Home of the The Hall of Ma'at on the Internet
Home
Discussion Forums
Papers
Authors
Web Links

May 2, 2024, 10:21 pm UTC    
March 10, 2005 05:57PM
In 1993, the then UK Science Minister, William Waldegrave, issued a challence to physicists to answer the questions 'What is the Higgs boson, and why do we want to find it?' on one side of a single sheet of paper.

Bottles of champagne were awarded to the five winning entries at the annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. The winning entries taken from Physics World Volume 6 Number 9, Here are a couple

By Mary and Ian Butterworth, Imperial College London, and Doris and Vigdor Teplitz, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas, USA.

The Higgs boson is a hypothesised particle which, if it exists, would give the mechanism by which particles acquire mass.

Matter is made of molecules; molecules of atoms; atoms of a cloud of electrons about one-hundred-millionth of a centimetre and a nucleus about one-hundred-thousandth the size of the electron cloud. The nucleus is made of protons and neutrons. Each proton (or neutron) has about two thousand times the mass of an electron. We know a good deal about why the nucleus is so small. We do not know, however, how the particles get their masses. Why are the masses what they are? Why are the ratios of masses what they are? We can't be said to understand the constituents of matter if we don't have a satisfactory answer to this question.

Peter Higgs has a model in which particle masses arise in a beautiful, but complex, progression. He starts with a particle that has only mass, and no other characteristics, such as charge, that distinguish particles from empty space. We can call his particle H. H interacts with other particles; for example if H is near an electron, there is a force between the two. H is of a class of particles called "bosons". We first attempt a more precise, but non-mathematical statement of the point of the model; then we give explanatory pictures.

In the mathematics of quantum mechanics describing creation and annihilation of elementary particles, as observed at accelerators, particles at particular points arise from "fields" spread over space and time. Higgs found that parameters in the equations for the field associated with the particle H can be chosen in such a way that the lowest energy state of that field (empty space) is one with the field not zero. It is surprising that the field is not zero in empty space, but the result, not an obvious one, is: all particles that can interact with H gain mass from the interaction.

Thus mathematics links the existence of H to a contribution to the mass of all particles with which H interacts. A picture that corresponds to the mathematics is of the lowest energy state, "empty" space, having a crown of H particles with no energy of their own. Other particles get their masses by interacting with this collection of zero-energy H particles. The mass (or inertia or resistance to change in motion) of a particle comes from its being "grabbed at" by Higgs particles when we try and move it.

If particles do get their masses from interacting with the empty space Higgs field, then the Higgs particle must exist; but we can't be certain without finding the Higgs. We have other hints about the Higgs; for example, if it exists, it plays a role in "unifying" different forces. However, we believe that nature could contrive to get the results that would flow from the Higgs in other ways. In fact, proving the Higgs particle does not exist would be scientifically every bit as valuable as proving it does.

These questions, the mechanisms by which particles get their masses, and the relationship amongs different forces of nature, are major ones and so basic to having an understanding of the constituents of matter and the forces among them, that it is hard to see how we can make significant progress in our understanding of the stuff of which the earth is made without answering them.
******
The Need to Understand Mass
By Roger Cashmore Department of Physics, University of Oxford, UK.

What determines the size of objects that we see around us or indeed even the size of ourselves? The answer is the size of the molecules and in turn the atoms that compose these molecules. But what determines the size of the atoms themselves? Quantum theory and atomic physics provide an answer. The size of the atom is determined by the paths of the electrons orbiting the nucleus. The size of those orbits, however, is determined by the mass of the electron. Were the electron's mass smaller, the orbits (and hence all atoms) would be smaller, and consequently everything we see would be smaller.* So understanding the mass of the electron is essential to understanding the size and dimensions of everything around us.

It might be hard to understand the origin of one quantity, that quantity being the mass of the electron. Fortunately nature has given us more than one elementary particle and they come with a wide variety of masses. The lightest particle is the electron and the heaviest particle is believed to be the particle called the top quark, which weighs at least 200,000 times as much as an electron. With this variety of particles and masses we should have a clue to the individual masses of the particles.

Unfortunately if you try and write down a theory of particles and their interactions then the simplist version requires all the masses of the particles to be zero. So on one hand we have a whole variety of masses and on the other a theory in which all masses should be zero. Such conundrums provide the excitement and the challenges of science.

