Thought I would share this: The Higgs Boson, part 1. It seems that this guy is doing everything that Farsight wants to.
I also endorse http://www.youtube.com/user/minutephysics and hope parts II and III are equally as good.
There's a tiny chance that A [one is a lonely number] religious fundamentalist might get confused and conclude that science is on his/her side just like all those atheists. Wow, all the folks over years of research [work], bring this home in a huge particle experiment. It's really impressive from my perspective. I read where Werner Heisenberg called the Higgs mechanism junk to Peters face. Just to give the knuckleheads some fuel.
Dem Bones dem bones dem dry bones............. De W's connected to the Photone De Photone's connected to the Leptone De Leptone's connected to the Z-zone De Z-zone's connected to the quarkone De quarkone's connected to the Gluone. De Bosone's connected to the restone. Now hear de word of de Lord.
John Baez attempts to explain some of the complexities of the Standard Model, and what scientists and particle physicists are trying to achieve: http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.1556v2
by the way, maybe on a slightly deemer scale of physics discoveries magnitude, the Majorana fermion has been sequestered as well. So if Higgs Boson gives supposevly "mass" to everyone, what do Majorana fermions do? http://tudelft.nl/en/current/latest...chappers-vinden-langgezocht-majorana-deeltje/
Ha not at all. Most religious people are more open to the idea of greater possibilities than the people creating the technology for it... Though they might think the words some choose today to be blasphemous they will not find it impious to understand the work of god.- why people who call themselves scientist forget their dreams.
Human beings can manipulate the electromagnetic spectrum a bit, all of the the other forces at this point in our history seem to be immutable. If the Higgs Boson gives all matter it's mass through a Higg's field, then theoretically could it be possible to manipulate the field and thus change the mass of different things. Because as someone who's interested in building structures, the idea of it seems awesome if it is theoretically possible. Or is that just science fiction?
yeaaa but look at how much energy they need and containment to create that Higgs Boson...I think the problem here is the energy required to manipulate with mass of different things...
Yea, I guess just trying to think of some possible applications for this. So, it is theoretically possible to change the mass of an object by manipulating the Higg's field? It's that that at the energy needed is prohibitive. :shrug:
Is HIGGS-BOSON really the answer to our universe ? Though this particle gives mass to an atom , can mass be created from energy as per Einstein's equation ?
A lay answer is... The Higgs mechanism only explains the mass of fundamental particles, not complex structures like atoms. It is a solution to an issue arising within the mathematical model of QM, i.e. the standard model. The problem has been that the total mass of the fundamental particles that make a proton, the quarks and gluons, add up to less than the mass of the proton itself. The Higgs boson and mechanism is one of the attempts to explain how mass emerges, as opposed to being a fundamental "substance" or part, of a particle or complex matter. The problem is not explaining mass of "matter", as in atoms and molecules, it is explaining the rest mass of things like quarks in the standard model. There is some speculation that it may lead to a better understanding of dark matter and dark energy, but that is a ways off. First it has to be confirmed as a source for the mass of individual fundamental particles. I hope I did not mangle that too much... I think both Trippy and rpenner gave links earlier to a YouTube video that attempts an overview, in lay terms. The second part of your question has been discussed many times before. Mass is not in practice created from energy in the way you seem to believe. At least it is not observed to happen that way. That discussion gets very confusing. It involves the interdependence of the deffinitions of mass and inertia, and how an object's inertia has a component that is velocity dependent. But that is a whole different discussion than the Higgs mechanism and boson.
Meanwhile on the Ship Bounty........ Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Bligh: (To Right) I am sorry Fletcher Christian, your continual unwillingness to obey orders requires me to demote you to Higgs Boatswain.
What i understand is that , a massless particle gains mass by interacting with HIGGS field and in this process looses some of its kinetic energy . My actual question is , can some other forms of energy ( other than gravitaional energy ) say heat energy or sound energy be converted into mass by following Einstein's equation( E = Mc^2 ) ?
At least for the time being I give up trying to dumb down the Higgs mechanism sufficiently.... Massless particles do not interact with the Higgs field. The field attempts to explain the rest mass of masive fundamental particles, like quarks... The answer here is NO! Not that anyone has been able to observe, yet. That equation is very important where atomic and particle decay, and fission reactions are concerned. It is important for high energy physics. But as far as proven at macroscopic scales, not that I am aware of. There are some theoretical models that suggest, it is possible, but I don't believe there is any experimental evidense to support the idea at the classical macroscopic scales, of everyday experience.
I'm afraid you're misinformed. Write m = E/c[sup]2[/sup]. This says mass is 'proportional' to energy. So increasing the energy of an object with mass increases its mass. It doesn't matter what form the additional energy has. So if you heat an object you increase its mass. If you accelerate an object you increase its mass. If you strike a bell so it vibrates you increase its mass. Anytime energy interacts with matter, if the matter gains energy it also gains mass, that's what the equation 'dictates'. I guess you could consider what that means in respect of a Higgs field; say, a particle that gains KE interacts more strongly with the field? IDK if that flies.
That gets into a whole different discussion involving the difference between rest or invariant mass and "relativistic" mass (which is mass and energy)... Which by the way, remains a theoretical debate, not a matter of experimentally proven fact. Following is a post from the Physics Forums archives, that at least partially addresses the rest mass vs relativistic mass debate. The issue has also been addressed several times in the past on these forums. Sorry, I just don't have the desire at the moment to present the argument myself. I also don't think it is one that would clarify anything for the issue hansda raised. Note, I never said there was no theoretical debate, I only said I was unaware of any conclusive classical experimental evidence, to support that interpretation of theory. It was my impression hansda was asking for a diffinitive answer... from Physics Forums archive
There is another issue that comes up here... The Higgs mechanism only explains the rest mass of some fundamental particles... Not atoms or complex particles like protons or massless particles like photons. The discussion seems to be mixing the concepts of the Higgs mechanism and mass, with some of the work that has been done to explain inertia and through inertia to some extent mass, of charged particles moving through the ZPF of QM. Superficially there are some similarities, but they are in fact different mechanisms involving different particles and/or matter. I may be mistaken but the Higgs mechanism does not require a quark to move, as in have any kinetic energy to account for its rest mass. Nor would any kinetic energy of a quark change its rest mass, as a function of the Higgs mechanism. Perhaps, if he checks in on this thread AlphaNumeric could clarify this. Like I said perhaps I am mistaken. QM was never my favorite part of physics, let alone the Higgs mechanism.
