The decay of a particle collision, from which the Higgs has been possibly observed.
The universe is a fascinating place. How the tectonic plates move, the orbits of stars, the functionality of living matter; all these are wonderful subjects of study, and warrant attention. But there is another world of mystery, buried beneath the surface. One where how we think about reality doesn’t apply the same way. One where normal rules just don’t make sense anymore, where existence is defined by particle interactions, particle decay, and probabilities. Bring this world under close inspection and the bright, colorful world we are familiar with turns into a dark world of mostly empty space. This is where particle physics lives.
Particle physics is not a terribly common field to find being brought up in everyday conversation due to its strangeness, so often it exists quietly in the background, with its physicists plugging away. Recently, however, it has been more of a referred to topic due to announcements about the Higgs boson (not the God Particle, which is a media applied moniker and is irrelevant). “Higgsteria” was evident; particle physics was everywhere. So this begs the question, what is the Higgs boson, and why is it important?
The Higgs boson was postulated in 1964 to help alleviate issues with the Standard Model of physics, which attempts to categorize the four forces that act upon particles. Specifically, Higgs boson provides the Higgs mechanism and utilizes electroweak symmetry breaking (the way gauge bosons, and further fermions, begin to acquire their mass). This assists the Standard Model, as it allows its current iteration to remain accurate in its description of particles. The non-zero Higgs field generated interacts with particles, giving the characteristic of mass. Yes, mass is not an inherent characteristic.
Essentially, the Higgs boson projects a huge field, one that permeates all of space. Some particles interact with this field and are given the characteristic of mass, while others pass right through with no interaction and continue being massless. Photons (massless particles responsible for light) are unhindered, while big fat particles feel the field and interact with it. These particles (ones that are understood to have mass), now have the property of mass.
The publicised “discovery” of the Higgs boson is technically just the discovery of a particle that exhibits characteristics very similar to what the Higgs is predicted to exhibit. Members of the scientific community are wary to declare such a finding before they have to time to properly subject the research to necessary scrutiny, but the 5 sigma assurance (1 in a 1,000,000 chance of error) is comforting. If it is confirmed, it would make concrete the simplest explanation for the endowment of mass to particles with mass in the Standard Model, and would provide further insight to the functionality of particle physics. The discovery of the Higgs isn’t going to change the world scientifically, but is important in furthering the understanding of symmetry breaking. It does, however, remind many of us that there is a fantastic and complex world out there, and we can’t help but feel in awe and inspired. And it made physicists look like rock stars. It’s fun watching science be loved, even if briefly.
–MP
Play The Objective 
Reblogged this on jtbroadwater.
Reblogged this on adil khan blog.
Pingback: Higgs and the Mass of the Universe « Tracing Knowledge … Στα ίχνη της Γνώσης
Interesting Micah. I was wondering if you could maybe give a simple explanation of what “electroweak symmetry breaking” actually is. I have always been highly interested in quantum and theoretical physics, basically cosmology as a whole, but the past 2 years ive been in school and havent had much time to think about the stuff. One thing id like to point out tho is the initial reason for the postulation of the higgs boson in the first place. Id like to learn more about the scientific observations that led to theory of it. It seems to me that the higgs boson was kinda “made up” to have a simple way to explain away certain measurements/observations that couldnt easily be explained. I mean when u think about it the method of its hypothesis was based in inductive reasoning (taking events and making generalizations) whereas the scientific method is based in deductive reasoning (i think…. correct me if im wrong here). Also the fact that it was created to help assist the standard model seems inherently flawed. I personally dont think the standard model is very accurate in interpreting the scientific observations that have been made the past 100 years or so. I kinda think that alot of theories in quantum physics right now are just creations of the human mind… assumptions, some may be spot on, many arnt, but work just good enough with everything else to be generally accepted. Our mind has to take concepts from our day to day human reality and apply them to observations we make scientifically (like imagining the atom, or other things we cant directly observe). Well what if these human created concepts arnt really applicable to these things we observe in nature. The way some of these subatomic processes work maybe so abstract and out of the realm of human conceptualization (at least for now) that there is simply no normal human concepts to put the higher more abstract ones. Then you have mainstream physics with its dogma. A few years ago when i was avidly researching this shit i was reading alot of unorthodox unified field theories and they seriously seemed to make alot more sense and were reasoned more deductively with less bias. They also seemed to correlate alot with what i was thinking at the time so maybe it was just confirmation bias. The point is i think alot of the concepts we have in science right now are somewhat primitive and some of the more seasoned scientists are gonna need to die before any updating happens. To end this standstill weve been at in understanding the quantum world we need to seriously reanalyze the basic concepts and ask ourselves if they are legitimate. Some of these basic concepts would include a better understanding of what a “field” is (or action at a distance as einstein called it), what an atom actually is, what consciousness is and its role in affecting quantum events, and also the theory of entanglement and how that works. These fundamentals need to be addressed before we go on hypothesizing particles and go off chasing them based off a complete assumption that they exist.
