the higgs faq 2.0 | of particular significance

Of Particular SignificanceConversations About Science with Theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler

sler [October 12, 2012]

new (and very long overdue) version of the Higgs FAQ, intended for those with little or no

The old version (from long before the Higgs-like particle was discovered in July

no math or physics in your background, you may also find it useful, after you read this FAQ,

Why the Higgs Particle Matters. Or you could read it first, if you like.

e a little math in your background (algebra, trig, and calculus through derivatives) and a

cs (you know what energy is, what a ball on a spring does, and have thought at least once

t waves are) then, after reading this FAQ, you may want to follow up by reading my

, followed by my explanation of the Higgs field and how it works.

out further ado, here we go.

t is the Higgs particle?

field is the key to the story.

esent everywhere in space and time,

e, on average, zero or not zero, and

field, its waves are made from particles.

ple: the electric field is a part of nature that is found everywhere. At any given point in space,

The Higgs FAQ 2.0 | Of Particular Significance http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/the-higgs-particle/...

1 of 29 10/21/15 10:32 AM

particular time, you can measure it. If it’s non-zero on average in some region, it can have

fects, such as making your hair stand on end or causing a spark. The electric field can also

s, in which the size of the field repeatedly becomes larger and smaller — visible light is such a

e X-rays and radio waves, and all the other things we collectively call “electromagnetic

field’s waves cannot be of arbitrary intensity; they can’t be arbitrarily `dim’, or `quiet’. The

that a field can have is called a “quantum” or a “particle”. It often

rough accordance with your intuitive notion of “particle”, moving in a straight line and

ndivisibly off of things, etc., which is why we give it that name.

of the electric field, its particles are called “photons”; they represent the dimmest possible

eye can absorb light one photon at a time (though it typically waits for several photons to

re sending a signal to your brain.) A laser produces very intense waves, but if you shield a

a screen so that only a tiny fraction of the light gets through, you will find, if you shield it

at the light passes through the screen in little blips — single photons — all of them equally

[BIG! 284 MB and 23 minutes, unfortunately; and you’ll get the point after

onds] which demonstrates this effect; the screen registers the light one photon at a time.

if you want to learn what the whole video is about.)

da get it. A Higgs wave is a ripple in the Higgs field, and the Higgs particle is the smallest —

`dimmest’ — such wave.

Sorry for my way-too-short version of the story. I will try to give a much more detailed and

al treatment of particles and fields, with pictures and analogies and dancing bears, before

2012. A version requiring a little math and physics background, such as one would get from

w months of university-level physics, is already available here.

do particle physicists care so much about the Higgs particle?

lly, they don’t. What they really care about is the Higgs field, because it is so important.

t’s so important about the Higgs field?

field (unlike most of the elementary fields of nature) has a non-zero average value

t the entire universe. And because it does, many particles have mass, including the electron,

d the W and Z particles of the weak interactions. If the Higgs field’s average value were zero,

icles would be massless or very light. That would be a disaster; atoms and atomic nuclei would

Nothing like human beings, or the earth we live on, could exist without the

ld having a non-zero average value. Our lives truly depend upon it.

t do we know about the Higgs field?

thing. Mostly just that it’s there, and that it has a non-zero value. We have some limited

n about how it interacts with matter, but not much. But the recent discovery of what may be

— the Higgs particle — may soon give us additional insights.


2 of 29 10/21/15 10:32 AM

is so important, why is there so much hype about finding the Higgs particle?

hand, finding the Higgs particle (or whatever takes its place, see below) is the easiest (and

ly) way for physicists to learn about the Higgs field — which is what we really want. In that

ing the Higgs particle is the first big step toward the main goal: understanding

rties of the Higgs field and why it has a non-zero average value.

er hand, our modern media world insists on generating hype. And since explaining the Higgs

s role and its relation to the Higgs particle takes too long for a typical news report or

journalists, and people talking to them, typically cut the story short. So the Higgs particle gets

ntion, while the poor Higgs field labors in obscurity, protecting the universe from catastrophe

none of its deserved credit…

hysicists sure there’s a Higgs field?

h I should add comments to that “yes”. We are sure, from the results of many experiments

uccessful interpretation with mathematical equations, there is some field that has a

verage value and makes the electron, the W and Z particles, and many other elementary

assive, thus permitting our world and our lives to exist. The evidence is more than

ing. We call that field the “Higgs field” essentially by definition.

here are many things we don’t know. For instance:

e might be one Higgs field, or there might be several of them, each with its own type of particle

ollectively referred to as “Higgs particles”.)

e Higgs field may in fact be an agglomeration or “composite” of several other fields. We have

ples of such things in nature already — for example, just as a proton is a composite object

e from quarks, antiquarks and gluons, the proton field is a composite field made from quark,

uark and gluon fields — and we don’t know whether the Higgs is an elementary field, as is the

ric field, or a composite of more elementary fields, as is the proton field.

ay to know how many Higgs fields there are, whether they are elementary or not, and how

ct with the particles we know and perhaps ones we don’t yet know, is to run an experiment:

, or LHC.

t does elementary mean?

t this, but the answer is circular — it means “not composite”. Can’t be broken apart into more

y pieces. Or more precisely, it can’t be broken into parts using the technology we have now.

ed to think protons were elementary. Before that they thought atoms were elementary —

Compo Elements”.)

article physicists sure there’s a Higgs particle?

used to be! The only reason we are almost certain they exist is from recent experimental

om July 2012. At that time a new particle was discovered, and all the evidence so far suggests

at it is a Higgs particle — but results are still not absolutely conclusive. By March 2013 we


3 of 29 10/21/15 10:32 AM

, what we knew for sure was that either

is at least one type of Higgs particle, and we will find it (or them) at the LHC, or

s particles fall apart too rapidly for us to identify them, but only because they are

ngly affected by new particles and forces that we will be able to discover at the LHC

e’ve learned something: apparently, option 2 is false. Although there might not have been a

icle in nature, it appears there is one. And now, to learn more about the Higgs field, we need

type of Higgs particle, and what its properties are.

ress — and even many physicists — say explicitly that the LHC was built to find the Higgs

cle! Since that’s happened, isn’t the LHC done with its task?

ements that you read in the press are white lies, and deeply unfortunate ones. The correct

the LHC was built to figure out what the Higgs field is (or Higgs fields are),

rks (or they work), and whether it is (or they are) elementary or composite.

for and studying the Higgs particle(s) is the way to do that. Let us not confuse the ends

Understanding the field is the end goal! Finding and studying the particle or particles

ns, and there is much left to do at the LHC as far as studying the particle that’s been found and

for others that might be awaiting discovery.

ead that the Higgs particle has been found. Is that true?