There is, however, one very clever and very elegant solution to this problem, a solution first proposed by Peter Higgs. He proposed that the whole of space is permeated by a field, similar in some ways to the electromagnetic field. As particles move through space they travel through this field, and if they interact with it they acquire what appears to be mass. This is similar to the action of viscous forces felt by particles moving through any thick liquid. the larger the interaction of the particles with the field, the more mass they appear to have. Thus the existence of this field is essential in Higgs' hypothesis for the production of the mass of particles.

We know from quantum theory that fields have particles associated with them, the particle for the electromagnetic field being the photon. So there must be a particle associated with the Higgs field, and this is the Higgs boson. Finding the Higgs boson is thus the key to discovering whether the Higgs field does exist and whether our best hypothesis for the origin of mass is indeed correct.

∑ Note: This argument is the wrong way round - if the electron's mass were smaller, the orbits would be larger, and everything would be larger.
Bernard
Subject Author Posted

big bang theory

laura March 07, 2005 04:07AM

Re: big bang theory

Mercury Rapids March 07, 2005 04:21AM

Re: big bang theory

laura March 07, 2005 04:34AM

Re: big bang theory

Mercury Rapids March 07, 2005 04:36AM

Re: big bang theory

laura March 07, 2005 04:43AM

Re: big bang theory

Mercury Rapids March 07, 2005 04:55AM

Re: big bang theory

laura March 07, 2005 04:56AM

Re: big bang theory

Tommi Huhtamaki March 07, 2005 05:12AM

Re: big bang theory

laura March 07, 2005 05:16AM

Re: big bang theory

Mercury Rapids March 07, 2005 05:23AM

Re: big bang theory

Tommi Huhtamaki March 07, 2005 05:25AM

Re: big bang theory

Anonymous User March 07, 2005 10:40AM

...but an important difference

Simon March 07, 2005 11:05AM

Re: ...but an important difference

laura March 07, 2005 11:34AM

Re: ...but an important difference

Simon March 07, 2005 12:33PM

Re: ...but an important difference

laura March 07, 2005 02:58PM

Re: big bang theory

wirelessguru1 March 07, 2005 01:00PM

Re: big bang theory

Stephen Tonkin March 07, 2005 07:20AM

Re: big bang theory

Mercury Rapids March 07, 2005 07:24AM

Re: big bang theory

Stephen Tonkin March 07, 2005 07:30AM

Re: big bang theory

Mercury Rapids March 07, 2005 07:34AM

Re: big bang theory

Mercury Rapids March 07, 2005 07:38AM

Re: big bang theory

Stephen Tonkin March 07, 2005 07:39AM

Re: big bang theory

MikeS March 07, 2005 05:04AM

Re: big bang theory

laura March 07, 2005 05:06AM

Re: big bang theory

MikeS March 07, 2005 05:18AM

Re: big bang theory

laura March 07, 2005 05:20AM

Re: big bang theory

Tommi Huhtamaki March 07, 2005 05:29AM

Re: big bang theory

laura March 07, 2005 05:50AM

Re: big bang theory

Tommi Huhtamaki March 07, 2005 05:56AM

Re: big bang theory

laura March 07, 2005 05:59AM

Re: big bang theory

Stephen Tonkin March 07, 2005 07:35AM

Re: big bang theory

Simon March 07, 2005 06:51AM

Re: big bang theory

darkuser March 07, 2005 07:15AM

Re: big bang theory

laura March 07, 2005 07:45AM

Re: big bang theory

Mercury Rapids March 07, 2005 07:51AM

Re: big bang theory

laura March 07, 2005 07:53AM

Re: big bang theory

Simon March 07, 2005 08:07AM

Re: big bang theory

laura March 07, 2005 08:11AM

Re: big bang theory

laura March 07, 2005 07:52AM

Re: big bang theory

Mercury Rapids March 07, 2005 07:57AM

