Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
So why is a Top quark heavier than a Higgs boson?
42 views
Skip to first unread message
Yousuf Khan
Jul 6, 2012, 7:02:50 PM7/6/12
to
Why is the Top quark (174 GeV) heavier than the Higgs boson (126 GeV)?
And since it's heavier, why was it easier find the Top quark first
rather than the Higgs? Usually it seems heavier stuff get discovered later.
Yousuf Khan
And since it's heavier, why was it easier find the Top quark first
rather than the Higgs? Usually it seems heavier stuff get discovered later.
Yousuf Khan
Sam Wormley
Jul 6, 2012, 7:34:51 PM7/6/12
to
the input and decay particles.
Chris Richardson
Jul 6, 2012, 7:53:16 PM7/6/12
to
was found. No one knew where to look for the Higgs and it could
have even been beyond the range capable with the LHC.
Once the top quark was found, then the mass range for the Higgs
could be narrowed and the expected decay products could be hunted
in those ranges.
hanson
Jul 6, 2012, 10:11:27 PM7/6/12
to
"Yousuf Khan" <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote;
> Why is the Top quark (174 GeV) heavier than the Higgs boson (126 GeV)? And
> since it's heavier, why was it easier find the Top quark first rather than
> the Higgs? Usually it seems heavier stuff get discovered later.
>
hanson wrote:
> since it's heavier, why was it easier find the Top quark first rather than
> the Higgs? Usually it seems heavier stuff get discovered later.
>
Yossel, it is kinda sad that you got 2 very feeble
and typical whishy-washy responses from the
2 goys, Sam Warmley and pseudoki-Richardson.
>
But certainly your questions will be answered, with
authority, as soon as the 2 REAL experts do chime in,
namely __ Yehiel Porat & G=EMC^2-Glazier___.
>
The former one, Yehiel, has copyrighted and posted
that "all particles are built from smaller ones starting
with his 'circlon".. (heavy on the "culo" & "colon")..
and..
Hebe-Herbie has said that he is an "Imperial Thinker"
(heavy on the "stinker") because he "knows how
everything works".
>
I hope that you can follow their seminal responses.
Till then, Yossel, thanks for the laughs... ahahanson
>
PS:
Yossel, between you, me & the gate post:
Is the figure for the particle's MASS
126 GeV OR is it 126 GeV/c^2 ?? Both sizes
are seen published: 126 GeV & 126 GeV/c^2.
But the numeric size/amount is 9E20x apart.
Which is it? What gives, Yossel?
Yousuf Khan
Jul 6, 2012, 11:49:45 PM7/6/12
to
On 06/07/2012 7:53 PM, Chris Richardson wrote:
> The mass range of the Higgs was not known until the top quark
> was found. No one knew where to look for the Higgs and it could
> have even been beyond the range capable with the LHC.
>
> Once the top quark was found, then the mass range for the Higgs
> could be narrowed and the expected decay products could be hunted
> in those ranges.
Yes, yes, that's all known from the press copy, but why was the Higg's
> The mass range of the Higgs was not known until the top quark
> was found. No one knew where to look for the Higgs and it could
> have even been beyond the range capable with the LHC.
>
> Once the top quark was found, then the mass range for the Higgs
> could be narrowed and the expected decay products could be hunted
> in those ranges.
range narrowed by the Top? What is the reason that the Higgs is so
massive, yet not the *most* massive particle? More massive particles
decay into less massive particles, so based on that, a Top quark should
conceivably be able to decay into a Higgs (in some scenario), but none
of the other quarks can decay into a Higgs, because a Higgs is more
massive than them. That would make the Top quark somewhat different than
all of the other quarks that are smaller than it, because it would have
conceivably come into existence just before the Higgs came into
existence after the Big Bang.
What am I not seeing here?
Yousuf Khan
Chris Richardson
Jul 7, 2012, 12:31:50 AM7/7/12
to
On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 23:49:45 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
> but why was the Higg's range narrowed by the Top?
>
The top quark, according to the Standard Model, couples
>
> but why was the Higg's range narrowed by the Top?