ed, no. The correct and precise statements are

g data collected in 2011 and the first half of 2012, a new particle was discovered at the LHC;

particle’s behavior is still little-studied, but it is consistent with the behavior expected of a

ric type of Higgs particle;

also still consistent with the behavior of the simplest type of Higgs particle — the so-called

ords: there’s a new type of particle that might well be a Higgs particle of some form, possibly

nly type of Higgs particle in nature, and perhaps even a Standard Model Higgs. But only

data and study over the coming few years will clarify its true nature… and allow us to

d more about the Higgs field as a result. And meanwhile we’ll also need to keep looking for

s particles that are more difficult to find; just because we’ve found one so far doesn’t mean

’t two or five or twelve of them!

ou totally absolutely completely 100% cross-your-heart sure that there is a Higgs field in

es. I don’t say absolutely yes very often, but here I do. If you try to take the Higgs field out of

matics but keep the W and Z particles and the other heavy particles (such as the top quark)

discovered and know are present in nature, you will find that the mathematics of

rd Model simply makes no sense. You get a theory that predicts that certain processes

ones that the LHC can study) occur with a probability bigger than one. Sorry, that can’t

’s logically unsound. The probability of anything obviously cannot be bigger than one or less


4 of 29 10/21/15 10:32 AM

it is very hard to write down logically sound theories. Most theories that you

e predict negative probabilities or probabilities bigger than one. Only a very, very few make

the theory of the Standard Model to working order, you must add a Higgs field, or something

he fields that we have already discovered experimentally. But there are many possibilities as

o this, and the only way to figure out which one is right is to run an experiment — namely,

is the Higgs particle often called the “Higgs boson”? (pronounced “boh-zon”)

ticles in nature — whether elementary or not — can be divided into two classes, fermions and

here are some weird exceptions inside certain solid materials; I tell you this only to avoid

rick thrown at my head by some of my colleagues.] It happens that the Higgs particle is a

this isn’t actually very important for what it does or why we want to find and study it.

is the Higgs particle called the “God particle”?

e media thinks it sounds cool and that it gets readers to read their stories. The origin of the

is about as non-religious and non-scientific as one could imagine: it was invented as

. Professor and Nobel Prize Winner Leon Lederman, a very important experimental

ho deserves enormous credit for his contributions to the field, deserves some serious

or having allowed his book on the Higgs particle to be assigned this attention-getting title…

mewhere between inappropriate and blasphemous, depending on where you come from.

st heard him use this moniker in a talk that he gave while I was in grad school, my jaw hit the

w enough physics even then to know how completely absurd it was.

er heard or seen a physicist refer to the Higgs particle in this way in the context of a scientific

lk at a conference, or even an informal scientific discussion. There’s nothing in the

ical equations, in the interpretation of the physics, in any philosophy of which I am aware, or

ious text or tradition with which I am familiar that connects the Higgs particle or the Higgs

ny notion of religion or divinity. The nickname is pure invention.

I think it is not healthy for either science or religion to be pushed around by the need of the

industry to sell books, or the media to sell stories. The sooner we drop this notion, the better.

r the Higgs particle decays rapidly, so how can it create or support the Higgs field? What I

read seems to imply that there is this sea of Higgs particles and this somehow sets up the

s field. That wouldn’t work if the Higgs particle existed for just an instant.

field doesn’t have to be created by a process; it is just *there*, the way the electric field of

st there, always and everywhere.

non-zero value in nature on average. (The electric field is zero on average). This

alue also is just *there*; it doesn’t have to be generated by a process. It is simply the preferred

r universe for the Higgs field to be non-zero. We don’t know why, but nobody has to do


5 of 29 10/21/15 10:32 AM

ero value of the Higgs field is not to be thought of as a sea of Higgs particles; that is the wrong

Higgs particle is a ripple of minimal intensity in the Higgs field; a ripple varies over space

ust as any wave does. But the non-zero value of the Higgs field is constant over space and

es not vary. A pretty good analogy: the density of the air is a field; it has a constant average

es in the air are sound waves; and there is no sense in which the constant average density of

uld be thought of as built up from a sea of sound waves, which are evanescent ripples in the

icles are not formed spontaneously. You have to put energy in. You have to use something like

dron Collider proton-proton collision to whack the Higgs field and make it wiggle, just as you

p your hands to make sound, hit the surface of a lake to make a ripple, or pluck a violin string

vibrate. Just as a ripple dies away after a while, and a violin string eventually stops vibrating,

rticle will decay away too. The air, the lake, the violin string, and the Higgs field remain

er the vibrating dissipates.

Higgs particles don’t normally exist? I think this is why you also mentioned that there are no

s particles in the room I am in, yet my electrons have mass. What role, if any, does the Higgs

cle play in the mass mechanism? I was thinking they might be a force carrier particle like the

r the weak force, but it doesn’t sound like Higgs particle is supposed to do this. At a recent

re by Frank Close, I asked him about whether there are Higgs particles in the room and he

tioned that they could bubble into existence by “borrowing” energy for a moment and then

ppearing. So there would be Higgs particles in the room. Do you agree with that picture?

does not have any role to play in the mass mechanism. It’s the Higgs field — in

the fact that its average value is non-zero — which gives mass to the various particles. It’s the

e really want to understand, not the particle… the particle is a means to an end, not an end in

particle is a ripple in the Higgs field, and studying the Higgs particle can tell us something

iggs field. For more about this, take a look at my video clips on the matter, from my Secret

http://profmattstrassler.com/videoclips/

indeed virtual Higgs particles in the room, but virtual particles are not particles at all, despite

Higgs particles are nicely behaved waves in the Higgs field, whereas virtual Higgs “particles”

eneral types of disturbances in the Higgs field. Higgs particles have a definite mass; virtual

http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics

rticles-what-are-they/ So Frank Close wasn’t really lying to you, but he wasn’t really being

r. What he was telling you is the standard “white-lie” most theoretical physicists usually tell

but it is so deeply misleading that it confuses people terribly (as I see regularly, through the

I am asked) so I urge you to disregard it.

ss is created by a particle interacting (moving through) the Higgs Field then is the field

ng or the particle or both? If a particle is static (not moving) relative to the Higgs Field, can it

how you are moving, you are not moving relative to the Higgs field. That sounds bizarre, but


6 of 29 10/21/15 10:32 AM

something else bizarre: that no matter how you are moving, light is moving about relative to

same speed, namely 300,000 meters per second. Our intuition for space and time is not

that’s what Einstein figured out — and it is possible for there to be fields that are at rest with

article’s mass is the same no matter what it is doing — stationary relative to you or moving

you. And that’s important, because a particle is always stationary relative to itself! so it

m its own point of view, should have the same mass.

which refer to the particle’s mass as having something to do with the field being like molasses,

full of people, are problematic analogies because they make it seem as though a particle must

in order to feel the effect of Higgs field, whereas in fact that is not the case.

gravity pulls on things proportional to their mass, and since the Higgs field is responsible for

g everything its mass, there obviously must be a deep connection between the Higgs and

onable guess, but — it turns out to be completely wrong. The problem is that this statement

a 17th century notion of gravity, long ago revised, with an overly simplified version of a

entury notion of where masses of various particles comes from. Let me bring out my

l training and correct the statement above with a red pen:

gravity pulls on things proportional to their mass to a combination of their energy and

