4 ms·

I remember "The God Particle" media craze of ~2012 and how it was supposed to reveal the source of mass in the universe, and it being a huge letdown when they s

by _akhe 2y ago

I remember "The God Particle" media craze of ~2012 and how it was supposed to reveal the source of mass in the universe, and it being a huge letdown when they said there is basically a cosmic molasses permeating all of space, and that mass is "draped" over particles by the molasses. Everybody immediately lost interest in the subject when we realized we were all being played. The authors of the books and scientists who received the funding are all richer than before, but we're no closer to knowing where atomic mass comes from. CERN and the Large Hadron Collider - <JoeRogan>sometimes I don't know man!</JoeRogan> My conspiracy gears start turning knowing how many billions of dollars have flowed into this project with relatively little innovation & discovery coming out of it. This article both: 1) Acknowledges that previous Higgs claims aren't true and 2) Descopes the role of the Higgs away from its "God" like mass-giving properties and to something a lot more niche and speculative: > "In fact, the Higgs field only generates the masses of the known elementary particles. More complex particles such as protons and neutrons — and therefore the atoms, molecules, humans and planets that contain them — get most of their mass in another way." So atoms, molecules, humans and planets - anything you can actually observe and test doesn't get its mass from the Higgs. Only invisible stuff that you can only see at CERN works that way? It's too bad this work is not generally observable, testable, falsifiable, and that it requires a $5 billion black box and literal nobles to even conduct experiments (don't worry, they're planning a $25 billion one by 2038). And besides... "soup"? "molasses"? These sound so dreary, might as well call it "cosmic porridge". They should call it the King Particle and say that it "bestowes" mass unto the particles by Divine Right - that should make everyone happy.

tsimionescu 2y ago
The Higgs mechanism was always only needed to explain the mass of the elementary particles. It was always known that the mass of protons and neutrons, which account for 99.999% of the mass of atoms, is itself explained mostly by E=mc² from the energy of the strong force (interactions between the quarks which make up the proton & neutron). However, the mass of the electron is measurable, and the mass of a mole of water for example would be measurably different if the electron had 0 mass. And since the electron is not made up of anything, its mass can't be explained by the same mass-energy equivalence. The same is true for the mass of quarks, which do account for a tiny but measurable fraction of the mass of the proton and neutron. There were also other possible explanations for these masses. The Higgs was not the only candidate theory for this. So, the LLC achieved a monumental task: it confirmed which theory accurately accounts for the mass of these particles, and proved that the final piece of the Standard Model puzzle is now known.
- _akhe 2y ago
  It was mostly intended as a joke, though I really do have conCERNs about CERN and their funding:results ratio. A few things that stood out in your rebuttal: > E=mc2 Isn't this mass-energy equivalence, not a theory about why atoms have mass in the first place? Thought it was called "The God Particle" because it set out to explain "how particles got their mass" - AKA where material reality comes from, not a theory like E=mc2 at all? > both quarks and electrons are measurable yet have 0 mass Isn't there a wave:particle duality not just of light but all subatomic particles such that it can't be proven they are particles ("mass") at all but just motion propagation ("energy")? > proved that the final piece of the Standard Model Did it really? This theory says that the world is ultimately particles doesn't it? > it confirmed which theory accurately accounts for the mass of these particles With the molasses analogy it did that? How do you figure? Great discussion! Love this topic.
  - drdeca 2y ago
    > Thought it was called "The God Particle" because it set out to explain "how particles got their mass" "[...] Why God Particle? Two reasons. One, the publisher wouldn't let us call it the Goddamn Particle [...]" > Isn't there a wave:particle duality not just of light but all subatomic particles yes (and not just sub-atomic ones. You can also have this for molecules). > such that it can't be proven they are particles ("mass") at all but just motion propagation ("energy")? no. ----------- The mass of a system can be said to be [the energy of the system in the reference frame in which it has the least energy]/c^2. So, an individual photon has 0 mass, because if you change reference frames, the amount of energy can be arbitrarily close to zero. But, if you have a collection of photons with a total momentum of zero, then you can assign that collection of photons a non-zero mass. (See the thought experiment about a nearly-massless box whose interior is all perfect mirrors, and where the total energy of the photons bouncing around inside it, is high.) ------------ > With the molasses analogy it did that? Not via that analogy, no. By the actual math.
    - _akhe 2y ago
      > It was proven with math How is anything "proven" with math alone? No observable evidence needed, really? Math may help model and explain things we can already observe, but I've never heard of math discovering things that are not observed, and it being called "proof". Because obviously you can model a lot more than what's physically possible in a language like math, like for example the impossible case of an infinite number of oranges. In math I can even say "Infinity + 1" and it counts (literally). And have more oranges than what's in your infinity crate. Doesn't mean it's real or "proof" of anything in the real world. Doesn't the observation come first, and the math just explains what was observed?