>
more strongly to the Higgs than do other particles. The
mass of the top then can fix the mass of the Higgs.
Why this is the case I cannot answer because I don't have
an in-depth knowledge of quantum chromodynamics or the SM.
But Fermilab has been refining its estimate of the top
quark mass for a long time which provided a good estimate
for the Higgs mass.
> What is the reason that the Higgs is so
> massive, yet not the *most* massive particle?
But also search for "top quark decay."
guskz
Jul 7, 2012, 8:57:13 AM7/7/12
to
The point of the story is that killing others never profits anyone.
Yousuf Khan
Jul 7, 2012, 2:54:49 PM7/7/12
to
to ask is:
(1) Even if the Higgs isn't the most massive particle, a related
question would be, why isn't it the least massive particle?
(2) A Higgs is so massive, it must mean that it's only got a short
distance effectiveness -- probably similar effective distance as Gluons,
i.e. only works within a distance of an atomic nucleus or less. So in
order for it to have an effect at all, it must exist everywhere in
"empty" space separated by no more than Planck Lengths. Thus it must be
existent at a huge density, so why isn't Space itself the most massive
thing in the universe, with such a high density of Higgs?
Yousuf Khan
Chris Richardson
Jul 7, 2012, 3:13:41 PM7/7/12
to
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 14:54:49 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
> (2) A Higgs is so massive, it must mean that it's only got a short
> distance effectiveness ...
>
> (2) A Higgs is so massive, it must mean that it's only got a short
Thus it must be
> existent at a huge density, so why isn't Space itself the most massive
> thing in the universe, with such a high density of Higgs?
>
You are looking at it the wrong way.
> existent at a huge density, so why isn't Space itself the most massive
> thing in the universe, with such a high density of Higgs?
>
The "thing" which exists is the Higgs *field*. Particles couple
to the Higgs field through the Higgs boson. The Higgs *field* exists
everywhere with a certain energy. The Higgs boson does not.
The significance of this LHC Higgs boson discovery is that it demonstrates
the reality of the Higgs field.
Yousuf Khan
Jul 8, 2012, 10:21:47 AM7/8/12
to
How big is the force field for a Gluon, or a W or Z boson? They are at
most no more than the size of an atomic nucleus. And all of those bosons
are also *less* massive than a Higgs. The only boson known until now to
have such a long distance field was the Photon, which is massless.
Also if a Higgs particle is so unstable that it decays in a few
nanoseconds, then how does it get a chance to propagate its field out to
such distances?
Yousuf Khan
Chris Richardson
Jul 8, 2012, 12:30:03 PM7/8/12
to
On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 10:21:47 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
> Then how does the field for such a massive particle extend out so far?
>
The field comes first, not the particle.
>
> Then how does the field for such a massive particle extend out so far?
>
The particle is associated with the field, and not vice versa.
The Higgs field is everywhere. It is inherent in the vacuum.
Forget about the Higgs particle. It is just a manifestation
of the Higgs field, which is the central concept.
Please do a simple search for "Higgs field" or "Higgs mechanism"
and read some of the pages.
The importance of the Higgs field is that it relates to
the phenomenon of electroweak symmetry breaking. As you
know, immediately after the Big Bang, the temperature of
the universe was extremely high. Conditions were so
hot that there was no difference between the EM field
and the weak field. A while later things cooled a bit
to break this symmetry and the EM became distinct from
the weak field, and the Higgs mechanism gave particles
mass.
A fuller explanation involves quantum field theory, spinors,
symmetry transformations, etc., and I am not versed in this
area.
But the Higgs field was the original postulate. The discovery
of the Higgs boson, if that's what it actually is, only
confirms the Higgs field.
Jeff-Relf.Me
Jul 8, 2012, 4:07:30 PM7/8/12
to
I like "you guys" ( Yousuf⋅Khan and Chris⋅Richardson );
however, Yousuf⋅Khan is MUCH nicer.
Chris, if you ( like CERN ) can't explain particle physics
to laymen like treBert and me... it's your loss, not ours.