, and since the Higgs field is responsible of giving everything not everything, just the

n elementary particles excepting the Higgs particle itself its mass, there obviously must be a

between the Higgs and gravity… right? wrong.

e explain these corrections.

first learn about gravity in school, you learn Newton’s law: that the force of gravity between

and one of mass M , has a strength proportional to the product M M .

as true before Einstein. It turns out that Newton’s law needs to be revised: the Einsteinian

of the law is (roughly) that for two objects that are slow-moving (i.e. their speed relative to

r is much less than c, the speed of light) and have energy E and E , the gravitational force

em has a strength proportional to the product E E .

ese two statements, the Newtonian and the Einsteinian, consistent? They are consistent

nstein and his followers established that for any ordinary object, the relation between its

omentum p and mass M [sometimes called “rest mass”, but just called `mass’ by particle

-moving object, p ≈ Mv (where v is the object’s velocity) and pc ≈ Mvc is much smaller than

(i.e., E ≈ M c for slow objects)

2 1 2

1 2

1 2

2


7 of 29 10/21/15 10:32 AM

ets, moons, and artificial satellites all move with velocities well below 0.1% of c relative to each

to the sun, the gravitational forces between them are proportional to

c is a constant, for such objects Einstein’s law of gravity and Newton’s law of gravity are

consistent; the force law is proportional to the product of the energies and to the product of

, because the two are proportional to one another.

ects that have high speeds relative to one another, or for objects subject to extremely strong

al pulls (which will quickly develop high speeds if they don’t have them already), the

n law of gravity involves a complicated combination of momentum and energy, in which mass

xplicitly appear. This is why Einstein’s version of gravity even pulls on things like light, which

m photons that have no mass at all. (And it is why gravitational waves — waves in space and

less just like light — can be formed by objects that are orbiting one another.) Simply put, the

n view of gravity (now reasonably well confirmed by experiment) differs significantly from the

view, and in particular, it is not mass but energy and momentum which are primary. And all

t matter what they are made from or how they are moving from your point of view, have

o everything in the universe exerts a gravitational effect on everything else. We say “gravity is

force ”(here the term is not referring not to the universe but to the notion of universality

t the Higgs field being the source for all mass in the universe? This statement, though you will

it in the press or in glib articles written for the public, is false.

e true statement? Well, here is a list of the elementary particles that we know about so far. The

(the latter presumed to exist)

ks: top, bottom, charm, strange, up, down

ged leptons: electrons, muons, taus

rinos: three types (at least two and probably all three with small masses)

ecently discovered new particle with a mass of 125 GeV/c (which I will assume for now is a

s particle of some type)

rue that the W and Z particles, the quarks, the charged leptons and the neutrinos must get

from a Higgs field. It’s not possible for them to have masses any other way. But this is not

of the Higgs particle does not entirely come from the Higgs field!

s its mass come from? Oh, that’s a long story that ends in a question rather than an answer. I

explain it someday. For now, suffice it to say that the mass of the Higgs particle does not have

mple, understood source, and the curious feature is that its mass is so small — this is one

2


8 of 29 10/21/15 10:32 AM

he enormous puzzle called the hierarchy problem.

case, the Higgs field is not the universal giver of mass to elementary particles. The Higgs

elf gets its mass, at least in part, from elsewhere. And it probably isn’t alone. It is very possible

atter is made from particles, and these too probably get at least part of their mass from

urce. Dark matter is believed by most physicists and astronomers to be the majority of the

he universe; it is believed to provide the majority of the mass of the Milky Way Galaxy that we

e Higgs field likely provides little of that mass.

gs get their masses from sources other than the Higgs particle. The majority of the mass of an

nucleus, not its lightweight electrons on the outside. And nuclei are made from protons and

bags of imprisoned or “confined” quarks, antiquarks and gluons. These quarks, antiquarks

go roaring around inside their little prison at very high speeds, and the masses of the proton

n are as much due to those energies, and to the energy that is needed to trap the quarks etc.

bag, as it is due to the masses of the quarks and antiquarks contained within the bag. So the

and neutron’s masses do not come predominantly from the Higgs field. [Experts:

subtlety here, having to do with how the Higgs field affects the confinement scale; but even

accounted for, the statement remains essentially true.] So the mass of the earth, or the mass

would change, but not enormously, if there were no Higgs field… assuming they could hold

t all, which would not be true of the earth.

holes, which are some of the most massive objects in the universe, holding court at the centers

laxies, can in principle be made entirely from massless things. You can make a black hole

t of photons, in principle. In practise most black holes are made from ordinary matter, but

atter’s mass is mostly from atomic nuclei, and as we just noted, that doesn’t come entirely

the Higgs field is not the universal giver of mass to things in the

: not to ordinary atomic matter, not to dark matter, not to black holes. To most known

tal particles, yes — and it is crucial in ensuring that atoms exist at all. But there would be just

teresting gravitational physics going on in the universe if there were no Higgs field. There just

e any atoms, or any people to study them.

u can ask more technically whether, in the equations that physicists study, there is any

ical connection between gravity and the Higgs field. The answer is no. Gravitational fields

2 and are described as part of space and time; they interact with all particles and fields in

e Higgs field, which has spin 0, only interacts directly with elementary particles and fields that

ipate in the electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces.

uess that the Higgs has something to do with gravity is natural for a non-expert, but I am

naive; it comes from misunderstanding both

iggs field, which is not universal: it gives masses to most of the known elementary particles

ot to the Higgs particle itself, and not to protons and neutrons, dark matter (most likely), or

instein’s gravity, which is universal and has to do with energy and momentum but not mass

tly, and most certainly does pull on protons and neutrons, dark matter and black holes even

gh their masses don’t come entirely from the Higgs field.


9 of 29 10/21/15 10:32 AM

rue: despite appearances at first glance, the relation between gravity and the Higgs is just skin

it makes sense to seek a fundamental explanation for the values of the *masses* of

entary particles, why do we not also seek explanations for the particular values of the *charge*

spin* of these particles?

t in quantum field theory (the type of equations used in particle physics) mass turns out to be

ent from charge and spin. The charge and spin of a particle are fixed; once specified, they are

d. But mass can be changed dynamically from zero to non-zero, and once non-zero the precise

particle’s mass is determined, in a very complex quantum mechanical way, by the strength and

hat particle’s interactions with all of the other types of particles. [A similar complexity affects

So the question of where the masses (and strengths of forces) come from turns

f a very different nature from the question where the charges and spins come from.

the Higgs field always been non-zero?

ds on the history of the universe, which we don’t know well enough yet. It is quite possible

was an extremely short time when the universe was very hot and the Higgs field’s value was

ro; it is even possible there was an extremely short time when all of the fields we know about

anged beyond recognition (as might happen in a different vacuum of the landscape of fields,

called the “string theory landscape” but this need have nothing to do with string theory.) Or

as a long time. The history of the universe before the Big Bang may have been very short or it

een very long; we really have no idea.

