Jump to content

Higgs boson and mass


Snailrider

Recommended Posts

Hi Experts, I'm trying to understand the Higgs boson and Higgs Field which, allegedly, is responsible for giving mass to matter. And if the field is all around the universe, why then the same matter weighs different in different gravitational environment (same thing is lighter on Moon etc). You can say, must be because the gravity, but then my question how the Higgs field and gravity (which is based on the mass of object) related?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Higgs and gravity are not directly related. The Higgs mechanics gives mass to fundamental particles, but the biggest contribution to the mass as composite particles is due to the binding energy (the energy needed to 'build' these composites).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to AJB's comment, mass and weight are not the same thing.

Weight is the interaction of mass with gravity, and of course, it'll be different for different gravities.

I don't see how this implies a relation between the Higgs field and gravity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The binding energy is negative and reduces the particles' mass. Since particles have a positive mass, I expect other contributions to outweigh the binding energy. Or?

 

And does the mass of all particles rely on the Higgs mechanism, or only of a few of them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Experts, I'm trying to understand the Higgs boson and Higgs Field which, allegedly, is responsible for giving mass to matter. And if the field is all around the universe, why then the same matter weighs different in different gravitational environment (same thing is lighter on Moon etc). You can say, must be because the gravity, but then my question how the Higgs field and gravity (which is based on the mass of object) related?

 

Mass of object on the Earth, is the same as on the Moon.

mass m is in kilograms,

Weight is m*a=F, force which attracts that mass to center of mass..

acceleration a is different on the Moon than on the Earth,

and even on the Earth it's not constant, but variable depending on altitude.

Weight is in Newtons = kg*m^2/s.

 

Muscles of astronauts are prepared for Earth's gravitation, to move, or jump,

but if the same force of muscles is used on the Moon, they accelerate their body much stronger than on the Earth.

They "appear" much stronger, than they really are.

Edited by Sensei
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The binding energy is negative and reduces the particles' mass. Since particles have a positive mass, I expect other contributions to outweigh the binding energy. Or?

I am speaking of the energy needed to hold together hadrons in nucleaons - for example the proton. You can think of this energy as the energy carried by the gluons holding together the quarks that make up the proton. Then E=mc^2 gives you a contributuion to the mass.

 

In fact, for a proton something like 99% of the mass comes from QCD and not the Higgs mechanism.

 

 

And does the mass of all particles rely on the Higgs mechanism, or only of a few of them?

The fundamental particles that are massive get their mass via the Higgs - well in the standard model that is. It is possible to just add the mass of the fundamental fermions by hand - remember the Higgs gives a mechanics for massive guage bosons - but the great thing is that the Higgs field can also give mass to these fermions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am speaking of the energy needed to hold together hadrons in nucleaons - for example the proton. You can think of this energy as the energy carried by the gluons holding together the quarks that make up the proton.

 

I may have been fooled because the strong force increases with the distance.

 

So, would I understand you properly by putting that way: The confined quarks have a (always positive) kinetic energy tending to expand the nucleon, but the (positive and increasing quickly with distance) strong force keeps the nucleon small, an their sum is positive? Then, the quarks and gluons wouldn't even need a "rest mass" (whatever this may mean here) to achieve the nucleons' mass.

Edited by Enthalpy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may have been fooled because the strong force increases with the distance.

That right, it is often likened to stretching a rubber band. The force increases as you pull on both ends of the band

 

 

So, would I understand you properly by putting that way: The confined quarks have a (always positive) kinetic energy tending to expand the nucleon, but the (positive and increasing quickly with distance) strong force keeps the nucleon small, an their sum is positive?

Yes, the strong force binds the quarks together.

 

Then, the quarks and gluons wouldn't even need a "rest mass" (whatever this may mean here) to achieve the nucleons' mass.

You mean that the total mass could come from the binding energy. This for sure is not the case here, but in general mathematically I am not sure that it is possible. I am wondering if the lack of rest frame means that 'massless quarks' could not form bound states - I am not sure.

Edited by ajb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.