[QUOTE=luck_or_loss;33706460][img]http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2011/12/13/1226220/963236-higgs-boson.jpg[/img]
This is what it looks like to hold a Higgs Boson[/QUOTE]
I think it would look more like a man panicing because somebody locked him in the LHC.
[img]http://i.cubeupload.com/IxiF73.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=OrionChronicles;33706659][IMG]http://i.cubeupload.com/IxiF73.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
(to those who didn't see it) Funny enough, CERN/LHC plays a huge role in that film
[QUOTE=Stick it in her pooper;33712531]Funny enough, CERN/LHC plays a huge role in that film[/QUOTE]
that was the point...
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;33712589]that was the point...[/QUOTE]
yeah except for the where the part where people on facepunch who haven't watched it would've just boxed him for being an idiot due to them not knowing the plot revolved around a clash between science (CERN involved) and religion -- unlike the first movie where it's just boring religious crap (the soundtrack is better than the movie)
Honestly I found this one most helpful:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIg1Vh7uPyw[/media]
What confuses me is that the Higgs boson itself has mass. Where is it getting mass from? OTHER Higgs bosons? Itself?
Fucking Higgs mechanism! How does it work?
[editline]14th December 2011[/editline]
Also, if the Higgs field permeates the entire universe, and the Higgs boson is the quantum OF the Higgs field, then could the 'missing mass' that needs to be explained by dark matter actually be coming from the Higgs field itself?
[QUOTE=sltungle;33713047]What confuses me is that the Higgs boson itself has mass. Where is it getting mass from? OTHER Higgs bosons? Itself?
Fucking Higgs mechanism! How does it work?
[editline]14th December 2011[/editline]
Also, if the Higgs field permeates the entire universe, and the Higgs boson is the quantum OF the Higgs field, then could the 'missing mass' that needs to be explained by dark matter actually be coming from the Higgs field itself?[/QUOTE]
You're now delving into String Theory. Don't ask; it's very convoluted and confusing.
String Theory states that everything is connected via strings that are infinitely small and infinitely long. What we perceive as 'mass' and 'energy' is simply the effect produced when these strings vibrate.
The article actually managed to partly understand this and my paraphrase is really accurate:
"these scientists spent billions of dollars creating a machine to prove that the Force exists"
[img]http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2011/12/13/1226220/963236-higgs-boson.jpg[/img]
Cern officials explaining how the LHC works in advanced terms.
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;33713178]You're now delving into String Theory. Don't ask; it's very convoluted and confusing.
String Theory states that everything is connected via strings that are infinitely small and infinitely long. What we perceive as 'mass' and 'energy' is simply the effect produced when these strings vibrate.[/QUOTE]
known as the mindfuck zone.
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;33713178]You're now delving into String Theory. Don't ask; it's very convoluted and confusing.
String Theory states that everything is connected via strings that are infinitely small and infinitely long. What we perceive as 'mass' and 'energy' is simply the effect produced when these strings vibrate.[/QUOTE]
Well I am asking, dammit! And I want a response from aVoN - he's one of the only people on Facepunch that I trust in terms of physics knowledge (JohnnyMo being another); in a few years time I shall be at the same level.
[QUOTE=sltungle;33715203]Well I am asking, dammit! And I want a response from aVoN - he's one of the only people on Facepunch that I trust in terms of physics knowledge (JohnnyMo being another); in a few years time I shall be at the same level.[/QUOTE]
Yes, good thing you don't listen to him, since he described strings as "infinitely small and infinitely long" ...
Anyway, it has absolutely nothing to do with String Theory, not to mention String Theory isn't really a model but just a fundamental base upon which scientific theories can be made upon.
The Higgs simply has mass, and since it is the reason for non-energetic mass, nothing excludes the Higgs from having mass.
It's like the egg and the chicken argument, except for the Higgs boson, both (mass and the Higgs) came at the same time.
Yeah it has nothing to do with string theory, which is nowhere near being accepted as fact. String theory is not currently testable so it has next to no experimental evidence.
Also virtual particles are fucked up. Virtual photons has non-zero mass and it can be either positive or negative :suicide:
[QUOTE=petieng;33716230]Yeah it has nothing to do with string theory, which is nowhere near being accepted as fact. String theory is not currently testable so it has next to no experimental evidence.
