Notices
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Massless Particles

  1. #1 Massless Particles 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,886
    What makes a particle massless?

    I have heard that the Higg's particle may be responsible for giving particles mass.Does that mean that "masslessness" is the default nature of particles?

    In which case nothing "makes" particles massless; it is just what they are without the influence of the Higg's field.

    Apologies in advance for the multiple instances of misunderstandings undoubtedly in my post


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,657
    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post
    What makes a particle massless?

    I have heard that the Higg's particle may be responsible for giving particles mass.Does that mean that "masslessness" is the default nature of particles?

    In which case nothing "makes" particles massless; it is just what they are without the influence of the Higg's field.

    Apologies in advance for the multiple instances of misunderstandings undoubtedly in my post
    The Higgs field confers mass on elementary particles (electron, W and Z, quarks...). Composite particles (such as the proton and neutron) get almost all of their mass from binding energy.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    As for why photons don't get given mass by the Higgs mechanism .... I'm not sure there is an easy answer. It is related to the symmetry breaking of the electroweak force to the weak and electromagnetic and how that affects different types of particles. (That is another way of saying, I don't really understand it!)

    Ultimately, though, it is because we see other gauge bosons having mass and the photon not, and so the Higgs mechanism was defined in such a way to describe that.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    5
    electrons can be formed in a collider, and are not elementary. When unable to explain mass, you merely create a new particle that does that for you, with no logic or real mechanism.

    Pair production is the only known way to create matter, yet matter creation per big bang theory has no known mechanism. Higgs is a dead end in cosmology, dark matter is the key..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    5
    Electrons can be formed in a collider, and are not elementary. When unable to explain mass, status quo theorists merely create a new particle that does that for them, with no logic or real mechanism.

    Pair production is the only known way to create matter, yet matter creation per big bang theory has no known mechanism. Higgs is a dead end in cosmology, dark matter is the key..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,657
    Quote Originally Posted by Mudd View Post
    Electrons can be formed in a collider, and are not elementary. When unable to explain mass, status quo theorists merely create a new particle that does that for them, with no logic or real mechanism.

    Pair production is the only known way to create matter, yet matter creation per big bang theory has no known mechanism. Higgs is a dead end in cosmology, dark matter is the key..
    Please don't post utter shite with such confidence. "Often wrong but never in doubt" should be left to non-science sites.

    Electrons are elementary particles as far as we know. They have no sub-structure. See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle

    As for "merely" creating new particles, it is not as arbitrary nor casual as you make it sound. Science adapts to new information. Why do you think we spend billions to get new information?

    So, please do piss off until you learn some actual science. And again, electrons are elementary particles.

    Thank you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,616
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post
    What makes a particle massless?

    I have heard that the Higg's particle may be responsible for giving particles mass.Does that mean that "masslessness" is the default nature of particles?

    In which case nothing "makes" particles massless; it is just what they are without the influence of the Higg's field.

    Apologies in advance for the multiple instances of misunderstandings undoubtedly in my post
    The Higgs field confers mass on elementary particles (electron, W and Z, quarks...). Composite particles (such as the proton and neutron) get almost all of their mass from binding energy.
    A question on "binding energy": I have always understood that the energy of a bound state is generally taken to be less than that of the unbound state, as seen for instance in the energy input required to ionise an atom, freeing an electron, or in the energy input required for a satellite to escape the gravitation of a planet.

    How is it that for quarks, the energy of the bound state is greater than that of their free state? And how does this not result in quarks being only metastable when combined into baryons?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,886
    I forgot I had started this thread

    Is the Higgs Field an area in progress or is it "fully formed" as it were and it is only the consequences that researchers are dealing with?

    Also "symmetry breaking" is a term I have encountered a few times now(I don't have a handle on its meaning). How does it apply in this instance?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    63
    Content deleted by mod as off-topic and entirely irrelevant.
    Last edited by Dywyddyr; November 18th, 2017 at 03:47 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,657
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    A question on "binding energy": I have always understood that the energy of a bound state is generally taken to be less than that of the unbound state, as seen for instance in the energy input required to ionise an atom, freeing an electron, or in the energy input required for a satellite to escape the gravitation of a planet.

    How is it that for quarks, the energy of the bound state is greater than that of their free state? And how does this not result in quarks being only metastable when combined into baryons?
    An excellent question, as always, exchemist!

    There is an unfortunate trickiness associated with the energy ledger, because it takes an infinite amount of energy to separate quarks. That infinity is but one that regrettably rather mucks up the calculation. Further complicating matters is that one would need to know the mass of an isolated quark, but it's theoretically infinite (published experimental values are necessarily for non--isolated quarks). But at least we can conclude that the energy of the bound state is smaller than that of the unbound state in accord with your expectation.
    Last edited by tk421; November 18th, 2017 at 11:01 PM. Reason: last sentence did not appear the first time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 13
    Last Post: June 25th, 2014, 11:08 PM
  2. energy in massless particles?
    By 15uliane in forum Physics
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: April 22nd, 2013, 08:27 AM
  3. Seeing particles
    By Darkmatter in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 17th, 2012, 05:06 PM
  4. Are photons really massless?
    By Green Xenon in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: January 26th, 2012, 12:05 AM
  5. Particles
    By verzen in forum Physics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: March 24th, 2010, 04:04 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •