# Higgs (split from unification?)

## Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Strange said:
!

Moderator Note

I guess I hit a button by asking these questions?  I thought they were legitimate questions.  I really don't know why these methods are not considered to solve unification problems.  I don't know why I wouldn't want to pursue it in the future.

##### Share on other sites

Conjure it might help to understand QFT better before drawing conclusions. The issue lies in the renormalization of a group or set. QFT does set boundary conditions those are the IR and UV boundary conditions. However this doesn't solve renormalization. You can still end up with Infinities in the effective degrees of freedom in regards to the one loop integrals of the Feymann diagrams.

For example what is the upper boundary for mass ? I certainly don't know, yet if you quantize gravity where each graviton is described by a one loop interaction then you have no limit to the number of gravitons (just apply that term to a quanta unit of gravity) Ie the graviton propogator.

As the gravitational field strength increases the number density of graviton would also increase. However more importantly you cannot limit the number of one loop corrections.

This is where the real problem lies with unifying gravity. We have successfully unified the other forces. We have effective renormalization groups for the strong, weak and EM field and we can describe those fields at any given energy scale. While most importantly the mass terms of every particle involved do not vary (invariant or rest mass) at any energy scale.

Not so with trying to quantize gravity.

Edited by Mordred

##### Share on other sites

If someone wanted to answer this, could it be moved to speculations?  I was really wanting to know the answer to these questions.  I have been wondering about it for a while now.

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

For example what is the upper boundary for mass ? I certainly don't know, yet if you quantize gravity where each graviton is described by a one loop interaction then you have no limit to the number of gravitons (just apply that term to a quanta unit of gravity) Ie the graviton propogator.

Wouldn't be better to attempt to unify QFT by considering GR to be the Higgs Field, instead of a graviton, since the Higgs Boson was discovered and the graviton never was?  I thought there was heavy debate if the graviton was actually even a particle that exist, as a real particle or not.  Isn't the Higgs Field a scaler similar to spacetime in GR?

Einstein did prove that the number of gravitons would be infinite, so I never bought into the graviton theory because of that.

##### Share on other sites

The Higgs field doesn't account for all the mass terms of all particles. It is simply one of many contributors. It only describes two out of the eighteen SM model coupling constants.

Edited by Mordred

##### Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mordred said:

The Higgs field doesn't account for all the mass terms of all particles. It is simply one of many contributors. It only describes two out of the eighteen SM model coupling constants.

Is the Higgs Field still a work in progress?  When the discovery of the Higgs Boson was made, a lot of different people were saying that the Higgs Field gives mass to all other particles by moving through it.

##### Share on other sites

It contributes to the mass terms but doesn't account for all the mass terms. Yes it is still a working progress but the Higgs field only gives the mass to certain particles such as quarks neutrinos and leptons. However that doesn't account for all the mass of every particle.

For example the equation below has all 18 coupling constants involved however the relativity section is non renormalizable.

$\mathcal{L}=\underbrace{\mathbb{R}}_{GR}-\overbrace{\underbrace{\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}}_{Yang-Mills}}^{Maxwell}+\underbrace{i\overline{\psi}\gamma^\mu D_\mu \psi}_{Dirac}+\underbrace{|D_\mu h|^2-V(|h|)}_{Higgs}+\underbrace{h\overline{\psi}\psi}_{Yukawa}$

As you can see we have the Yukawa and Dirac couplings along with the Higgs couplings.

Edited by Mordred

##### Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mordred said:

It contributes to the mass terms but doesn't account for all the mass terms. Yes it is still a working progress but the Higgs field only gives the mass to certain particles such as quarks neutrinos and leptons. However that doesn't account for all the mass of every particle.

It seems like it would make unification that much more complicated when there is already a proven theory that does a half ass job of describing gravity.  I would guess the present situation on unification would just be waiting for that issue to resolve.

##### Share on other sites

Ok so can you quarantee particles will have the same mass terms beyond the Event horizon of a black hole ? The theory we have can only handle a given range of mass values. That range is only a small portion of the possible range of mass.

Think of the Golden rule the laws of physics must be the same in all reference frames. When answering the above.

Next question with symmetry breaking one can know when different fields unify or becomes in thermal equilibrium. This is done by running of the coupling constants. At what temperature does gravity unify with the electroweak force ?

If you don't know the answer then can you unify gravity with the other forces.

Edited by Mordred

##### Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Ok so can you quarantee particles will have the same mass terms beyond the Event horizon of a black hole ? The theory we have can only handle a given range of mass values. That range is only a small portion of the possible range of mass.

