Higgs boson (God) particle discovered

[TheBadger]

The question is, how can we make use of it?

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/god-particle-discovered-european-researchers-claim-discovery-higgs/story?id=16708940#.T_4b6Y62Sbw

[masonspappy]

First, calling it the "God Particle" is kind of a misnomer.  That arises from an inside joke among many frustratrated scientists who searched unsucessfully for the HB, and began referring to it as the "Godd***n Particle".   At any rate, the HB is belived to part of the mechanism whereby all particals acquire mass.  If it was possible to nullify the effects of the HB, we are left with an interesting conumdrum where Einstien's famous equation E=MC(2) (Energy = the Mass of light squared) is no longer valid.  E=MC(2) postulates that as an object obtains velocity, it's mass increases. But if that object's velocity could equal the speed of light, then it's mass would become infinite. Since an infinite mass is an impossibility, nothing can exceed the speed of light.  BUT, if it were possible to nullify the effects of the HB, then an object could theoretically overtake and exceed the speed of light, and it's mass would never approach infinity, thus circumventing Einstien's equation.  At the very least, "instantaneous" communications across vast interstellar reaches would be theoretically possible.
Of course, another implication is that by the time we are able to puzzle out the incredible dynamics of the HB and it's far-reaching implications, scientists may well be prepared to explain an even more puzzling and confounding problem: Women.    I've married two and fathered two, and I'm D*mn*d if I understand 'em.
- Cam

[TheBadger]

At the very least, "instantaneous" communications across vast interstellar reaches would be theoretically possible.

interesting!
Do you know, if some how, we could bounce the data of objects? Thus working as a sonar or some king of mapping device? Based on what you said this is the first thing that came to my mind.

At that speed we could map the surfaces of worlds we suspect of having inhabitable atmos! Or at least learn for sure what the nature of those planets really are.

[Matt]

Since an infinite mass is an impossibility, nothing can exceed the speed of light.  BUT, if it were possible to nullify the effects of the HB, then an object could theoretically overtake and exceed the speed of light, and it's mass would never approach infinity, thus circumventing Einstien's equation.  At the very least, "instantaneous" communications across vast interstellar reaches would be theoretically possible.

Light has no mass, but it's still limited to the speed of light. Or is that also limited by the effects of the Higgs Boson?

Matt

[Matt]

My interpretation of the fact that mass approaches infinitity as it approaches the speed of light is that it is the *time* that's being dilated, thus affecting the rate at which forces impart a change in velocity, and that the apparent increase in mass is just a reflection of the time dilation. i.e. mass increase is the effect, not the cause. I don't know if the increased mass also causes increases gravitation effects though. If it were possible to nullify mass, would the time dilation still occur?

[masonspappy]

 Been thinking about this and maybe I'm wrong about the communications thing.  What I was postulating was freeing an object from the effects of the Higgs field so that it could exceed the speed of light.  The general (vastly oversimplfied) explanation of "mass" is that it is a characteristic acquired as a result of pushing through a Higgs field.  It still seems to me that by nullifying the effects of a Higgs field, an object could exceed the speed of light and still not violate the laws of physics.  BUT (and it's a big But),  if an object can be made "invisible" to the Higgs field, then what exactly COULD detect that object? For communications to work, information must originate from a source and be detected at a receiver.  I'm not sure I can imagine anything that would detect it.  Same holds true for TheBadger's radar idea. 

Matt, I don't know for sure that photons don't interact with the Higgs field.  The "zero mass" idea is generally accepted, but I came across a (highly technical) paper that argues a photon actually does have mass.  You can read it here: http://aias.us/documents/uft/Paper157.pdf
- Cam

[cyphyr]

Photons don't have zero mass, they have nearly zero mass (<1×10−18 eV/c2). If it was zero their speed would be infinite.
I suspect that until we can find something smaller than the Higgs Boson we will have little chance of manipulating it.
More use may be found in reading the HB field since I suspect it is not uniform.Give it fifty years and we may have hand help HB detectors and who knows what that may yield.
Richard

[Matt]

I didn't know about photons having mass. Thanks for the info both of you

Hmm.. if photons have some mass, even if it's very small, then does that mean that 'c' is actually very slightly faster than the measured speed of light?!