You can apply the idea of the Higgs boson itself having mass to photons too. Virtual photons are the EM force's gauge bosons, but photons themselves has electric and magnetic components.
Also virtual particles are fucked up. Virtual photons has non-zero mass and it can be either positive or negative :suicide:[/QUOTE]
God dammit.
Particle physics, why you so confusing?
Please don't tell me gravitons have mass. I'd see a HUGE problem with that if they do (two huge problems, actually).
Hey guys I found another picture of him demonstrating how the Higgs Boson works.
[img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25698984/higgz.png[/img]
[QUOTE=sltungle;33716691]God dammit.
Particle physics, why you so confusing?
Please don't tell me gravitons have mass. I'd see a HUGE problem with that if they do (two huge problems, actually).[/QUOTE]
There's no evidence for gravitons existing, but regardless it [B]has[/B] to be massless because the effects of gravity are [B]infinite[/b] since g=G·m1·m2·(length)^-1.
To the OP:
First of all, the Higgs-Boson is not about gravitation. That's what the (hypothetical) graviton is for.
In fact, the Higgs-Mechanism is an explanation to the observed mass of the Gauge-Bosons of Weak-Interaction. The W+,W- and Z0 Bosons (Bosons/Force particles of the Weak-Interaction) should not have mass according to their corresponding symmetry-group. But since they have one, Higgs (and other people) had the idea that an additional field, the Higgs-Field, may spontaneously break the symmetry of the Weak-Interaction and therefore giving those Bosons (W+,W-,Z0) mass.
The corresponding Gauge-Boson for that new Higgs-field is the Higgs-Boson and has yet to be proven or disproven.
To explain the mass of all other particles, an analogue idea can be applied to fermions (e.g. the electron, quarks etc) where a certain coupling to the Higgs-Field can be used to explain their mass.
Read more about the Higgs-Mechanism on Wikipedia if you want to :)
The only thing I got from the article was them saying it works like the Force from Star Wars.
If that's the case Death Star doesn't seem so far away now.
If that's not the case I need it dumbed down for me.
[QUOTE=petieng;33716230]Yeah it has nothing to do with string theory, which is nowhere near being accepted as fact. String theory is not currently testable so it has next to no experimental evidence.
Also virtual particles are fucked up. Virtual photons has non-zero mass and it can be either positive or negative :suicide:[/QUOTE]
I agree with you half way, that charges on Virtual Photons are just wtf..
For electrical interactions, Isn't that just based upon the fact of what charge quantas are present? As say protons and electrons exhibit different information on the charge carriers(So showing a + or - from each particle)? I'm a little hazy on this..
But for magnetic interactions how would that play out? You don't have different carriers, the particles are just aligned to the field lines from North to South, so there are no information differences between South poles and North poles, just the "direction" of the virtual photons.
[IMG]http://i39.tinypic.com/jz78r5.jpg[/IMG]
[img]http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2011/12/13/1226220/963236-higgs-boson.jpg[/img]
[I]It was [B]this[/B] big![/I]
[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;33723517]I agree with you half way, that charges on Virtual Photons are just wtf..
For electrical interactions, Isn't that just based upon the fact of what charge quantas are present? As say protons and electrons exhibit different information on the charge carriers(So showing a + or - from each particle)? I'm a little hazy on this..
But for magnetic interactions how would that play out? You don't have different carriers, the particles are just aligned to the field lines from North to South, so there are no information differences between South poles and North poles, just the "direction" of the virtual photons.[/QUOTE]
When I said +ve or -ve I meant mass not charge, which is even stranger.
I'm not sure what you mean. All magnetic fields come from the motion of electric charge, if this wasn't the case we would observe magnetic monopoles (like static electric fields, but magnetic) so magnetic fields arise from the exchange of virtual photons between electric charges. An electron aligning in a magnetic field is due to the magnetic dipole produced by it's spin and charge and it's interaction, via photons, with the electric charge creating the field.
If you're talking about where do photons come into the picture when you have just a single charged particle, sitting in space and it has a magnetic dipole, then I presume it will be to do with a 'flow' or flux of virtual particles between the poles. On a related note, what we see as an electron, such as it's electric charge is actually a cloud of virtual particles surrounding the electron, and not the electron itself.
