BBC Focus Magazine

[M Paul Lloyd]

The discovery of which, or to be more accurate the 'very high likelihood' of its existence has great consequences for the future of science and our understanding of the universe.

Trouble is no-one seems to be publicly discussing exactly what that means for most of us , but then again I guess we are more concerned about the weather than the fundamental stuff that holds it all together on a day to day basis.

Anyway one thing occurs to me regarding the Higgs Boson and that is that it allows for the Higgs Field, which I mentioned elsewhere as having the singular property of imparting mass to particles (basically a particle is anything from the sub-atomic to the galactic) as they move through it.
A bit like how a current is induced in a wire as it passes through a magnetic field.... sort-of.

Of course this requires two things, the particle and its motion through that field which gives it mass and thus gravity. Of course it has a speed limit in the form of light speed..... and that's where I need help because light has no mass but fair licks along at velocities that would be impractical for even the smallest particle were it to be propelled at such velocity.
So, does anyone have anything to help make sense of this?
Can we derive some logical explanation from it all?

[M Paul Lloyd]

If you fancy a bit of kitchen sink science experimenting here's an example of something that I think is analogous to the Higgs Field.

With the consent of the person in charge take a box of corn-starch, or corn flour as it is usually reffered to in the UK, and mix it with some water in a large bowl until it is a thin paste with the consistancy of single cream.
So you have a bowl of milky white, slightly sloppy fluid. Right, you will note that as you stir it gently with a spoon it will behave just like any other fluid resisting the movement of the spoon but generally flowing around it and allowing it to move quite freely.
Ok, now try moving the spoon through the fluid really quickly.
Goes stiff doesn't it?! In point of fact the harder you try to move the spoon faster the more the fluid resists becoming a brittle solid that actually cracks. Even a knife blade will be stopped in its tracks, but if you try it, please be careful as I don't want any nasty accidents over this.

Thing is I see this as an example of how the Higgs Field may work, imparting inertia at low velocities but stopping it dead in its tracks once a certain 'limit' is reached, which in the real, non bowl, universe is the speed of light.

Any thoughts??

[Lateralman]

Okay, I added a handful of raisons and a drop of milk, gave it a good stir and the whole thing flowed more smoothly in fact it reminded me of a whirlpool with planets revolving around the outside!

Then I popped it in the oven for half an hour and gobbled down the whole galaxy with a cup of tea.

Anyhow, I think you have to factor in hot and cold. The early universe would have been very cold before it got very hot. When they are firing these protons at the speed of light and smashing them in their detectors, are the particle detectors super cooled beforehand to create a similar environment to the early universe? As I guess, doing that may have an effect on the composition of the photons and the flash of energy they are imaging.

In addition would a very cold environment create diffraction and if so could this slow down light photons. Fire in ice.

[Lateralman]

If stirring the mixture makes it hard then everything would stop.

What if we are wrong and the early universe was not cold or space a vacuum but composed of something completely different. Have they tried crashing their particles in different types of possible environments such as a gas, a liquid, extreme heat, ether, radiation, hydrogen, helium, a big jelly etc...?

They have all the kit set up to experiment further.

It may sound an odd question to ask but if you cannot see then what is light? Is it important? Does it exist if you do not know that it exists? I had in mind all those creatures happily living around hydrothermal vents at the bottom of the ocean that have never seen light and yet exist without knowing that there is such a thing as light. Perhaps there is something that we cannot see or sense that exists.

[Lateralman]

Apologies, I meant to say, ‘have an effect on the composition of the protons.’

[M Paul Lloyd]

I'm not all that worried about what particles were used in the LHC Lateral (although I think you'll find photons weren't amongst them) but rather the implications for science based on the results so far.

[Shadowwolf]

Have they tried crashing their particles in different types of possible environments such as a gas,

No because unless I'm very much mistaken that's impossible. You see they send one particle one way around the circuit whilst the other one gets sent the opposite direction which they bring together at very high speeds in one of the detectors. The nature of the detector means that you can't fill it with stuff like water as it won't hold it - it would also be ruined - and anything else would still leak out either end. More importantly what ever is put in is something that your particles will hit which is why they use a vacuum so the particles can be brought together in the detector without impacting anything else. Filling the space with anything would ruin any experiment and needless to say, using hydrogen would probably result in an explosion.

What if we are wrong and the early universe was not cold or space a vacuum but composed of something completely different.

The universe in it's very early stages is largely unknown, there were no such things as atoms or elements like hydrogen until much later, however, what is known is that it was pretty hot and we've evidence of that.

It may sound an odd question to ask but if you cannot see then what is light? Is it important?

Same thing it is if you can't see, photons. Yes it's important but I don't think this is particularly relevant to the OP.

[Lateralman]

Does the Higgs vanish during collisions or is it still there? Is it just that we cannot see it? Like blind creatures of the ocean depths who do not understand what light is.

Is the Higgs Boson Gravity?

On the other hand, a new form of super strong sticky gravity, a new element that pulls particles together.

[Lateralman]

The Higgs sticks the particles together to prevent them from decaying right away. It creates drag and slows down entropy in order that matter can stick together for a while until the stronger force of entropy takes over.

Gravity keeps the big things in place together. This particle is a super concentrated form of gravity that keeps the tiny things together. The Higgs field is a gravity field. At a guess.

[M Paul Lloyd]

Is the Higgs Boson Gravity?

No, not on its own, it's the Higgs Field that is said to produce gravity as particles move through it, like the spoon moving through the sloppy gloop made from corn starch, it creates a resistance we call inertia that is something we associate with mass which has gravity.