Re: big bang theory

laura March 07, 2005 08:01AM

Re: big bang theory

Mercury Rapids March 07, 2005 08:05AM

Re: big bang theory

laura March 07, 2005 08:06AM

its like time

laura March 07, 2005 08:06AM

Re: its like time

Simon March 07, 2005 08:41AM

Re: its like time

laura March 07, 2005 11:29AM

Re: its like time

laura March 07, 2005 11:31AM

Re: its like time

Mercury Rapids March 07, 2005 11:57AM

Re: its like time

Simon March 07, 2005 12:15PM

Re: its like time

laura March 07, 2005 03:03PM

Re: its like time

Mercury Rapids March 07, 2005 03:06PM

Re: its like time

wirelessguru1 March 07, 2005 03:11PM

Re: its like time

Simon March 07, 2005 05:07PM

Re: its like time

wirelessguru1 March 07, 2005 06:52PM

Re: its like time

Simon March 07, 2005 07:25PM

Re: its like time

wirelessguru1 March 07, 2005 07:36PM

Re: its like time

Simon March 07, 2005 08:10PM

Re: its like time

wirelessguru1 March 07, 2005 08:33PM

Re: its like time

Simon March 07, 2005 08:41PM

Re: its like time

wirelessguru1 March 07, 2005 11:41PM

Re: its like time

Simon March 08, 2005 02:34PM

can i just....

darkuser March 08, 2005 03:18PM

Re: can i just....

Simon March 08, 2005 03:56PM

LOL!!! (n/t)

Tommi Huhtamaki March 08, 2005 04:10PM

Re: LOL!!! (n/t)

laura March 08, 2005 04:16PM

......

darkuser March 08, 2005 04:18PM

Re: ......

Simon March 08, 2005 05:56PM

Re: ......

wirelessguru1 March 08, 2005 06:22PM

Re: ......

Simon March 08, 2005 06:50PM

Re: ......

Anonymous User March 08, 2005 07:56PM

Re: ......

Simon March 08, 2005 09:34PM

Re: ......

darkuser March 08, 2005 09:40PM

Re: ......

Simon March 08, 2005 09:49PM

Re: ......

Anonymous User March 09, 2005 07:04PM

Re: ......

Simon March 10, 2005 09:03AM

Re: ......

wirelessguru1 March 09, 2005 07:36PM

Re: ......

Simon March 10, 2005 08:05AM

Senses and energy processing

wirelessguru1 March 14, 2005 03:15PM

Re: ......

wirelessguru1 March 09, 2005 12:06AM

Re: can i just....

wirelessguru1 March 08, 2005 05:39PM

Re: its like time

darkuser March 07, 2005 12:24PM

Re: big bang theory

Simon March 07, 2005 08:16AM

Re: big bang theory

laura March 07, 2005 08:19AM

Re: big bang theory

laura March 07, 2005 08:22AM

Re: big bang theory

Mercury Rapids March 07, 2005 08:24AM

Re: big bang theory

laura March 07, 2005 08:29AM

Re: big bang theory

Simon March 07, 2005 08:30AM

Re: big bang theory

wirelessguru1 March 07, 2005 12:39PM

Re: big bang theory

MikeS March 07, 2005 06:03PM

Re: big bang theory

wirelessguru1 March 07, 2005 07:03PM

Re: big bang theory

Anonymous User March 10, 2005 10:48AM

Re: big bang theory

Simon March 10, 2005 12:24PM

Re: big bang theory

bernard March 10, 2005 01:05PM

Re: big bang theory

Simon March 10, 2005 04:06PM

Re: big bang theory

bernard March 10, 2005 05:50PM

Re: big bang theory

Simon March 11, 2005 10:47AM

Re: big bang theory

bernard March 11, 2005 12:32PM

Re: big bang theory

Simon March 14, 2005 07:33AM

Re: big bang theory

bernard March 14, 2005 02:25PM

Re: big bang theory

Simon March 14, 2005 03:42PM

Re: big bang theory

wirelessguru1 March 14, 2005 04:36PM

Re: big bang theory

bernard March 14, 2005 06:25PM

Re: big bang theory

Simon March 14, 2005 08:37PM

Re: big bang theory

darkuser March 12, 2005 03:51PM

Re: big bang theory

Simon March 14, 2005 07:43AM

Re: big bang theory

darkuser March 14, 2005 09:13PM

Re: big bang theory

Simon March 15, 2005 07:57AM

Re: big bang theory

bernard March 10, 2005 05:57PM



Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login