3 ms·

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 acc

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 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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?
    - defrost 3y ago
      I was more or less with you until > Doesn't the observation come first, and the math just explains what was observed? and feel the need to point out that math for Pluto's rough position came first and directed observers (roughly) where to look; that math for symmetry groups and permutations came first and then real world applications in crypto came later; that math for non Euclidean geometry was worked upon before physical observations suggested Newton wasn't exactly correct in his mechanics and Einstein got hyperbolic about lightspeed. Math can come along before any observations are made that might suggest the math has application .. there was at least one mathematician in history that expressed a dread that their work might find an application (eg: in war, etc).
      - _akhe 3y ago
        > "math for Pluto's rough position came first and directed observers (roughly) where to look" But the math wasn't proof that Pluto existed, it wasn't proven until it was discovered.
        defrost 3y ago
        The "proof" part wasn't addressed there, just the question "Doesn't the observation come first, ..." Clearly this isn't always true, nor straightforward as the two can be intertwined in an iterative feedback. In other cases math theory domains can exist for decades prior to any observations that call upon those domains to expand or produce an applicable description for physicists or others.

_akhe 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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?
  - defrost 3y ago
    I was more or less with you until > Doesn't the observation come first, and the math just explains what was observed? and feel the need to point out that math for Pluto's rough position came first and directed observers (roughly) where to look; that math for symmetry groups and permutations came first and then real world applications in crypto came later; that math for non Euclidean geometry was worked upon before physical observations suggested Newton wasn't exactly correct in his mechanics and Einstein got hyperbolic about lightspeed. Math can come along before any observations are made that might suggest the math has application .. there was at least one mathematician in history that expressed a dread that their work might find an application (eg: in war, etc).
    - _akhe 3y ago
      > "math for Pluto's rough position came first and directed observers (roughly) where to look" But the math wasn't proof that Pluto existed, it wasn't proven until it was discovered.
      - defrost 3y ago
        The "proof" part wasn't addressed there, just the question "Doesn't the observation come first, ..." Clearly this isn't always true, nor straightforward as the two can be intertwined in an iterative feedback. In other cases math theory domains can exist for decades prior to any observations that call upon those domains to expand or produce an applicable description for physicists or others.