I’m delighted to tell you that Quanta Magazine has published an essay I have written on the *real* story of how the Higgs field gives mass to particles — avoiding those famous false analogies. There’s a musical connection, too. I hope you enjoy it! https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-the-higgs-field-actually-gives-mass-to-elementary-particles-20240903/
If you are curious to learn more about the main points of the essay, feel free to ask me questions about it in the comments below or at Quanta Magazine. (I also go into more detail about these subjects in my book.)
20 Responses
Dr. Strassler,
I very much enjoyed your article on the Higgs. It must have been challenging to make such a difficult concept easy to understand.
I’m I wrong to think of it this way?
A particle can be described as an excitement of a field. The more a (stationary) particle vibrates, the greater its mass.
Consider a child jumping on a trampoline. But the child represents a particle and the trampoline represents the universe. If the jumping child were plotted on a graph with time on the bottom (x-axis) and height on the left (y-axis), as the child jumps, time passes by. Plotted, this would resemble a wave pattern on the graph. The variance in amplitude would equate to mass. The higher the up and down jump process, the higher the mass.
But a small child jumping alone, cannot jump very high. However, if an adult joined the child on the trampoline, both could jump higher. (As long as they jumped in unision.) In this example, the adult is the Higgs field, the child is the particle. As they both jump together, both gain mass as they jump higher.
Of course, the Higgs boson would gain as much mass as it gave. I’m not sure what to do about this problem.
Am I an idiot?
Thanks,
Jackson
Not an idiot, no! But nevertheless, I’m afraid you are not on the right track here.
Working backwards: the Higgs boson has nothing to do with giving a particle mass, so let’s set that aside. It’s the Higgs field that does it. The Higgs field gives an electron its mass without itself vibrating, so the idea of there being an adult joining a child in jumping is not on the right track.
Also not in the right track is the idea that the child on the trampoline has some control over both the frequency and (especially) the amplitude of the jumping. This is often true in classical physics, where the amplitude is completely our choice as we jump, and where we are not necessarily compelled to jump at the resonant frequency.
Furthermore, in classical physics, we would naturally assume, as you have done here, that “the more a particle vibrates, the greater its mass” and that “the higher the up-and-down jump process, the higher the mass” — which equates “more vibration” with “more amplitude”.
But this is not how quantum physics works, not when we are focused on one elementary particle at a time.
For an elementary particle — a single quantum of vibration — the amplitude is not adjustable. The particle’s mass has only to do with the frequency of the vibration. Furthermore, the frequency of vibration is the resonant frequency of the field. So what the Higgs field does is change the resonant frequency of the field, thereby changing the frequency of vibration that constitutes an elementary particle, and thereby changing the latter’s mass.
So, in your analogy: imagine a child that (a) is forced to jump with the resonant frequency of the trampoline, and not with any other frequency, and (b) is forced to jump with an amplitude that is fixed by an external requirement that the child cannot change. Increasing the Higgs field now makes the trampoline stiffer, causing its frequency to increase, causing the child to jump faster (but not higher), with a resulting increase in energy and therefore mass.
It’s not intuitive. Quantum physics is not intuitive, that’s why it took so long to figure out. But it is, in fact, how the world works — and how everything around us, and within us, is constructed.
All of this is discussed carefully in my book, culminating in chapters 16-20.
Thank you very much.
Just one question. Can you cancel higgs field frequecny locally by frequency/phase tuning?
The constant Higgs field doesn’t have a frequency. It affects the frequency of other fields when they vibrate.
The Higgs boson (a vibration in the Higgs field) has a frequency. No, it can’t be canceled.
Quantization = #localization?
“The Higgs field suddenly switched on, developing a nonzero strength.”
“The cosmological constant is a measure of the (uniform) energy density associated with space.”
“It stiffens the pendulum, thereby giving it a nonzero resonant frequency (“non-zero cosmological constant”)”).”
“The CMB Cold Spot or WMAP Cold Spot is a region of the sky seen in microwaves that has been found to be unusually large and cold relative to the expected properties of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR).”