Virtual particle pairs are constantly being produced and instantly annihilating everywhere in the vacuum, and these pairs near a charged particle such as an electron, become polarized and mask the true charge of the bare electron...which is actually infinite. The closer we are able to 'get' to an electron the larger we perceive the charge to be. It's the idea behind [url="http://www.clab.edc.uoc.gr/materials/pc/proj/running_alphas.html"]running couplings[/url] and why the constant associated with the electromagnetic force is bigger when measured at high energy electron-positron colliders than at low energy measurements, such as atomic interactions.
Sorry I don't think I answered what you were asking but I didn't fully understand what it was :v:
[img]http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2011/12/13/1226220/963236-higgs-boson.jpg[/img]
"The Higgs is right here. I've caught it, but if I let go it'll get away. For christ's sake someone get a plastic bag or something, my fingers are getting tired."
[editline]15th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=luck_or_loss;33706460]This is what it looks like to hold a Higgs Boson[/QUOTE]
ass
[QUOTE=Kendra;33715856]Yes, good thing you don't listen to him, since he described strings as "infinitely small and infinitely long" ...
Anyway, it has absolutely nothing to do with String Theory, not to mention String Theory isn't really a model but just a fundamental base upon which scientific theories can be made upon.
The Higgs simply has mass, and since it is the reason for non-energetic mass, nothing excludes the Higgs from having mass.
It's like the egg and the chicken argument, except for the Higgs boson, both (mass and the Higgs) came at the same time.[/QUOTE]
Well, the strings have no width or depth, only length. They are smaller than electrons even (at least in theory).
While String Theory is a base, this does not mean it can't explain something (albeit vaguely).
The egg & chicken argument is actually pretty bad, since there is a definite answer to that one. But you're right about "both (mass and the Higgs) came at the same time."
[editline]15th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=petieng;33716230]Yeah it has nothing to do with string theory, which is nowhere near being accepted as fact. String theory is not currently testable so it has next to no experimental evidence.
Also virtual particles are fucked up. Virtual photons has non-zero mass and it can be either positive or negative :suicide:[/QUOTE]
String Theory is now one of the predominant physics theories out there at the moment. Granted, five years ago it wasn't, but that's changed now. And yes, it cannot be tested for the strings are supposedly smaller than light particles.
[editline]15th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=sltungle;33716691]God dammit.
Particle physics, why you so confusing?
Please don't tell me gravitons have mass. I'd see a HUGE problem with that if they do (two huge problems, actually).[/QUOTE]
They [i]cannot[/i] have mass, or that would give science a huge 'fuckall'.
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;33736123]Well, the strings have no width or depth, only length. [B]They are smaller than electrons even (at least in theory).
And yes, it cannot be tested for the strings are[B] supposedly smaller than light particles.[/B][/B]
[/QUOTE]
You should stop discussing physics right now. Especially string theory as you have no idea what it means.
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;33736123]
String Theory is now one of the predominant physics theories out there at the moment. Granted, five years ago it wasn't, but that's changed now. And yes, it cannot be tested for the strings are supposedly smaller than light particles.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe it has gotten more media attention in recent years, but that's about it. Many physicists would not even regard it as a theory, but a hypothesis. It's highly speculative and will be for the forseeable future and it's not currently used in any way to explain the Higgs Mechanism.
[QUOTE=Kendra;33736645]You should stop discussing physics right now. Especially string theory as you have no idea what it means.[/QUOTE]
I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with what he's saying, though his descriptions are a little woolly. Maybe you should point out where he's gone wrong instead of being an elitist twat about it.
[QUOTE=Turnips5;33736846]I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with what he's saying, though his descriptions are a little woolly. Maybe you should point out where he's gone wrong instead of being an elitist twat about it.[/QUOTE]
He's either really bad at stringing together sentences or he's implying there's a possibility the eletron and the photon may possibly be smaller than a string.
[QUOTE=Kendra;33738605]He's either really bad at stringing together sentences or he's implying there's a possibility the eletron and the photon may possibly be smaller than a string.[/QUOTE]
[quote]They (STRINGS) are smaller than electrons even (at least in theory).[/quote]
[quote]And yes, it cannot be tested, for the strings are supposedly [B]smaller than light particles[/B].[/quote]
what the hell, he said exactly the opposite. learn to comprehend
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.