the Higgs field has been non-zero ever since the current universe-as-we-know-it has been

a few million billion degrees… since a tiny fraction of a second after the current Big Bang is

do the equations of the Standard Model of particle physics not yield a prediction of exactly

mass the Higgs particle will have?

a number of unknown constants that appear in the Standard Model’s equations. These include

hs of the electromagnetic, weak nuclear and strong nuclear forces, and the numbers that

iggs field becomes non-zero) determine the various masses of the known matter particles.

a few others that determine how some of those particles decay. And finally, the Higgs particle’s

ot determined by the equations, most of these numbers have been determined by

t… obviously the strengths of the forces and the masses of the matter particles have all been

We’ll also have to measure the Higgs particle’s mass in experiment (assuming we find it) to

the number associated with it.

ask whether the Standard Model predicts anything, since so much has to be determined by

t. The answer is: “Oh my goodness, yes!!!!” We do have to measure about 20 numbers first,

e Standard Model makes thousands of successful predictions, for a huge diversity of

ts over many decades. For instance: it predicts the W and Z particles masses, and how often

oduced at experimental facilities such as LEP, Tevatron and the LHC; it predicts how quickly


10 of 29 10/21/15 10:32 AM

t particles they decay; it predicts how all the matter particles decay, in great detail; it predicts

tic response of the electron to 12 decimal places and that of the muon to 8 or so; it predicts

top quarks are produced and how, in detail, they decay … I think I should stop here.

usands (probably more by now) of successful predictions out of 20 measured inputs is a huge

t of course we do very much want to know where these 20 or so inputs come from, and we

HC or other ongoing experiments will give us clues.

also keep in mind that the Standard Model contains the simplest possible version of the Higgs

hat may well not be what nature actually possesses. So we’re not just interested in the Higgs

eed to check how it behaves. See http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/the-higgs-

e-standard-model-higgs/ and the various articles to which it links.

283 Google

THE HIGGS FAQ 2.0”

hy the Higgs and Gravity are Unrelated | Of Particular Significance

October 16, 2012 at 6:59 AM | Reply

ggest that you move the long response as to why the Higgs field and gravity are

unrelated to the *end* of the FAQ. Folks who might otherwise balk at reading the

planation or stop at the introduction of some mathematics will miss the excellent

, BTW, although I think it will still leave the novices scratching their heads over

field actually *is* — the details here are still somewhat abstract.

October 16, 2012 at 12:58 PM | Reply

nks a lot. The explanation seems to be a little convoluted, but of course this is very

rk in progress. A question of my own: Does the mass of electrons and muons come

m the Higgs field, and can we derive the relationship of these two masses?

oes the Higgs Field Give the Higgs Particle Its Mass, or Not? | Of Particular Significance

eanwhile, On the Other Side of the Planet | Of Particular Significance

IME for a Little Soul-Searching | Of Particular Significance


11 of 29 10/21/15 10:32 AM

December 3, 2012 at 6:13 PM | Reply

tart with thank you for all the effort and time you have put into this web site,

is a very good chance I should not even comment on this site. However , I have

and so have a lot of other people. One is lead down this path. Again before D and E

eed to be sure A,B and C are. Before you can have a field , you need a derivitive,

eed continous time. Can anyone prove time is continuous ? There is a simple story

discrete. I apologize if this is inappropriate here.

December 3, 2012 at 6:33 PM | Reply

ations we use do not require that time be continuous, only that the discreteness of

any) be in steps that are short compared to 10^(-26) seconds or so. All evidence

periments (such as the LHC) indicates that time is approximately continuous

those time scales. For instance, that is about how long it takes for a Z boson to

hese experiments do *not* prove time is continuous at shorter time steps. If time

crete in steps of 10^(-43) seconds, for instance, we wouldn’t know it from current

e derive the equations of quantum field theory, we often do (as a crutch) first

time and space are discrete. We then make the discreteness smaller and smaller,

way mathematicians do in defining an integral from a serious of rectangular areas.

erivatives we use are in fact obtained by first taking a discrete version of the

Because we use this technique, we can (and do) explicitly check that discreteness

doesn’t cause a measurable change in the physics equations as long as the

ness of time is short enough compared to the time scales of the physics processes

measuring in our experiments.

December 5, 2012 at 8:10 AM | Reply

. Thank you. What implication does the recent LHC discovery have, if any, on

ry? e.g. for super-symmetry?


g theory? none, except for people have a very strong prejudice about how string

relates to supersymmetry.

rsymmetry? considerable, but unfortunately very complicated and detailed. Many

variants of supersymmetry are ruled out, but other simple variants and many

more complex variants are still allowed by this data. It would probably be better to

til we have more data from LHC so that more easily interpretable statements can

e. Maybe middle of next year.

August 8, 2014 at 3:50 AM | Reply


12 of 29 10/21/15 10:32 AM

get a lot of respect from me for writing these helpful arleitcs.


eard of a proton field before. Are there quantum fields of more complex compound

gold field, an ethanol field, a DNA field, a VW Beetle field?


wer is “yes, but”. The concept of a quantum field is something we find useful when

ting quantum phenomena, and if there aren’t any interesting quantum phenomena

n, it’s extra unnecessary baggage that doesn’t help you predict or think. The art of

a scientist is knowing when a concept, though available in principle,

ste your time in practice; so it is with a quantum field for DNA or VW Beetles,

n for ethanol under most circumstances.

when we do atomic physics of, say, hydrogen, the notion of an electron field and a

field, though available, are mostly useless, unless we are doing extremely precise

tions, in which case the electron field becomes needed. But the electromagnetic

hich holds atoms together, and whose particles are photons] must be treated as a

ain it can often be treated as a classical [i.e. non-quantum] field for some

es, but if you want to understand the light emitted from glowing gasses or hot

ou need to use the fact that the electromagnetic field is a quantum field.

ht-footedness on the part of scientists is something that often seems surprising to

entists. But for instance we may treat the earth as a point when we try to

tand how it orbits the sun; we can’t treat it as a point but may treat it as a perfect

when we want to make rough estimates of how much light it absorbs from the sun;

treat must treat it in great detail as slightly-pear-shaped if we want to correctly

orbits of commercial satellites. In truth the earth has lots of mountains and

but we don’t need to know those details for most purposes. And yes, a VW Beetle

ntum mechanical object, just like you, but this does not in the slightest affect most

l processes, and there’s no benefit in thinking about it.

wo Higgs Bosons? No Evidence for That | Of Particular Significance

he Constancy of the Heavens — Verified Anew | Of Particular Significance

an You Find The Higgs-Like Particle? | Of Particular Significance

age not found | Of Particular Significance

’s (not) The End of the World | Of Particular Significance

23, 2012 at 10:59 PM | Reply

w is referred in the context of the speed light.

ns happen beyond this speed could explain maybe much more!

rk energy or dark matter.