“There is no doubt: The Higgs field creates a restoring effect on many other fields, but the higgs field itself is restored from the CMB Cold Spot or WMAP?”
The fact that resonance lies at the foundation of reality is a source of delight and amazement.
In quantum field theory, a combination of quantum physics and Einstein’s relativity leads to a crucial relationship between a resonant frequency and the mass of an elementary particle:
Is the restoring effect the universe’s returning to symmetry but never quite gets there before another Big Bang occurs?
Is symmetry = quantum gravity, i.e. the fundamental force which all others are derived from?
Hi prof, about your book, I ask you, is there possible HB increase a mass size to any particle? Or, is there there possible give a wrong size of mass to this particle? Then, so what ordain the exact mass to that particle? thanks
For example, during the Big Bang, there was only H particles, that after, heavy particles was created inside stars, then It would be possible to create heavy particles only giving/increase them mass, this sequentially at every time and more heavy particles was created on linear scale? thanks.
No, it’s not true there were only H particles. The Big Bang created *all* types of elementary particles whose masses (at the time) were sufficiently low, just from particle collisions. If the temperature is T, then it is easy to make elementary particles whose masses satisfy mc^2 < k_B T, where k_B is Boltzmann's constant and c is the cosmic speed limit. As the temperature cooled, fewer types of elementary particles could be created fresh. Since almost all elementary particles decay within a second, most of them disappeared as soon as the temperature dropped so much that they could not be created again. In stars, the temperature is relatively low. Only heavy **nuclei**, which are complex objects (not elementary particles!) that have to be built step by step from smaller nuclei through subtle nuclear reactions, are created in stars. Stars are incapable of making most elementary particles because they are simply not hot enough; not even muons can be created there, and nothing with larger mass.
yes, I know that proton mass is constant, either on heavy particles, but is there any way the HB works inside stars?
These issues are completely disconnected. First, the Higgs boson has no effect on anything’s mass; it’s the Higgs field affects the mass of elementary particles. However, the Higgs field does not much affect the mass of the proton in a direct way; the masses of protons, neutrons, and other nuclear are largely set by the strong nuclear force. Furthermore, a star’s furnace is far too cool to affect the Higgs field in any way, so there’s no connection.
The Higgs field (not the Higgs boson) gives a mass to each particle that is proportional to the interaction of that particle’s field with the Higgs field, multiplied by the value of the Higgs field. [This is discussed in detail in Chapter 21-22.] For instance, the electron’s mass is set by the strength of the electron field’s interaction with the Higgs field. The top quark’s mass is larger than that of the electron because the top quark field’s interaction with the Higgs field is larger than the electron field’s interaction with the Higgs field.
We don’t know what sets those interaction strengths — their origin is one of particle physics’ greatest mysteries — or what sets the value of the Higgs field — another great mystery — but these are the quantities that “ordain” the masses of the particles.
I don’t know what you mean by “wrong size of mass.” There’s no right or wrong here; the Higgs field’s interactions get set by something we don’t know, and then the Higgs field’s value gets set by something else we don’t know, and the end result are the particle masses, like them or not.
The only things that could change the masses of particles would be (a) a change in the value of the Higgs field, or (b) a change in the interactions of the Higgs field with other fields. As far as we can tell from observation, these have not changed over many billions of years.
thanks a very lot
I think that this is the first explanation of the Higgs mechanism that has *actually* made sense to me.
That’s great to hear! (My personal belief is that it’s always better to explain things correctly, even though it’s hard sometimes, because if instead you make up something that sounds good but is fundamentally illogical, people think it through and end up more confused.)
Excellent thought provoking eassy, thank you. Amazing how just a little bit of new information can spark an avalanche of one’s imagination.
I send a post on X including an great documentary on Mahler’s interpretation of the universe. Hope you enjoy it.