[cyphyr]

I'm no physicist, dad was, and we had many rambling chats about the nature of the universe, wish I'd paid more attention at the time.

We have deduced that light has mas from early Victorian times. Ever seen one of these, they sometimes used to sell them in tourist shops
[attach=1]
The light pushes (bounces off/reflects) on the white side and is absorbed by the dark side so the small windmill turns on its axis. It's also how a solar sail works, I believe a couple have flown already with mixed results.

Hmm.. if photons have some mass, even if it's very small, then does that mean that 'c' is actually very slightly faster than the measured speed of light?!

You may have a point there. The idea of a universal constant has always bothered me, seems too simplistic. Surly there must be variation in "c" throughout out the space-time whatsit (not going to say continuum~ too star trek. lol). It's big and we can only see a tiny part of it so I would think it entirely reasonable to see the Higgs field as vairable and so the value of c.

Cheers

Richard

[TheBadger]

I understand that this was just discovered last week, or so. And also that they are not 100% sure they found what they think they found.

But if they were looking for it in the first place, they must of had some ambition for how to use it once they found it.
Are there any lay reports or papers on likely uses for the knowledge? Not just intelligent speculation, but something researchers are relatively confident about?
Or is this likely one of those things that just raises more questions than it answers?

One more question:
Not to get off topic, but perhaps you guys know. Have they proven string theory? Found the "string", or is that farther down the line than HB?
Or to put it another way; which is larger, and HB particle or the string thing?

Ok, one more. Please clarify for me. Can a thing have size but not mass?

[Matt]

You may have a point there. The idea of a universal constant has always bothered me, seems too simplistic. Surly there must be variation in "c" throughout out the space-time whatsit (not going to say continuum~ too star trek. lol). It's big and we can only see a tiny part of it so I would think it entirely reasonable to see the Higgs field as vairable and so the value of c.

I don't see a problem with 'c' being constant (although I guess some day we might discover that it's not). I was asking if photons travel at something below 'c'. So if you inferred 'c' by measuring the velocity of photons, you wouldn't be measuring the real 'c'. Also, if photons travel at less than 'c', perhaps their velocity is dependent on their energy/wavelength? Could blue light travel very slightly faster than red light etc.? But this is all moot if photons really do travel at 'c'.

[masonspappy]

Have they proven string theory? Found the "string", or is that farther down the line than HB?

I think the only thing 'proven' about string theory is that it's a hodgepodge of largely untestable theorys and concepts that gives scientists headaches

[Tangled-Universe]

You may have a point there. The idea of a universal constant has always bothered me, seems too simplistic. Surly there must be variation in "c" throughout out the space-time whatsit (not going to say continuum~ too star trek. lol). It's big and we can only see a tiny part of it so I would think it entirely reasonable to see the Higgs field as vairable and so the value of c.

I don't see a problem with 'c' being constant (although I guess some day we might discover that it's not). I was asking if photons travel at something below 'c'. So if you inferred 'c' by measuring the velocity of photons, you wouldn't be measuring the real 'c'. Also, if photons travel at less than 'c', perhaps their velocity is dependent on their energy/wavelength? Could blue light travel very slightly faster than red light etc.? But this is all moot if photons really do travel at 'c'.

Ghehe, those are interesting thoughts here. It looks like most here think of light as particles, which have some kind of shape/form and thus "must" (not really) have mass.
If you consider their duality and say that it's electromagnetic radiation, which it is also, then there's no reason to think whether blue or red light is faster/slow than the other. It's the same given that it's traveling through a vacuum.
However, if light passes a dispersive material then the frequency of the light (color) determines how much slower it is than c.
The speed of light is a universal constant and has and will always be the same. This accounts for a vacuum.
For instance, in air light is traveling 0.03% slower and in anisotropic media it depends on the direction.