by _akhe 2y ago

tsimionescu 2y ago

The Higgs mechanism was always only needed to explain the mass of the elementary particles. It was always known that the mass of protons and neutrons, which account for 99.999% of the mass of atoms, is itself explained mostly by E=mc² from the energy of the strong force (interactions between the quarks which make up the proton & neutron). However, the mass of the electron is measurable, and the mass of a mole of water for example would be measurably different if the electron had 0 mass. And since the electron is not made up of anything, its mass can't be explained by the same mass-energy equivalence. The same is true for the mass of quarks, which do account for a tiny but measurable fraction of the mass of the proton and neutron. There were also other possible explanations for these masses. The Higgs was not the only candidate theory for this. So, the LLC achieved a monumental task: it confirmed which theory accurately accounts for the mass of these particles, and proved that the final piece of the Standard Model puzzle is now known.

_akhe 2y ago
It was mostly intended as a joke, though I really do have conCERNs about CERN and their funding:results ratio. A few things that stood out in your rebuttal: > E=mc2 Isn't this mass-energy equivalence, not a theory about why atoms have mass in the first place? Thought it was called "The God Particle" because it set out to explain "how particles got their mass" - AKA where material reality comes from, not a theory like E=mc2 at all? > both quarks and electrons are measurable yet have 0 mass Isn't there a wave:particle duality not just of light but all subatomic particles such that it can't be proven they are particles ("mass") at all but just motion propagation ("energy")? > proved that the final piece of the Standard Model Did it really? This theory says that the world is ultimately particles doesn't it? > it confirmed which theory accurately accounts for the mass of these particles With the molasses analogy it did that? How do you figure? Great discussion! Love this topic.
- drdeca 2y ago
  > Thought it was called "The God Particle" because it set out to explain "how particles got their mass" "[...] Why God Particle? Two reasons. One, the publisher wouldn't let us call it the Goddamn Particle [...]" > Isn't there a wave:particle duality not just of light but all subatomic particles yes (and not just sub-atomic ones. You can also have this for molecules). > such that it can't be proven they are particles ("mass") at all but just motion propagation ("energy")? no. ----------- The mass of a system can be said to be [the energy of the system in the reference frame in which it has the least energy]/c^2. So, an individual photon has 0 mass, because if you change reference frames, the amount of energy can be arbitrarily close to zero. But, if you have a collection of photons with a total momentum of zero, then you can assign that collection of photons a non-zero mass. (See the thought experiment about a nearly-massless box whose interior is all perfect mirrors, and where the total energy of the photons bouncing around inside it, is high.) ------------ > With the molasses analogy it did that? Not via that analogy, no. By the actual math.
  - _akhe 2y ago
    > It was proven with math How is anything "proven" with math alone? No observable evidence needed, really? Math may help model and explain things we can already observe, but I've never heard of math discovering things that are not observed, and it being called "proof". Because obviously you can model a lot more than what's physically possible in a language like math, like for example the impossible case of an infinite number of oranges. In math I can even say "Infinity + 1" and it counts (literally). And have more oranges than what's in your infinity crate. Doesn't mean it's real or "proof" of anything in the real world. Doesn't the observation come first, and the math just explains what was observed?