13 of 29 10/21/15 10:32 AM

fundamental theory of all(i think) cannot be proven if you consider the speed of

le: partilcles or detecting energy cannot be observed further more with the

n that the speed is the limit. I think that E=mc2 is valid within the bounderies of

lities of observing thing(entities). Quantum mechanics is a way to assume to

observation. But if one dares to exlpain dark energy or particles, maybe one needs

dark matter or energy leaving the speed of light.


for your effort, it was very helpful for me, but I have some questions;

get their mass from Higgs field, and and protons are made from quarks,

, and gluons, how come protons don’t get their mass from Higgs field?

elcome, 2013! | Of Particular Significance

January 14, 2013 at 9:03 PM | Reply

cientist, non mathematician I must start by saying thanks for your efforts to make

eas understandable to people like me.

some time to get my head round the idea that the speed of light was invariant, now

at ” No matter how you are moving, you are not moving relative to the Higgs field”.

ld you apply one of your “low-tech” explanations to this concept.

January 15, 2013 at 10:47 AM | Reply

ink about ordinary empty space for a minute. If you were out floating in empty

ar from the earth, could you tell if you were moving through it? No. Empty space —

— is as close to nothing as you can imagine. It doesn’t make any sense to ask if

moving relative to it; there’s no experiment you could do to even ask this question.

only ask if you are moving relative to physical objects. Even if you and I are

relative to each other, there is no experiment that we can do which will be able to

ther one or the other of us is stationary with respect to space itself.

e Higgs field does is change some of the underlying properties of empty space. But

’t turn empty space into a physical object, and there’s no meaning to asking

r you are moving relative to it.

in contrast to what would happen if you filled empty space with, say, air. Now

floating around in empty space — and you can ask if you are moving

to that stuff. If you are, you’ll feel a wind, because the air — its physical molecules

no such “stuff” corresponding to the Higgs field, so even if you and I are moving


14 of 29 10/21/15 10:32 AM

to each other, neither of us will feel any Higgs wind — nor is there any experiment

can do which will be able to ask whether one or the other of us is stationary with

to the Higgs field. Under normal circumstances, it’s as unmeasurable as space

the only thing that we can do to really make sure that it is there at all is make it

whack it and see if it wiggles — and that’s what we’re doing at the Large Hadron

r, where the proton collisions “whack” the universe, and the Higgs particle is a

g ripple in the Higgs field.


that. I have a particular fascination with the idea of infinity, so I have done quite a

ing about empty space. Your illustration makes sense to me, as far as that part

pplying the same thinking to the Higgs field seems like saying that the Higgs field

se to nothing as you can imagine”.

th the idea that I cannot know if I am moving relative to the Higgs field, because I

with it. However, elementary particles react with it, so should it not be possible to

y are moving relative to the Higgs field?


contrary, you are made from elementary particles, so you DO react with it.

(and all elementary particles) interact with it the same way no matter how you are

. The presence of the Higgs field is NOT like having air in a room. It changes the

of space; it does not fill space with stuff. The latter provides a notion that you

e moving relative to the stuff; the former does not change the fact that there is no

g as to being in motion relative to space.


bably a naive question, but I’m going to ask it, anyway.

at a field can be measured as zero or non-zero. If it is measured as zero, in what

you be said to be measuring anything? How can you be sure the field is actually


look for ripples in the field. For example, even in a room where the electric field

gnetic field are zero, the passage of radio waves (or light or microwaves or any

ave in the electric and magnetic fields) through the room proves the electric and

ic fields exist; an electrically charged object or a magnet will wiggle back and forth

ave passes — and indeed our radios use this fact.


as Shoogis16, there. Why? I have no idea. I think I can safely blame my wife. :)


15 of 29 10/21/15 10:32 AM

same thing happens again, I am Bill Stidwill.



ad the idea that if waves could be measured in a field, the field measurement would


e I stated the field could be zero or non-zero ***on average***. At some points in

I may have dropped the “on average” modifier, but where I introduced the idea,

average” comment clearly appears.


solutely right, of course, you did say “on average”.

experiencing the excitement of trying to grasp concepts I wish I had had a chance

out several decades ago – and never let anyone tell you you will have plenty of

when you retire. So please be patient if penetration takes a while.

t I think I have is that fields permeate the cosmos. (Is this theory, or is there any

ch it has been/could be established?)

e, fields may be measured as zero or non-zero, at any point in space. (Is that their

fields by observing disturbances in them.

his also applies to the gravitational field, because, although gravity waves have not

bserved directly, we can detect it only because it is disturbed by the presence of

l form taken by disturbances is that of waves.

at in a quantum field the waves are [also] particles. Are there any fields that cannot

s are associated with fields, but only at quantum level is this of significance in the

preciate your comments/corrections – with or without your red pen. :)

id CERN Find a Higgs ? Well not quite. But they probably found a New Particle ! and extended for years | Cosmology Science © 2011-2013 David Dilworth

ll Higgs All the Time(s) | Of Particular Significance

rom Moriond, Higgs Evidence Piles Up | Of Particular Significance

March 9, 2013 at 5:37 PM | Reply


16 of 29 10/21/15 10:32 AM

your simplified explanation of how everything can be stationary relative to the

. That makes perfect sense – even to me.

ve me wondering about one thing, though: all the explanations I have seen for how

field gives mass to fundamental particles involves these particles moving relative to

he Spin of the Higgs-Like Particle | Of Particular Significance

MS sees no excess in Higgs decays to photons | Of Particular Significance

hy, Professor Kaku? Why? | Of Particular Significance

iggs Fandom | Science Events in New York City


ough posts on this site, and in other places, I may have answered my own

oth as to why descriptions of how the Higgs field gives mass to elementary

lways involves motion, and how this can work without motion relative to the Higgs

aldgrave, science minister in John Major’s Government, needed a layman-level

n of the Higgs mechanism in order to make a case for continued funding for the

ject. He offered a bottle of Champagne to the physicist who could provide the best

n in plain English, on one sheet of paper. David Miller won with an analogy that

argaret Thatcher walking through a room full of party workers.

, can we visualise the mechanism by which the Higgs field gives mass to

y particles, such as the electron? We will try to visualise it, first, by thinking of a

liar field, the electromagnetic (EM) field. It too permeates space, where, on

s value is zero; only locally is it non-zero. At a time and place at which it is

t may have visible effects, for example, a person’s hair might stand up. Thus we can

e EM field as being turned on (non-zero) or turned off (zero).

field, on the other hand, is, on average, non-zero throughout space. In other

permanently turned on. Those things which react with it, react with it all the time

being in its presence. No motion is necessary.