I could go on forever on these topics and id like to see more about this stuff in your blog. Keep up the good work man
Spontaneous symmetry breaking is the “breaking” of a symmetrical state into an asymmetrical one; particles break into parts of differing masses, but when totaled still have the same mass. It’s this symmetry breaking that gives rise to the masses of particles, among other things. Spontaneous symmetry breaking of guage symmetry associated with the electroweak force (the unified electromagnetic and weak force) seperates the two, and gives mass to particles.
This is an important part of why the Higgs was postulated. Really, the Higgs mechanism helped explain how these particular particles gained mass; it was the mechanism that they were after. Therefore, the actual Higgs boson was required. Without the Higgs, the Standard Model wouldn’t fall apart. It would just need to be revised. The Higgs represented the simplest explanation for the observed traits of some particles. It wasn’t until much later that evidence of the Higgs could actually be gathered. But, at this point, the evidence does seem to vindicate the previously postulated theories.
Granted, all of these concepts do seem very foreign. They are so different from the observable happenings of our universe that they are hard to really wrap your head around. But it could just be a lack of exposure. At some point, any observation of a new event seems strange. However, strange does not mean untrue. The concept of the mechanics of an engine must have baffled most for quite a while when cars were first invented. The lack of understanding did not make the concept of mechanics any less true, though.
Yes, this is all done for the Standard Model, which is warranted; it is very accurate at describing events within its jurisdiction. However, quantum physics and astrophysics do seem to have congruency issues. Neither can effectively describe the events happening in the other, but both describe their own events quite well. So I don’t know if I could say either is flawed outright, rather together they are flawed. Which is why some sort of unified theory would be fantastic (and we would finally have something that has that damn graviton!).
As to the other questions you posed towards the end of your comment, I think those would excellent topics for future posts here. I am interested on your thoughts on conciousness affecting quantum events; are you referring to our perception on the reality of a event (or sequence of events) affecting the event physically? Not the direct observation, rather just the concept of?
when i said “consciousness and its role in affecting quantum events” i was referring to the act of directly observing them/measuring them however u wanna see it. After the double slit experiment we know about wave/particle duality and the act of observing them collapses the probability wave into a single localized state. This to me pretty much suggests that consciousness is a major component of the universe, quite possibly integral to its existence. Its almost like quantum events are somewhat dependent on consciousness for them to occur, or to string them together by collapsing their infinite wave-like state. We might not be affecting quantum events but rather effecting them. i think that the consciousness creates a field which collapses probabilistic states on a quantum scale and on a macroscopic scale (only to a certain degree macroscopically). If i wanted to take this further id get into stuff about how time doesn’t exist and is just a convenient fabrication of the human mind, and how nonexistence of time allows for the logical conclusion that each entity is its own universe. Dude seriously i could go really fucking deep with this shit, but u and i both know that it becomes more and more abstract and harder to communicate with the human language the farther u go. and i suck at math.
Yes, the uncertainty principle does state that measurement affects wave-like particles. However, it is important to point out that this measurement could be likened to interaction between anything, regardless of an observer. Conciousness isn’t a factor, so much as classical matter.
But yes, “time”, in the conventional sense, is just a easy way to think about sequences of events, and can get very confusing. Some particle interaction diagrams require some particles to actually go backward in time, in a loose sense.
I’m interested on how the philosophical conclusion of individualized universes (realities, perhaps?) was arrived at? I’m trying to get my head around that one but just keep reverting to the idea of the “relativity of perception” kind of thing. This is all more metaphysics, though.
Pingback: Minute Physics: Why E=mc² is Incomplete « Ye Olde Soapbox