No wonder you get so enraged, flinging shit like a monkey.
When the Known Universe was much hotter and denser,
closer to the start of the "big bang", there might've
been a Top Quark condensate ( NOT a Higgs field ).
Over giga⋅years, the QUALITY of energy
( call it "exergy", energy that can do work )
of the Known Universe has dropped.
The mass of the Known Unverse only ever goes down, not up.
The Standard Model of Particle Physics is merely
a list of known quanta. Anti⋅Matter aside,
it makes NO predictions about the mass of undiscovered quanta.
By the way, CERN says their so⋅called "Higgs boson"
has no spin; i.e. it's "scalar", directionless.
Now they want to know if it's chiral¹, "pseudoscalar".
[ ¹: You are "chiral" because, when you raise your right hand,
your mirror image raises its left hand ]
Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq.
Jul 8, 2012, 4:13:54 PM7/8/12
to
<@Jeff-Relf.Me> wrote in message
news:Jeff-Relf.Me@2012_Jul.8^1.07^PM...
[...]
When the Known Universe was much hotter and denser,
closer to the start of the "big bang", there might've
been a Top Quark condensate ( NOT a Higgs field ).
Over giga⋅years, the QUALITY of energy
( call it "exergy", energy that can do work )
of the Known Universe has dropped.
The mass of the Known Unverse only ever goes down, not
up.
[...]
Wrong! You claim Einstein is right and he was a
proponent
of convervation of mass and energy in a closed system.
I maintain the universe is a closed system. So did
Einstein.
--
Sir Gregory
news:Jeff-Relf.Me@2012_Jul.8^1.07^PM...
[...]
When the Known Universe was much hotter and denser,
closer to the start of the "big bang", there might've
been a Top Quark condensate ( NOT a Higgs field ).
Over giga⋅years, the QUALITY of energy
( call it "exergy", energy that can do work )
of the Known Universe has dropped.
The mass of the Known Unverse only ever goes down, not
up.
Wrong! You claim Einstein is right and he was a
proponent
of convervation of mass and energy in a closed system.
I maintain the universe is a closed system. So did
Einstein.
--
Sir Gregory
Jeff-Relf.Me
Jul 8, 2012, 4:25:49 PM7/8/12
to
The energy of the (semi⋅known) cosmos is fixed; its closed. Like I said: Over giga⋅years, the QUALITY of energy ( call it "exergy", energy that can do work ) of the (semi⋅known) cosmos drops. The mass of the (semi⋅known) cosmos only ever goes down, not up.
Jeff-Relf.Me
Jul 8, 2012, 5:56:24 PM7/8/12
to
By the way, Greg, Einstein is famous for e=mc² and nuclear energy, where mass is converted into energy ( energy that can do work, exergy ). Never did Einstein think: "[mass is conserved] in a closed system". Energy is conserved (e=mc²), not mass per se, not exergy.
Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq.
Jul 8, 2012, 6:04:10 PM7/8/12
to
<@Jeff-Relf.Me> wrote in message news:Jeff-Relf.Me@2012_Jul.8^2.56^PM...
But Jeff, mass and energy are just different states of the
same thing. . . That's what E=MC² means. The equation runs both ways, ya
know
--
Sir Gregory
Jeff-Relf.Me
Jul 8, 2012, 6:52:22 PM7/8/12
to
"Quality Energy" ( i.e. "exergy" ) can do work.
Mass is quality energy, it has exergy.
Net Net, All Things Considered: Exergy only goes down, not up.
You ( Greg ) seem to think the first law of thermodynamics¹
negates the second one², it doesn't.
[ ¹: Net Net, energy ( not mass, not exergy ) is conserved.
²: Net Net, exergy ( and mass ) only ever goes down, not up. ]
Like I said:
The energy of the (semi⋅known) cosmos is fixed ( "closed" );
but the QUALITY¹ of its energy drops.
The mass² of the (semi⋅known) cosmos only ever goes down, not up.
[ ¹: Call it "EXERGY", energy that can do work.