Here’s a thought that burst into my mind after ready your essay on the Higgs field. It sounds to me that the Higgs field, if not the fundamental, pretty close to the fundamental harmonic of the entire universe. As you stated the photon doesn’t have mass because its move at the maximum velocity c. I presume the Higgs cannot give it mass because it’s frenquency is to far apart.
From my post:
“Searingly hot universe swarmed with elementary particles. Among its fields was the Higgs.”
– closed universe “exploding” after reaching its max density, singularity
Restoring – universe wanting to return to singularity
Stiffening – cross section of max flux aligned to Higgs
Since I posted this, another thought burst, is the a relationship between a singularity and symmetry?
Is the restoring effect the universe’s tendency to return back to “absolute symmetry”, but never quite makes it because as it collapses it will does so in a shperical space and the geometry prevents it from ever nulling out. As it collapses it will reach maximum density, singularity, and then another Big Bang occurs. Notice in this scenerio entropy will also collapse to zero and another universe will be created maybe with different initial conditions and maybe the same.
Is symmetry = quantum gravity?
Oh yes!, the planck temperature, nothing below it I read sometime (activity, energy, transformation as probability or difficulty, whatever in that direction I imagine), as my hobby outside the real on duty time, some later I started out to think in a more viable starting of it all but the other way round as not the today`s dissipation but backwards the clot or clots, more likely this way today the planck temperature as least as theory if not reality enough just today, so, still today to the theoretical collapse but the hunched degree of variation in the speed surely provided by the new states after any previous step, finally everyone elder and idle enough to get the retirement money and being any able to enjoy their own family and past any achievements even as joy apart from being just despicable as just you yourself that age, that is, passing time chatting and observing some roadworks gently carried out by the bricklayers or similar those ones always apparently emphasizing with you?,….., mass from a field as just interaction?, so both sides acid enough and different and necessary size as possibly age too and a later possibly mess to the latest situation as possibly some stiff issue regarding previous or later need connected with the availability and suitability of garments and the associated cleaning or preparations to even eating more just over there later. Not much more and it normal regularity as for me as just age of course. Just money and from the beginning and in elsewhere?, I don’t think so really, education, free time, housing, and means frequently or just desired as commonplace not always present or just available regarding the time and so forth, not any new, it is and it always was like that I’m afraid. After mess or chaos always there is a change always connected too with the type of real interaction any possibly happened, I do believe as almost lore or folklore some cases to be commented if enjoyed.
“Once upon a time…came into being…a seriously hot…with all the gamut of particles.”..
Anti particles too.
Just how hot? Is there a maximum temperature? In a tiny instant of time 10^-35 seconds ?
This isn’t an evolutionary model for the cosmos. It’s a religious beginning. Everything was there in the beginning. Wallace and Darwin would have groaned.
We don’t know how hot it was. On the one hand, there might be a maximum possible temperature, called the Planck temperature (though I don’t want to suggest that we’re sure of that; there’s no evidence one way or the other.) On the other hand, there’s no reason to believe, or evidence from observation, that the universe once was at that temperature. There’s a lot we don’t know for sure.
We do have a great deal of confidence that the universe was once much, much hotter than the interior of the Sun, up in the range of a trillion degrees, for the following reason. If you take the particle physics that we know from earth-based experiments, and you compute, assuming the temperature was once close to 1 trillion degrees, what fraction of the universe’s atomic nuclei should have been those of hydrogen, what fraction helium, what fraction lithium, etc, you get answers consistent with experiment. This is a long story — there are numerous measurements and a couple of parameters that have to be fixed by them. But if you look up “Big Bang Nucleosynthesis”, you’ll find more details. Most graduate students in astronomy, astrophysics and particle physics go through these calculations at least once, as part of their own training… after all, we’re a skeptical bunch, and we’re not going to take something on faith.
That, by the way, is what makes it not a “religious beginning.” We don’t know the immediate beginning; we don’t know the cause. I’ve just told you the most important thing we know for sure, and that involves calculations and measurements that can be done over and over again… and continue to be. If you go beyond that, you’re guessing — and scientists will make different guesses about such things.