March 24, 2013 at 11:51 AM | Reply

our criticisms of the existing analogies, and your statements about the Higgs field,

ect. The analogies are wrong, because as you say, they involve motion, whereas

what the Higgs field does to particle masses can’t have to do with motion, since an

gets its mass from the Higgs field even when it is standing still. The only thing

is that what you’ve said still begs the question: “yes, but how does the Higgs field,


17 of 29 10/21/15 10:32 AM

is “on”, give certain particles mass?”

n to write an article soon saying much of what you just said and trying to answer

stion of how the Higgs field does what it does, in layperson’s terms and without

gave a public talk last week in which I gave this a try, and it seemed to work pretty


the comments. I didn’t attempt the last question; I don’t have the physics.

ard to your “layperson’s” article.

a great site, where even an old codger can learn lots. Helps to fend off dementia,


plain the relationship between the smallest wave in the higgs field and a particle

n find in the LHC? You said the smallest wave in the Higgs field moves like a

is this this that wave/particle duality? Is this something like pair production where

ositrons/electrons particles from empty space by sending in gamma ray waves? I

ink of a wave, moving as a wave and would never end up being detectable as a

rticle. Can you explain?


ationship is *identity*: the smallest wave (meaning the wave of smallest height, or

de) in a quantum field is a “particle.” A better term than “a particle” is “a

m”. It behaves like a particle because (a) it is indivisible and unbreakable; (b) you

e one, or two, or three, or four of them, but not 23.45 of them or 0.26 of them; (c)

s energy and momentum and tends to travel in a straight line just like a particle;

n it is absorbed or emitted or bounces off of something, it does so as a whole, just

article. And yet it remains a wave, too; it vibrates, and it can interfere with itself

h other Higgs particles.

the conceptual problem here is the word “particle”; it is misleading. A Higgs

e”, like a photon or electron or indeed any elementary “particle”, really is a

m”; it is particle-like in some ways, wave-like in others, but in some ways it

our intuition for particles and in some ways it violates our intuition for waves. But

wn mind, a quantum isn’t both particle and wave; it is somewhere in between

and wave. (Not everyone you talk to might share this way of talking about it.) The

ave/particle duality” is unfortunately ambiguous, so the answer is “kind of”: yes,

ne of the things people mean when they speak of “wave/particle duality”.

not a trivial thing to visualize, indeed I do not know anyone who can visualize it. I

ly can’t. Yet it lies at the heart of why quantum field theory (which is naturally

hings that wave) is used to describe “particles”. And the match between the

ions of the theory and the measurements we make can’t be ignored, of course…


18 of 29 10/21/15 10:32 AM

ough what the mathematics suggests is happening can’t be visualized.

osmic Conflation: The Higgs, The Inflaton, and Spin | Of Particular Significance


t deeper into this idea of a “quantum”, there still seems to be a disconnect between

at there is this quantum which is really neither wave or particle and the idea that

look for a real tangible particle at the LHC with a mass of ~126 GeV. There is a

ween what you are explaining from a Higgs field perspective (the quantum) and the

ch for a tangible Higgs boson (reconstruct decays to something with a mass of 126

poke up in the data). Can you bridge this chasm?


tum *is* a thing that has energy, momentum and mass; the real tangible “particle”

l tangible quantum of a Higgs wave. I’m not sure if the problem you’re raising

I explained it (so that it wasn’t clear that quantum=particle) or whether

sm you’re worried about is the conceptual challenge of understanding why

ain that conceptual issue better will indeed require some more work on my part. I

out last fall how to explain this using freshman-level math,

profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/fields-and-their-

. I’ve recently figured out how to explain it, a little less thoroughly of

without using math, but I haven’t written it down yet. So that chasm, at least, will


along your math links to the formula mc^2 = hv, we can solve for v if we know the

e Higgs particle they found at 120GeV which translates into about 2.139 x 10^-22

mc^2/h = 2.139×10^-22kg * (2.9×10^8)^2/6.62×10-34 =

06344410876132930513 Hz.

s to be an awfully high frequency for it to be a “minimum” frequency for the Higgs

is correct and why would we think it would have such a high minimum frequency?

n’t the minimum frequency be something like 10 hz?

June 6, 2013 at 2:32 PM | Reply

assler you did not comment on whether I correctly interpreted the minimum

cy for the Higgs Boson. 2.71 x 10^28 does seem insanely high. Is this correct and

at we’ve found this Higgs boson, what exactly does that tell us about the Higgs

her than it has a really high frequency? It would seem that the existence of the

oson confirms the existence of the Higgs field, but we are no closer to having an

about how this field interacts with things like electrons.


19 of 29 10/21/15 10:32 AM

ril 16, 2013 at 11:57 PM | Reply

make a laser like thing out of higgs bosons and zap it at a photon, what would

iggs Workshop in Princeton | Of Particular Significance

kepchick.no | Misforstått partikkel?

ourses, Forces, and (w)Einstein | Of Particular Significance


nt you give the speed of light as “300,000 meters per second”. Of course you meant

er 300 million meters per second, or 300,000 kilometers per second, but as you

it’s just a bit less. Might I suggest “just under 300 million meters per second” as an

? It avoids confusing the issue with a lot of digits (299,792,458), and yet doesn’t

truth. Thanks again for your wonderful web site.


s Higgs FAQ has been very useful in understanding the Higgs particle and I thank

viding answers and incorporating them into your new 2.0 FAQ, but it still left me

because there are still a lot of unknowns, like what is the Higgs field “built” out of

rovides mass to the HIggs particle itself and protons and neutrons. That would

ve out a lot of important stuff. I am concerned with explaining physics concepts to

and so I “made up” my own models of how things like mass, charge, magnetism

y work. I was most concerned about how the describe the Higgs field as being made

al physical particles we are familiar with and make it provide the mass of all

ince I “made it up” without reference to any existing theories, this might be

a work of “science fiction” rather than of science, but I thought that readers of this

e interested in alternate models that a layperson could easily understand. The

e paper can be found at this link:

a.org/pdf/1305.0075v1.pdf

d and used what I learned from this FAQ to write the introduction to this paper,

at, the rest is speculation. While it is wild speculation, it manages to unite mass,

d magnetism under the same physical mechanism which only includes positrons

ns. I would be interested in your thoughts.

June 19, 2013 at 10:41 AM | Reply

Higgs field is not (in current understanding, which may not be complete) built

ything. Electric fields aren’t built from anything either, nor are up quark fields or

s. The elementary fields of nature are the fundamental ingredients of the universe

hich everything else is built; the Higgs is one of them.

gs field’s interaction with itself provides its particle with mass, but that interaction


20 of 29 10/21/15 10:32 AM

very poorly understood as it is very sensitive to subtle effects. At this point you

consider this question only partly answered.

http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics

ucture-of-matter/protons-and-neutrons/

are welcome to write science fiction, as long as you are very clear about what

involves. Science is not done by speculation. Speculations have to be turned into

equations with clear predictions that (at least in principle, if not in immediate

) can be tested by careful experiments; only at that point, the discussion becomes

June 19, 2013 at 12:12 PM | Reply

att Strassler] Speculations have to be turned into precise equations with clear

s that (at least in principle, if not in immediate practise) can be tested by careful

ts; only at that point, the discussion becomes science. [/quote]

o way disagreeing with the above quote, I would be fascinated to know how many

) of the following you would consider to be science.


ou please add “Higgs field” to the list ?

n Old NY Times Article on New China | Of Particular Significance

Second Higgs Particle? | Of Particular Significance

age not found | Of Particular Significance

Short Break | Of Particular Significance

cience Sundays with John Duffield: Higgs Spin Zero | Bogpaper.com

EARCH day 1 | Of Particular Significance

New Academic Year | Of Particular Significance

dding to the Naturalness Article | Of Particular Significance

y Old Talk on String Theory | Of Particular Significance


21 of 29 10/21/15 10:32 AM

mber 6, 2013 at 11:17 AM | Reply

e Higgs field (unlike most of the elementary fields of nature) has a non-zero

lue throughout the entire universe. Can this field be a potential candidate for Dark

n)Naturalness, Explained | Of Particular Significance

uantum Field Theory, String Theory, and Predictions (Part 2) | Of Particular Significance

ome Pre-Nobel Prizes | Of Particular Significance

October 7, 2013 at 4:28 PM | Reply

rying to figure out an appropriate analogy to describing the interaction of particles

iggs field that results in mass for some particles, without drawing the analogy of

rough a crowded room. This is what I came up with:

room full of magical fat that coalesces onto people who exists in the room. A

xists in this space, and he coalesces a light amount of magic weight on from the

move around lightly. A person Y also exists in this space, and in his existence, he

lot weight on him; he moves around less lightly. A person Z exists in this space,

ecial and coalesces no magical fat on him at all, and he is able to zip about at

hinkable to X and Y. The encumbering of the coalesced magical fat on the persons

en mass to particles. Thus, X has less mass than Y, and Z, akin to the speed of light,

no magical, cumbersome fat on him at all, is mass-less.

be a suitable layman’s analogy to explain the Higgs field on particles?

nderstanding what the “God particle” isn’t | The Hexacoto

he Twists and Turns of Hi(gg)story | Of Particular Significance

Busy Week at CERN | Of Particular Significance

t a CMS/Theory Workshop in Princeton | Of Particular Significance

0 recursos sobre el bosó de Higgs | Des de la Mediterrània

November 20, 2013 at 10:16 PM | Reply

V of the Higgs field be interpreted as the average of a large number of

ents made on an ensemble of identically prepared states?

rally, can the eigenvalues of $\phi(x)$ (maybe integrated over a smooth function

n a particular point) be interpreted as the possible outcomes of some


22 of 29 10/21/15 10:32 AM

ound: graduate student in physics, have taken courses on QFT and the Standard

ean Carroll’s Higgs Book Wins a Big Prize | Of Particular Significance

hat’s the Status of the LHC Search for Supersymmetry? | Of Particular Significance

cember 12, 2013 at 8:15 AM | Reply

hat through this, the concept of mass and energy seem less distinct? “Mass” as such

med to be a mysterious property that made everything “solid”. When you look at it

erspective as “just” an interaction with the higgs field, perhaps the term mass is

e the interaction between fundamental fields (higgs and weak force for example)

s in the rise of the gravitational force (“mass”) in the gravitational field. Also, is it

gravity that warps spacetime, or is it the warping of spacetime due to higgs field

s that originates the gravitational force?

coincidence that the same properties of “matter” particles (ie half integer spin)

them to clump together (higgs interaction, mass, gravity), but also keep them from

the same space (pauli excl.), so forming 3d structures?

int towards a theory of QG perhaps? I mean, there was always a gut feeling that

as not a fundamental theory, but a derivative, a large scale approximation, of

fundamental phenomenon.


ss” as such always seemed to be a mysterious property that made everything

When you look at it from the perspective as “just” an interaction with the higgs

rhaps the term mass is incorrect in a way.”

ion that “mass is what makes things solid” is really inherited from what mistaken

n learned in chemistry and first-year physics class. But mass is *not* what makes

olid. Solidity of things has to do with the structure of ordinary matter and how it is

. The mass is just stored inside those things, but has nothing to do with the solidity

as to do with the energy required to have an elementary particle, or to stick

tary particles together. Elementary particles are really ripples in fields. The mass of

ron is simply the energy required to make a stationary ripple in the electron field

ake an electron), divided by c^2. The Higgs field gives mass to electrons by making

tron field “springier”, and thus forcing you to use more energy to make an

no connection at this stage with gravity. Even if there were no gravity, what I just

bove in the previous paragraph would be true.


23 of 29 10/21/15 10:32 AM

is a response of space-time to the presence of energy. Energy stored in mass of

is the most familiar source of gravity in nature — the energy stored in the mass of

h distorts space-time, and the moon responds by moving in orbit.

no connection with quantum gravity here.


S] Mass has to do with the energy required to have an elementary particle, or to

ntary particles together. Elementary particles are really ripples in fields. The mass

ron is simply the energy required to make a stationary ripple in the electron field

an electron), divided by c^2. The Higgs field gives mass to electrons by making the

eld “springier”, and thus forcing you to use more energy to make an electron.

aïve interpretation, so I need to check it, please.

y particles are ripples moving through fields, but they are not actually particles

al mass of a particle is proportional to the energy needed to stop it moving.

e Higgs field a wave can be stopped, and a particle formed, with relatively little

field changes the electron field such that more energy is needed to stop a wave and

s to say that without the Higgs field an electron would have mass, but it would be

less than it is in the presence of the Higgs field.


entary particles are ripples at all times, whether stationary or not. A stationary

s a particle that is not moving (it is rippling in place, like a wave on a violin string.)

ng ripple is a particle that is moving.

mass of a particle is proportional to the energy that was needed to create the

ry ripple — and since moving ripples have more energy, this is the *minimum*

required to create a ripple, stationary or not.

e’s no issue with stopping the wave; the problem was creating it in the first place.

known particles this takes arbitrarily little energy without the Higgs field, but the

t required goes up once the Higgs field’s average value isn’t zero.

