It's sigma 5 on a bell curve...I mean, .1% probability of miscalculation is sigma 3, so I think its safe to assume it exists. I read somewhere theres like a 1 in 3.5 million chance it was a mistake

On the other hand, some people believe an experiment with a 5 percent probability of happening by chance is evidence of psychic phenomena (Just to be clear, I'm NOT one of those people).

/irrelevant rant

But really, they're "hedging," doing their jobs as scientists - even it if was Sigma 10, they'd say "We may have found a particle consistent with the Higgs Boson. Also, the Sun may have risen this morning."

smellycat6464 · Jul 12, 2012

RichardGarfinkle said:
Theory in science does not mean, only a theory.

May I suggest having a look at this.

http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249614

I put these up on the Comparative Religion board for just such a discussion.

haha thanks for the link. Sorry, I wasn't trying to push any opinions, the exact opposite, actually. I was just saying who the heck knows. I hope that didn't offend anyone

RemusShepherd · Jul 13, 2012

benbradley said:
On the other hand, some people believe an experiment with a 5 percent probability of happening by chance is evidence of psychic phenomena (Just to be clear, I'm NOT one of those people).

/irrelevant rant

But really, they're "hedging," doing their jobs as scientists - even it if was Sigma 10, they'd say "We may have found a particle consistent with the Higgs Boson. Also, the Sun may have risen this morning."

They found *a* particle, with 5 sigma certainty. There is a slim chance that the particle found was not the Higgs Boson.

That chance exists because we do not see the Higgs directly, we witness its decay products, and there are some other theoretical particles that could decay in the same manner.

So it's almost certainly the Higgs, but there needs to be some confirmation still.

The Higgs Boson For Dummies

Arise Rheged!

Nurture Phoenixes

New kid, be gentle!

practical experience, FTW

Nurture Phoenixes

Malkavian Primogen

practical experience, FTW

practical experience, FTW

Nurture Phoenixes

New kid, be gentle!

Nurture Phoenixes

New kid, be gentle!

It's a doggy dog world

New kid, be gentle!

It's a doggy dog world