# Higgs and gravity - Just a layman thought

## Recommended Posts

So this Higgs field is supposed to give mass to particles by interacting with them.

The way I see it (I'm a layman!) this implies that mass is very similar to kinetic energy. And this, in turn, implies that all particles are moving relative to the higgs field at constant speed.

Am I saying something super wrong until now? LOL

So, what if gravity is just a distortion on the higgs field caused by particles passing trough it?

Like air.

Exactly in the way that you put to sheets of paper parallel to each other and by blowing in the middle you reduce the air pressure between the sheets of paper and cause them to appear attracted together, two particles moving trough the higgs field parallel to each other would cause the "higgs pressure" to be less between the particles and the higgs field would push the particles together creating gravity.

Is this totally ridiculous?

##### Share on other sites

YES ... a bit ridiculous!!!

Great!

##### Share on other sites

I don't see how "the Higgs field gives mass to the elementary particles" suggests the statement "mass is very similar to kinetic energy".

##### Share on other sites

When moving object is affected by Higgs field , Higgs potential energy is del E= mc2 - 1/2 r m c2 (v/c)2.

When object moves at the speed of light, del E=0

Something strange.

when object moves at the speed of light, r = 2 ????

Edited by alpha2cen

##### Share on other sites

I don't see how "the Higgs field gives mass to the elementary particles" suggests the statement "mass is very similar to kinetic energy".

Oh... It came from an explanation of the higgs field "mechanics" I saw some were...

The explanation was that, without mass all particles would be moving at the speed of light. But they have this drag created by the higgs field that slows them down and gives the illusion of mass.

In my mind I've tried to picture this has an object traveling in water... But is very hard to imagine a mass-less object that travels through water and interacts with it and so is showed down by it

Then I've started to imagine the effects this interaction would have on the field it self. I mean, if a bullet is slowed down by water it has to move water out of it's way at the same time.

If a field is composed by particles (water is a lot of H2O as the Higgs is a lot of Higgs Bosons) it should have at least similar behaviors...

I know that there must be a lot of properties and laws that I don't know about. I'm basically here to learn and if people start to point out how ridiculous my ideas are and telling me why I will learn a lot!

Alpha2cen:

Can you please translate from mathematical to English?

I know it's not possible to exactly translate.

I would be happy if you just say what "r" stands for. I think understand the rest....

##### Share on other sites

When moving object is affected by Higgs field , Higgs potential energy is del E= mc2 - 1/2 r m c2 (v/c)2.

When object moves at the speed of light, del E=0

Something strange.

when object moves at the speed of light, r = 2 ????

Can you please translate from mathematical to English?

I know it's not possible to exactly translate.

I would be happy if you just say what "r" stands for. I think understand the rest....

del E= mc2 - 1/2 r m c2 (v/c)2

c; speed of light

del E; Higgs field potential energy difference

m; mass

r;Lorentz factor r=(1-(v/c)2)-1/2

v; speed of object

Right first term is a mass energy.

Second term is a kinetic energy.

Edited by alpha2cen

##### Share on other sites

The explanation [of the Higgs mechanism that I saw] was that, without mass all particles would be moving at the speed of light. But they have this drag created by the higgs field that slows them down and gives the illusion of mass.

In my mind I've tried to picture this has an object traveling in water... But is very hard to imagine a mass-less object that travels through water and interacts with it and so is showed down by it.

Then I've started to imagine the effects this interaction would have on the field it self. I mean, if a bullet is slowed down by water it has to move water out of it's way at the same time.

If a field is composed by particles (water is a lot of H2O as the Higgs is a lot of Higgs Bosons) it should have at least similar behaviors...

The line of thought is not that bad, in my opinion. Of course, it relies on the analogy with the slowing down to also be a good analogy for this aspect. As you correctly say yourself (in the part I didn't quote), that may or may not be the case. But I don't want to go into this question at the moment, because saying "the analogy breaks down here" would be a cheap excuse for an answer, and I cannot offer a better one at the moment.

What I personally find more interesting or fruitful (and you are invited to disagree) is still considering the question I asked above: You have explained your thought a bit more now. But I still don't see how they warrant the conclusion that "mass is very similar to kinetic energy".