Higgs field changes the electron field so that more energy is needed to create a


24 of 29 10/21/15 10:32 AM

out the Higgs field it would require arbitrarily low energy to create a ripple in the

field, and you can’t create a stationary one at all — which is the statement that the

would be massless without the Higgs field and would move always at the speed

, the speed of light). Just like the massless photons that make up light, a massless

could never be stopped or slowed.


the prompt clarification. The confusion arose because I interpreted “stationary

a wave that had been stopped, rather than as a standing wave, which would have

another example of the gap between what experts say and what “hitch-hikers”


s pictures and animations. I have a Fields and Particles (with freshman-level math)

which has a lot of the animations that you might want. Following that there’s a

he Higgs Field Works” section. I’m planning to update it for a non-math audience,

t will take a good month of work, and I haven’t had the time.


t shoogis 16 again, sorry, I’m not really pretending to be someone else :)

ome Pre-Holiday International Congratulations | Of Particular Significance

uary 7, 2014 at 5:31 PM | Reply

t many hours recently on this blog and I am sure I will spend many many more.

fantastic! My physics is on level of basic engineer physics course, but I would like

some questions (I guess I am at the level, the blog is addessed).

ced that Higgs field has a very interesting property that you cannot move in

o it. It’s a bit analog (but a reverse situation) to light in special relativity, which

ves at constant speed from you. It might be that it’s just as counter-intuitive as

l relativity, but my thinking is that it implies actually Higgs field to have a

alue in the universe, because if it wasn’t constant, then by measuring it’s value we

detected our motion by detecting a change in the field value.

ember enough to know if such field must have potential energy or not, but it

e it could have any arbitrary value?

stic fields don’t have constant values: mass (or strictly speaking energy) influences

ctric charge electromagnetic field etc, but if Higgs field is “flat” then there is

uivalent? OK, I know that we have no idea about Higgs field nature yet, but

agree that knowing the nature of this field is more interesting that the boson



25 of 29 10/21/15 10:32 AM

guess that “It might be that it’s just as counter-intuitive as with special relativity”

ct. The special thing about a Higgs-like field is that even though if it has a constant

o value, it maintains special relativity as it was before. If it wasn’t constant — say it

d gradually from one place to another — then yes, that would define a direction and

of reference with respect to which we could define our motion. But not being

t would also cost energy, so the field would settle back to being constant if it could.

d does have potential energy, which varies as a function of its non-zero value, and

zero value lies at the minimum.

ook physics once upon a time, and it sounds like you did, you might want to read



equire only first-semester undergraduate physics and have lots of diagrams and

equations that illustrate many of these points.

iggs field can be non-constant in principle; the Higgs boson is in fact a ripple in

ld. But the energy required to make the Higgs field be non-constant, non-rippling

h a value significantly different from usual in a large area is so enormous that even

black holes the gravitational effects on the Higgs field are extremely tiny. You’d

be microscopically close to a place where Einstein’s gravity goes singular (the

core of a black hole) before you’d see any effect. Similarly electromagnetic effects

ays tiny. One place where the Higgs field could in principle have a little dimple in it

around a particle that it makes heavy… such as a top quark. But even there, this is

-microscopic effect and unobservable.

if a top quark and top anti-quark are close enough, there is a non-constant Higgs

tween them, over a distance of about 10^(-17) meters, something like the 1/r^2

field between an electron and a proton, but falling off exponentially after 10^(-17)

This effect MAY be observable in the next 30 years, as a small shift in the

tion rate for top quarks. I actually wrote my first particle physics paper about this:

prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v43/i5/p1500_1


nk you for your kind answer. Actually, reading the maths pages helps a lot with

erstanding it. Furthermore, it answered more questions I have had. I have noticed

some people like to have their own “theories” because they don’t understand math

l, and take the analogies you provide as actual physical link between different

omena. I’d say that thanks to some math this is the best science web page I have

ike to ask an additional question:

e all quantum fields “fill in” the whole time-space, which is still constantly

nding, and vacuum has its zero-state energy, that would imply a constant increase


26 of 29 10/21/15 10:32 AM

e whole universe total energy, unless it’s compensated by an equal growth of

tive energy (like gravity potential). Is this how it is currently understood?

Richard Bauman | January 9, 2014 at 8:28 AM | Reply

hope you have one or two more questions.


professor Strassler, thank you for this amazing faq, really helpful for non-scientists

tood correctly: By “giggling” the space at a certain point (by smashing particles) we

iggs particle appearing, which appearance show us the presence of the non-zero

s field. If i understand correctly Higgs Field is everywhere, a characteristic of how

o ask: You said about that field having (non zero) values. Can we make a “map” of

I want to say that for example I can make a 3D map of the “electric field of my

e x-y-z points inside the room walls where the electric cords are, will have a big

0v (assuming a device is plugged), where as the x-y-z above my head has 0v. Does

have the same characteristics (bound to x-y-z and/or time) and if so, can we

the Higgs field values in space around us (then we wonder if there is a place

e where Higgs field is 0? -well if Higgs field is essential for matter to exist there

be such a “place”?) and would that mean different Higgs field values in places

ce, different effects of Higgs field onto the other particles? (even if variation of

values goes very far away to change even slightly -so around the earth/solar

laxy/whatever that field feels like a “constant” but actually is not?)

le my old house and put the price a little higher by saying my house has nice view,

d the strongest Higgs Field in the area for all the family to enjoy?

use any grammar mistakes -non native English speaker

on-Standard-Model Higgs Particle Decays: What We Found | Of Particular Significance

ore Examples of Possible Unexpected Higgs Decays | Of Particular Significance

rane Waves | Of Particular Significance

100 TeV Proton-Proton Collider? | Of Particular Significance

hat if the Large Hadron Collider Finds Nothing Else? | Of Particular Significance


27 of 29 10/21/15 10:32 AM

he Four Ways Physicists Name Things | 4 gravitons and a grad student

articles are not Species | 4 gravitons and a grad student

.hormigonenillescas.com | July 1, 2014 at 2:56 AM | Reply

This is my first visit to your blog!

ollection of volunteers and starting a new project in a

y in the same niche. Your blog provided us beneficial information

. You have done a marvellous job!

uotation of the Day: Higgs boson – “God particle” Cornerston of the Simple Theory of Everything |

September 18, 2014 at 11:24 AM | Reply

of interesting articles here.

ou spend a lot of time writing, i know how to save you a lot of work, there

e tool that creates readable, SEO

ticles in minutes, just type in google – laranitas free content

merica’s Hatred of Science and Love of Opinion | itsbosh

November 21, 2014 at 11:37 AM | Reply

iggs Field ever be negative?

vember 29, 2014 at 5:16 PM | Reply

planation, you say that the mass of protons doesn’t come predominantly from the

d. Is there any known percentage for how much of a proton/neutron’s mass is from

cember 1, 2014 at 6:51 PM | Reply

“Grethcen” has been a busy girl.

omments were submitted by a bot, spam bot to be more precise. So these guys are

tware such as SEnuke that automatically submits massive numbers of comments

February 15, 2015 at 8:04 AM | Reply

e speed of light is close to 300 000 km/s not m/s ;)

February 15, 2015 at 8:35 AM | Reply


28 of 29 10/21/15 10:32 AM

Blog at WordPress.com. The Coraline Theme.

e speed of light is close to 300 000 km/s not m/s

explaining it all btw, things seem a little clearer now

;)

hat’s the Matter with Dark Matter, Matt? | 4 gravitons

#Collider An #Abyss and the #Hebrew #Otiot | Authenticity in ancient symbols?


29 of 29 10/21/15 10:32 AM

the higgs faq 2.0 | of particular significance

Documents

higgs field

higgs faq

higgs particle matters

higgs wave

electric field

particle physicists

intuitive notion of

little math