My interpretation of the fact that mass approaches infinitity as it approaches the speed of light is that it is the *time* that's being dilated, thus affecting the rate at which forces impart a change in velocity, and that the apparent increase in mass is just a reflection of the time dilation. i.e. mass increase is the effect, not the cause. I don't know if the increased mass also causes increases gravitation effects though. If it were possible to nullify mass, would the time dilation still occur?

Mass and gravitation are not the same. In your example the increased mass is not the same as weight.
It's a common misconception where one mixes up gravity in general relativity with gravity under newtonian laws.

Increased gravitation means increased rest mass, but that's not the case here.
At relativistic speeds the objects rest mass doesn't change, only it's relativistic mass and does not affect it's weight or gravity which you would observe in another reference frame.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/black_fast.html

Time dilation/contraction is an effect caused by multiple reference frames and I think has little to do with mass.

The speed of light is constant as when space curves by mass so does time to keep the speed of light constant. Curvature of spacetime by mass.
When there's no mass there's no curvature of spacetime.
I'd tend to think that because of that there are no multiple reference frames anymore and thus no time dilation.

[Tangled-Universe]

I'm no physicist, dad was, and we had many rambling chats about the nature of the universe, wish I'd paid more attention at the time.

We have deduced that light has mas from early Victorian times. Ever seen one of these, they sometimes used to sell them in tourist shops
[attach=1]
The light pushes (bounces off/reflects) on the white side and is absorbed by the dark side so the small windmill turns on its axis. It's also how a solar sail works, I believe a couple have flown already with mixed results.

Hmm.. if photons have some mass, even if it's very small, then does that mean that 'c' is actually very slightly faster than the measured speed of light?!

You may have a point there. The idea of a universal constant has always bothered me, seems too simplistic. Surly there must be variation in "c" throughout out the space-time whatsit (not going to say continuum~ too star trek. lol). It's big and we can only see a tiny part of it so I would think it entirely reasonable to see the Higgs field as vairable and so the value of c.

Cheers

Richard

That's a light mill and you may find this very interesting to read:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/LightMill/light-mill.html

You and your dad were wrong, actually. Here's some food for reading.

http://www.desy.de/pub/www/projects/Physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html

Actually, that whole FAQ is cool stuff to read.

[cyphyr]

Interesting and thank you for the links. I doubt my dad was wrong, as I said, I should have paid more attention!

One point made by the first article, "Does light have mass?" is that the question is largely semantic and as a non-scientists this will inevitably lead to all sorts of confusion.

Another article on the same site seems to indicate the opposite, that photons do have mass.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html
I think a fairer answer would be to say "it depends on how you look at it" (pun intended ~ observer principle etc.)

Anyway the photons are travelling through the Higgs field as are all particles and it seems counter intuitive to claim that the density of the Higgs Field is 100% uniform. Everything we have ever measured has slight (and not so slight) variation in its distribution/density and I see no reason that the Higgs field should be any different. The variation may be too small to see but would be enough to have a cascade effect on particles higher up the scale.

Another final point. Every single measurement we have ever taken has been from within the confines of a very limited point of view. We are like gold fish trying to explain the universe outside our fish bowl. We can only observe the universe either very close at hand (inside our fish bowl) or through the glass of our bowl but we can't measure the glass since we can not see it.
I wonder what new insights we will get when we can send instruments outside the influence of the solar sphere. If only Voyager had some decent instrumentation on board ...

Cheers

Richard

Ps looking forward to the Higgs Boson/field entering popular fiction ... "Captain Blunderbuss and his incredible Higgs Generator" hehe

Pps: I think I saw a calculation once that said that due to Time dilation if you travelled at 71% of the speed of light it would take a year (from the point of view of the traveller)  to travel a light year (from the point of view of the observer).