²: Mass is quality energy, it has exergy. ]
The Standard Model of Particle Physics is merely
a list of known quanta. Anti⋅Matter aside,
it makes NO predictions about the mass of undiscovered quanta.
When the Known Universe was much hotter and denser,
closer to the start of the "big bang", there might've
been a "Top Quark Condensate"¹ ( NOT a Higgs field ).
[ ¹: WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Top_quark_condensate ]
By the way, CERN says their so⋅called "Higgs boson"
has no spin; i.e. it's "scalar", directionless.
Now they want to know if it's chiral¹, "pseudoscalar".
[ ¹: You are "chiral" because, when you raise your right hand,
your mirror image raises its left hand ]
herc.o...@gmail.com
Jul 8, 2012, 7:08:41 PM7/8/12
to
Herc
Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq.
Jul 8, 2012, 7:12:37 PM7/8/12
to
<@Jeff-Relf.Me> wrote in message news:Jeff-Relf.Me@2012_Jul.8^3.52^PM...
Should the Higgs boson really turn out to be a particle then
the standard model says it must have an anti-particle, Yes? Spin doesn't much
matter as the paired particles will then both have no spin. But what about
charge? According to the standard model they must have opposite
charge.
"Exergy" is some made-up and meaningless concept. Sort
of an Orwellian NewSpeak talking point.
E = MC² , on the other hand, is a law of physics. On the
off chance that "exergy" is any kind of a
valid, stand-alone concept, it is already included in the
famous equation. Necessarily.
As the universe cools, it is assumed that the amount of energy
is lessened. WRONG! The universe is cooling because it's getting larger all the
time. The same net amount of energy exists at all times but it just becomes more
spread out - thus the cooling from a local perspective. The mass does not
disappear. It either remains existing or it turns into energy.
Let's assume the universe is not doomed to become ever larger
until the temperature becomes close to zero at some distant time in the future.
Let's assume that something causes it to stop expanding and to start
contracting. As it contracts it will heat up again. It if contracts into a
singularity as was the case at the big bang, it will contain the EXACT SAME
amount of mass/energy as it had when it started.
You know nothing about physics if you have yet to grasp this
obvious scenario, Jeff.
--
Sir Gregory
Jeff-Relf.Me
Jul 8, 2012, 7:37:26 PM7/8/12
to
You ( Greg ) claim the second law of thermodynmics is wrong. Likely, this is because you simply don't like the idea: Net Net, exergy ( the ability to do work ) diminishes with time. Never does it reverse ( all things considered ). If it goes up in one place, it goes down even more elsewhere. ⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅ Like all bosons, the Higgs boson is it's own anti⋅particle. Every photon is also an anti⋅photon, for example.
Michael Moroney
Jul 8, 2012, 11:33:52 PM7/8/12
to
@Jeff-Relf.Me writes:
>You ( Greg ) claim the second law of thermodynmics is wrong.
His point is valid: The total mass-energy is constant. E=mc^2 simply
>You ( Greg ) claim the second law of thermodynmics is wrong.
means it can change form between mass and energy.Like all bosons, the
> Higgs boson is it's own antiparticle.
> Every photon is also an antiphoton, for example.
The counterexample that proves Relf wrong: The antiparticle of the W+ is
the W-, not the W+. Same for all charged bosons, such as pi+/pi- for
example. This is not limited to charged particles, either. The K0 meson
and its antiparticle, K0[bar], are not the same, either.
guskz
Jul 9, 2012, 5:06:10 AM7/9/12
to
On Sunday, 8 July 2012 12:30:03 UTC-4, Chris Richardson wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 10:21:47 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
> >
> > Then how does the field for such a massive particle extend out so far?
> >
>
> The field comes first, not the particle.
>
> The particle is associated with the field, and not vice versa.
>
> The Higgs field is everywhere. It is inherent in the vacuum.
>
> Forget about the Higgs particle. It is just a manifestation
> of the Higgs field, which is the central concept.
>
> Please do a simple search for "Higgs field" or "Higgs mechanism"
> and read some of the pages.