Doesn't the laws of physics change at that point?  I haven't heard of that method ever being successful.  What good is unification if you are left with different laws of physics?

23 minutes ago, Mordred said:

If you don't know the answer then can you unify gravity with the other forces.

What particles does the Higgs Field even leave out with it's description of gravity?  Just the guage bosons?  They are not even supposed to have mass, so it would make it seem like unification is no longer even necessary.  Part of the hype of the discovery of the Higgs Boson was to accomplish this goal.

##### Share on other sites

I can name several gauge bosons with mass. You might want to consider the w+ and w- gauge bosons. There is no criteria that all gauge bosons must be massless. It is literally the neutrino mass terms that required the SM model to become extended.

The mass term also correlates the range of a force. Ever wonder why the EM field is infinite in extent while the weak or strong force are not ? To answer that you need the gauge boson mass terms.

Edited by Mordred

##### Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Mordred said:

I can name several gauge bosons with mass. You might want to consider the w+ and w- gauge bosons. There is no criteria that all gauge bosons must be massless. It is literally the neutrino mass terms that required the SM model to become extended.

I heard that you can do a triangle test with the z and w to get the mass of a Higgs Boson in GeV.  I got the same answer, but after the mass was already found.  Then they seem to be directly related to the Higgs Boson in it's symmetry breaking.

I just remembered that they planned to build a new accelerator to look into this further that smashes these bosons or something.  Do you know if they still plan on doing this?

Edited by Conjurer

##### Share on other sites

The above isn't quite accurate what your referring to is the numerous indpendent unitary triangles of the CKM and PMNS mass mixing matrixes

There are six independent triangles in the CKM. Through those mixing we also correlate particle generations. Yes you  get a correlation to the Higgs mass value by the bosons you mentioned however I needed to show you what is meant by triangle. Your descriptive above lacked that clarity for other readers./posters.

Ie needs that detail so everyone recognizes your describing a unitary triangle.

Edited by Mordred

##### Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Ie needs that detail so everyone recognizes your describing a unitary triangle.

I was in a different forum around the time the Higgs Boson was discovered, and a guy named smarterthaneinstien suggested it.  Then he was banned shortly afterwards, because of his username.  It said to use a literal triangle test.  Then I literally put it into the Pythagorean Theorem with the values they gave for those particles, and a web calculator that converts GeV gave me the mass of the Higgs Boson in GeV.  Then I didn't mention it further, because no one else cared to actually try the calculation.  I didn't want to get banned.

I guess they have found a better way to achieve this since then?  It makes it seem like the mass of the w and z might have to do more with the Higgs Boson itself, rather than the Higgs Field.  If they can explain the Higgs Boson mass, then it seems like the Higgs Boson could describe their masses and vice versa...

Edited by Conjurer

##### Share on other sites

The Higgs boson mass can be derived through those mixing angles. There is advantages to using normalized units hence the mixing angles to establish the correlation.

The factor that the above also accounts for is helicity of particles under the right hand rule. Example photon has two polarity states. As well as being its own antiparticle.

##### Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Mordred said:

The Higgs boson mass can be derived through those mixing angles. There is advantages to using normalized units hence the mixing angles to establish the correlation.

The factor that the above also accounts for is helicity of particles under the right hand rule. Example photon has two polarity states. As well as being its own antiparticle.

It seems like that being the only situation where geometric angles come into play in QFT, it would be the best place to start in trying to unify gravity with the theory, since GR itself is based on the observation of light in a similar situation.  It seems like it would be difficult to describe the Higgs Boson as a force carrier, since it doesn't arrive until after a collision and being more massive than the other particles in the nucleus.  It could just be a result of our lack of understanding the description of the mathematics, and it is practically already solved.

I was under the impression that the photon didn't have an antiparticle.  It couldn't be an ordinary antiparticle, since you couldn't have a normal particle antiparticle collision with photons.

##### Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

I was under the impression that the photon didn't have an antiparticle.  It couldn't be an ordinary antiparticle, since you couldn't have a normal particle antiparticle collision with photons.

No they are charge neutral bosons which can be it's own antiparticle another is the Z boson. Higgs boson as well.

Edited by Mordred

##### Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

No they are charge neutral bosons which can be it's own antiparticle another is the Z boson. Higgs boson as well.

Is the Z boson fundamental?  As in it cannot break down into any other smaller particle?

Yes

##### Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Conjurer said:

I guess I hit a button by asking these questions?  I thought they were legitimate questions.  I really don't know why these methods are not considered to solve unification problems.  I don't know why I wouldn't want to pursue it in the future.

!

Moderator Note

There were a number of assertions, which is one problem, since they were nonsensical.

And the problem with the questions is that you hijacked the discussion. The thread was about unification and these posts are about educating you on the Higgs and other issues.

The “button” you pushed was ”I’m going to disregard the rules”

##### Share on other sites

I thought this discussion was over.  I don't see why it was made into a new thread we were finished talking about.  I thought we came to the conclusion that the closest we have come to being able to make unification would just be discovering how the w and z obtains mass.  That seemed to be the answer of the question of the thread at this point, which was ripped out of it.

Edited by Conjurer

##### Share on other sites
Just now, Conjurer said:

I thought this discussion was over.  I don't see why it was made into a new thread we were finished talking about.  I thought we came to the conclusion that the closest we have come to being to make unification would just be discovering how the w and z obtains mass.  That seemed to be the answer of the question of the thread at this point, which was ripped out of it.

The W and Z bosons get their mass from the Higgs mechanism. Which has little or nothing to do with the original thread.

##### Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Strange said:

The W and Z bosons get their mass from the Higgs mechanism. Which has little or nothing to do with the original thread.

I understood unification as just meaning the unification of all the forces of nature.  Then if there is a description of gravity in QFT, then that description would only need to be completed to unify all the forces.  From what you said, it sounds like you believe that we already achieved unification.  I thought they would have to assume that the z boson is truly fundamental to accomplish this, like they had to assume that the photon was truly fundamental to advance this part of the theory.  Then I thought the discussion was over.

I not sure how to react to these new threads and getting a warning when I was already done talking about what I wanted to say about the topic.

Edited by Conjurer

##### Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

I understood unification as just meaning the unification of all the forces of nature.

Not really. It is about how to combine GR and quantum theory. (That might lead to a unified model for all forces, but it might not.)

5 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

From what you said, it sounds like you believe that we already achieved unification.

What on Earth makes you think that. All I said was that the W and Z (and Higgs) bosons get their mass from the Higgs mechanism. That has nothing to do with the unification of GR and QM.

5 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

I thought they would have to assume that the z boson is truly fundamental to accomplish this, like they had to assume that the photon was truly fundamental to advance this part of the theory.

The Z boson is fundamental. Why would that be relevant?

5 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

I not sure how to react to these new threads and getting a warning when I was already done talking about what I wanted to say about the topic.

You continued to promote the same nonsense after being told not to. So the thread was split off.

!

Moderator Note

You are now hijacking this thread with a discussion of forum rules. Stop it. Start a thread in the appropriate place if you want to talk about that.

##### Share on other sites

Quite honestly using mass terms derived by the mass of other particles doesn't determine why the Higgs field or Higgs boson has the coupling constants that it does. Comparing the mass term cross sections allows one to calculate the mass of the Higgs boson. However does nothing to determine why the VeV for example is 246 Gev.

Secondly the Higgs mechanism is not a step toward unifying gravity with QM. The step to do that requires a theory with zero renormalization divergences. The Higgs field will not solve that issue but provides some clues as to how some of the mass terms come about.

Edited by Mordred

##### Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Strange said:

Not really. It is about how to combine GR and quantum theory. (That might lead to a unified model for all forces, but it might not.)

I thought unification was a more general term with the goal of unifying the forces of nature.  Combining QFT with GR is one way to accomplish that goal, but I didn't see it as a requirement.  Then I started mentioning other areas of physics I thought could accomplish that goal, since unification would encompasses all of the laws of physics by including a combination of all the forces of nature.

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

The Z boson is fundamental. Why would that be relevant?

Then it could be treated as a particle that is a constituent of every other particle.  You wouldn't have to worry about it possibly being composed of any other particle that has not yet been discovered.  Then it could prevent the theory from being proven false by the discovery of a new particle.  It opens the possibility that other particles have it as a part of it's constituents.

14 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Quite honestly using mass terms derived by the mass of other particles doesn't determine why the Higgs field or Higgs boson has the coupling constants that it does. Comparing the mass term cross sections allows one to calculate the mass of the Higgs boson. However does nothing to determine why the VeV for example is 246 Gev.

Secondly the Higgs mechanism is not a step toward unifying gravity with QM. The step to do that requires a theory with zero renormalization divergences. The Higgs field will not solve that issue but provides some clues as to how some of the mass terms come about.

You seemed to be the only one that had any idea what they were talking about in trying to approach a unification theory.  It made it seem like more work needs to be done with the Higgs Field to accomplish unification of the forces of nature.  That would be the best approach to take.

##### Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×