##### Share on other sites

The line of thought is not that bad, in my opinion. Of course, it relies on the analogy with the slowing down to also be a good analogy for this aspect. As you correctly say yourself (in the part I didn't quote), that may or may not be the case. But I don't want to go into this question at the moment, because saying "the analogy breaks down here" would be a cheap excuse for an answer, and I cannot offer a better one at the moment.

What I personally find more interesting or fruitful (and you are invited to disagree) is still considering the question I asked above: You have explained your thought a bit more now. But I still don't see how they warrant the conclusion that "mass is very similar to kinetic energy".

Well... I just assumed it had to have something to do with kinetic energy because it involves moving particles being slowed down by a force.

In my layman mind, with very limited knowledge, movement means that it has something to do with kinetic energy... Yap! Just that... lol

But you ended up making me think a lot more about the statement I've naively made... If particles would be traveling at the speed of light in the absence of the higgs field something has to cause that.

And, more important for my line of thought, alpha2cen as written some equations that I've been trying to understand involving this king of stuff. I don't know enough mathematics to fully understand his equations and I've been trying a lot! LOL

But it gave me an idea. What about taking the famous E=mc^2 and replace "m" for something that has to do with interactions with the higgs and the energy involved in the supposedly slowing down of the particles (maybe the kinetic energy has place here...) Maybe that's exactly what apha2cen has made there... But I fail to understand.

Anyway, if we can get it right with E=(higgs and particles slowing down formula replacing "m") c^2

Maybe we can use E=mc^2 to also calculate the reaction of the Higgs field and see if it has something to do with gravity.

Yes! I know that the line of thought just got blurred, twisted and bad... Any chance some of you would help out?

del E= mc2 - 1/2 r m c2 (v/c)2

c; speed of light

del E; Higgs field potential energy difference

m; mass

r;Lorentz factor r=(1-(v/c)2)-1/2

v; speed of object

Right first term is a mass energy.

Second term is a kinetic energy.

HELP! lol

So, calculating r=(1-(v/c)^2)^-1/2 when v=c is easy and the result is obviously 0.

It makes perfect sense because "c" is constant regardless of frame of reference. I looked up Lorentz transformations in Wikipedia and I think my last statement is correct... or is it not?

But, when calculating del E= mc2 - 1/2 r m c2 (v/c)2 when v=c I end up with del E = - r/2 and I sure I got wrong!

Also, can I assume del E = 0 in the case a particle moves at v=c and therefore doesn't interact with the higgs field?

that would give me 0 = - r/2 or r=0 and not r=2

Thanks

Edited by Antonioctd

##### Share on other sites

HELP! lol

So, calculating r=(1-(v/c)^2)^-1/2 when v=c is easy and the result is obviously 0.

It makes perfect sense because "c" is constant regardless of frame of reference. I looked up Lorentz transformations in Wikipedia and I think my last statement is correct... or is it not?

But, when calculating del E= mc2 - 1/2 r m c2 (v/c)2 when v=c I end up with del E = - r/2 and I sure I got wrong!

Also, can I assume del E = 0 in the case a particle moves at v=c and therefore doesn't interact with the higgs field?

that would give me 0 = - r/2 or r=0 and not r=2

Thanks

Higgs potential energy del E

del E = mc2- (r m c2 - mc2)

=2mc2- r m c2

modify

del E= 2 f( r )mc2- r m c2

where

f( r ); function, whose independent variable is r

when v=c, f( r )=1/2 r , del E =0

v=vi, f( r )=?

v=0, f( r )=1, del E = mc2

Edited by alpha2cen

##### Share on other sites

So this Higgs field is supposed to give mass to particles by interacting with them.

The way I see it (I'm a layman!) this implies that mass is very similar to kinetic energy. And this, in turn, implies that all particles are moving relative to the higgs field at constant speed.

Am I saying something super wrong until now? LOL

So, what if gravity is just a distortion on the higgs field caused by particles passing trough it?

Like air.

Exactly in the way that you put to sheets of paper parallel to each other and by blowing in the middle you reduce the air pressure between the sheets of paper and cause them to appear attracted together, two particles moving trough the higgs field parallel to each other would cause the "higgs pressure" to be less between the particles and the higgs field would push the particles together creating gravity.

Is this totally ridiculous?

The universe is rediculous. It continues to shock me. First it was the speed of light, then knowing Einstein's relativity. The more I dig into astronomy and fundamental physics, the more I feel like I am just carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and others.

## Create an account

Register a new account