>
> The importance of the Higgs field is that it relates to
> the phenomenon of electroweak symmetry breaking. As you
> know, immediately after the Big Bang, the temperature of
> the universe was extremely high. Conditions were so
> hot that there was no difference between the EM field
> and the weak field. A while later things cooled a bit
> to break this symmetry and the EM became distinct from
> the weak field, and the Higgs mechanism gave particles
Everything hot, everything the same, same force between them. As it cooled, new different products formed, where a group of similar products/particles produced a new %force of this same initial force, that "may also" sometimes interact differently with others than the initial force.
> On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 10:21:47 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
> >
> > Then how does the field for such a massive particle extend out so far?
> >
>
> The field comes first, not the particle.
>
> The particle is associated with the field, and not vice versa.
>
> The Higgs field is everywhere. It is inherent in the vacuum.
>
> Forget about the Higgs particle. It is just a manifestation
> of the Higgs field, which is the central concept.
>
> Please do a simple search for "Higgs field" or "Higgs mechanism"
> and read some of the pages.
>
> The importance of the Higgs field is that it relates to
> the phenomenon of electroweak symmetry breaking. As you
> know, immediately after the Big Bang, the temperature of
> the universe was extremely high. Conditions were so
> hot that there was no difference between the EM field
> and the weak field. A while later things cooled a bit
> to break this symmetry and the EM became distinct from
> the weak field, and the Higgs mechanism gave particles
guskz
Jul 9, 2012, 5:14:17 AM7/9/12
to
On Monday, 9 July 2012 05:06:10 UTC-4, guskz wrote:
> On Sunday, 8 July 2012 12:30:03 UTC-4, Chris Richardson wrote:
> > On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 10:21:47 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Then how does the field for such a massive particle extend out so far?
> > >
> >
> > The field comes first, not the particle.
> >
> > The particle is associated with the field, and not vice versa.
> >
> > The Higgs field is everywhere. It is inherent in the vacuum.
> >
> > Forget about the Higgs particle. It is just a manifestation
> > of the Higgs field, which is the central concept.
> >
> > Please do a simple search for "Higgs field" or "Higgs mechanism"
> > and read some of the pages.
> >
> > The importance of the Higgs field is that it relates to
> > the phenomenon of electroweak symmetry breaking. As you
> > know, immediately after the Big Bang, the temperature of
> > the universe was extremely high. Conditions were so
> > hot that there was no difference between the EM field
> > and the weak field. A while later things cooled a bit
> > to break this symmetry and the EM became distinct from
> > the weak field, and the Higgs mechanism gave particles
>
> Everything hot, everything the same, same force between them. As it cooled, new different products formed, where a group of similar products/particles produced a new %force of this same initial force, that "may also" sometimes interact differently with others than the initial force.
And they believe its 100% only about an actual "physical" symmetry that is no longer the same in all directions (x,y,z).
> On Sunday, 8 July 2012 12:30:03 UTC-4, Chris Richardson wrote:
> > On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 10:21:47 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Then how does the field for such a massive particle extend out so far?
> > >
> >
> > The field comes first, not the particle.
> >
> > The particle is associated with the field, and not vice versa.
> >
> > The Higgs field is everywhere. It is inherent in the vacuum.
> >
> > Forget about the Higgs particle. It is just a manifestation
> > of the Higgs field, which is the central concept.
> >
> > Please do a simple search for "Higgs field" or "Higgs mechanism"
> > and read some of the pages.
> >
> > The importance of the Higgs field is that it relates to
> > the phenomenon of electroweak symmetry breaking. As you
> > know, immediately after the Big Bang, the temperature of
> > the universe was extremely high. Conditions were so
> > hot that there was no difference between the EM field
> > and the weak field. A while later things cooled a bit
> > to break this symmetry and the EM became distinct from
> > the weak field, and the Higgs mechanism gave particles
>
> Everything hot, everything the same, same force between them. As it cooled, new different products formed, where a group of similar products/particles produced a new %force of this same initial force, that "may also" sometimes interact differently with others than the initial force.