I'm hoping to understand the link between the Higgs field and Gravity. As in how does one produce the other?;)

[Lateralman]

As we do not understand it, why can’t gravity and the Higgs field be one and the same and yet have different strengths the smaller down in size you go? The smaller atoms are the more the strength of gravity in those atoms increases in order to hold mass together.

In regards to your cornstarch, experiment when the particles are agitated by stirring heat is generated so it is sloppy, and then they gradually cool and solidify creating resistance.

Now that they have detected something, - that is first base, second base is trying to create the early environment it was in, when first formed. That should help you understand the gravity and Higgs field link, if there is a link.

They can spend all that cash on building a particle detector but cannot figure out a way of firing the particles into a container that can hold the many variable elements of the early universe for experimentation.

You gotta’ be kiddin’ me, right?

Well they are going to have to do that now. Otherwise, you do not get an accurate primitive representation of the many collisions they are currently creating. More importantly, how the potential environment of the early universe may have affected their outcome.

Unless I am missing something.

[Shadowwolf]

They can spend all that cash on building a particle detector but cannot figure out a way of firing the particles into a container that can hold the many variable elements of the early universe for experimentation. [...] Well they are going to have to do that now.

No they're not, the early universe didn't have any elements, in the very early time since the BB event there apparently weren't even atoms, no jelly, no water, no hydrogen. It's not smashing them in a vacuum that recreates situations like the early verse, it's the smashing them apart that recreates what the early verse was like by liberating all those sub-particles for examination. So smashing particles together in water or hydrogen is a pointless exercise as it tells us nothing. It's also impossible, the particles being smashed are done so in a vacuum precisely so they don't smash into something else before they impact each other, fill the space with trillions upon trillions of atoms and they'll hit one of them as they enter the detector not within the detector.

[M Paul Lloyd]

As we do not understand it, why can’t gravity and the Higgs field be one and the same and yet have different strengths the smaller down in size you go? The smaller atoms are the more the strength of gravity in those atoms increases in order to hold mass together.

No not really as everything is made from the same fundamental particles so they should react the same at all levels. This is why very large objects have large gravitional fields and small ones have very little gravity.

In regards to your cornstarch, experiment when the particles are agitated by stirring heat is generated so it is sloppy, and then they gradually cool and solidify creating resistance.

I'm not aware that it works like that at all, indeed it is any attempt to move something through the fluid quickly that causes it to solidify?

Now that they have detected something, - that is first base, second base is trying to create the early environment it was in, when first formed. That should help you understand the gravity and Higgs field link, if there is a link.

Thats my point, no-one seems to be discussing it on the internet. At least not anywhere I'm looking.

They can spend all that cash on building a particle detector but cannot figure out a way of firing the particles into a container that can hold the many variable elements of the early universe for experimentation.

Actually within the context of the early universe, it does.

You gotta’ be kiddin’ me, right?

No.

Well they are going to have to do that now. Otherwise, you do not get an accurate primitive representation of the many collisions they are currently creating. More importantly, how the potential environment of the early universe may have affected their outcome.

I refer you to Mr.S on this one.

Unless I am missing something.

Most assuredly.

[Lateralman]

Okay Mr Wolf. Only trying to answer Mr Lloyd’s original question. 'Can anyone provide a logical answer to this?'

My knowledge of the composition of the early universe is rudimentary.

Anyhow, at a guess, the Higgs is a concentrated form of what we call gravity that holds particles together.

The smaller atoms are the more the strength of gravity in those atoms increases in order to hold mass together. I think.

This is the reason that water freezes faster when hot than when it is cold.
It is because it is moving and when it is moving, it generates heat, which means that the hydrogen bonds between the water molecules increase allowing the process of cooling to become quicker.
Like ice on top of a fast flowing river, the top freezes first because it is more agitated. I think...

[M Paul Lloyd]

My knowledge of the composition of the early universe is rudimentary.

.

Have you read this by any chance?
an-easy-guide-to-big-bang-theory-t7.html
It's by no means comprehensive and possibly a bit out of date but its based on solid theoretical work.

[Lateralman]

Just have, now where did you say the exit was?

[M Paul Lloyd]

I'll fetch your coat.

[MikeG]

Have you read this by any chance?

Great summary there MPL. One thing I was wondering about the Higgs and its effects on matter. I assume that all matter is permeated by the Higgs. That is, at the time of creation, matter unavoidably comes into contact with the Higgs which is then integrated into the structure of whatever it is it comes into contact with. This then imparts the "normal" behavior to the matter that makes it familiar to us and imparts mass to it.

If this is an accurate understanding, could it be possible to prevent the Higgs attaching itself, or else knock the Higgs out of whatever object we want to impart weightlessness to. Irrespective of whether we would ever reach that level of technical achievement (it took an entire LHC and massive amounts of energy just to find this particle), would this be possible in theory?

[M Paul Lloyd]

Thanks MikeG, it could do with some references but I think I have just about grasped the basics in there.

As I see it the embryonic universe, just after the big-bang, may not have had a Higgs Field which would allow for it to expand so rapidly without the contraint of gravity but as the Higgs formed so everything slowed down as it imparted mass to all matter? Possibly?

Asto being able to

..... prevent the Higgs attaching itself, or else knock the Higgs out of whatever object we want to impart weightlessness to.

well now it would be most useful if we could, after all if something exists it can surely be manipulated?
Although I have absolutley no idea how.

[MikeG]

So you agree with the assumption that the Higgs forms part of all atoms the MPL? I was wondering if my understanding is correct.