Brad Guth
Jul 13, 2012, 12:40:34 AM7/13/12
to
On Jul 8, 4:37 pm, @Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> You ( Greg ) claim the second law of thermodynmics is wrong. Likely, this is because you simply don't like the idea: Net Net, exergy ( the ability to do work ) diminishes with time. Never does it reverse ( all things considered ). If it goes up in one place, it goes down even more elsewhere. ⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅ Like all bosons, the Higgs boson is it's own anti⋅particle. Every photon is also an anti⋅photon, for example.
Anything of equal matter and antimatter is going to seem to exist as a
> You ( Greg ) claim the second law of thermodynmics is wrong. Likely, this is because you simply don't like the idea: Net Net, exergy ( the ability to do work ) diminishes with time. Never does it reverse ( all things considered ). If it goes up in one place, it goes down even more elsewhere. ⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅ Like all bosons, the Higgs boson is it's own anti⋅particle. Every photon is also an anti⋅photon, for example.
zero mass. So, how much mass do those matter-antimatter parts of a
photon weigh?
How does time diminish energy?
Jeff-Relf.Me
Jul 13, 2012, 1:37:46 AM7/13/12
to
eXergy¹ ( not energy ) diminishes over time ( net net ). [ ¹: i.e. the QUALITY of energy, the ability to do work ]
Y.Porat
Jul 13, 2012, 3:39:18 AM7/13/12
to
On Monday, July 9, 2012 6:33:52 AM UTC+3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> @Jeff-Relf.Me writes:
>
> >You ( Greg ) claim the second law of thermodynmics is wrong.
> > Every photon is also an antiphoton, for example.
>
> The counterexample that proves Relf wrong: The antiparticle of the W+ isidiot
if E--- mc2
and it is conserved
Than mass is conservws as well
Aare youintelligent enough to understnd why
If so than mass is conserved as well. ?..
Moreover
It is the only mass did you already got that there is no relativistic ass
ND EBERY HAS MASS
and no particle neds anyone or anything to give it mass
So higs is dead at arrival and
Hundred of iditsthere while finding the higs
Are aplaoding like idiot crooks
Y.porat
--------
Sorry the typing mistakes
itis from mynew tablet
> @Jeff-Relf.Me writes:
>
> >You ( Greg ) claim the second law of thermodynmics is wrong.
>
> His point is valid: The total mass-energy is constant. E=mc^2 simply
> means it can change form between mass and energy.Like all bosons, the
>
> > Higgs boson is it's own antiparticle.
> His point is valid: The total mass-energy is constant. E=mc^2 simply
> means it can change form between mass and energy.Like all bosons, the
>
> > Every photon is also an antiphoton, for example.
>
> The counterexample that proves Relf wrong: The antiparticle of the W+ isidiot
if E--- mc2
and it is conserved
Than mass is conservws as well
Aare youintelligent enough to understnd why
If so than mass is conserved as well. ?..
Moreover
It is the only mass did you already got that there is no relativistic ass
ND EBERY HAS MASS
and no particle neds anyone or anything to give it mass
So higs is dead at arrival and
Hundred of iditsthere while finding the higs
Are aplaoding like idiot crooks
Y.porat
--------
Sorry the typing mistakes
itis from mynew tablet
Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq.
Jul 13, 2012, 10:10:41 AM7/13/12
to
<@Jeff-Relf.Me> wrote in message news:Jeff-Relf.Me@2012_Jul.12^10.37^PM...
eXergy¹ ( not energy ) diminishes over time ( net net ). [ ¹: i.e. the QUALITY of energy, the ability to do work ]
Fallacious argument, Jeff as *exergy* is a local measure only.
It is *observer centric*.
Exergy can be compared to air pressure in a car tire. Higher
pressures in the tire have greater potential energy but that says
nothing about the atmospheric pressure of the Earth, other than said has
been ever so slightly reduced because of the higher pressure in the tire. Let
the pressure in the tire leak out and the original balance will remain. So much
for your exergy having any bearing on the universe as a whole. . .
--
Sir Gregory
0 new messages