See this related question: If particles are excitations what are their fields?

I ask this question because, according to a lecture, the higgs boson was frozen into a "matrix" at some point before recombination (otherwise we would not have atoms). Is this considered a field in the same way an electron field is a field? It was described that higgs was everywhere ... Is that another way of saying there is Higgs field?

This means the electron interacts with the higgs field and not with excitations of the higgs field? Or probably Higgs bosons are only excited momentarily.

Was the electron field also created like the higgs field at some point?

See here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL2BLAOVbDA

  • $\begingroup$ Could you please provide a reference for the "frozen into a 'matrix'" statement? $\endgroup$ – Frederic Brünner Sep 7 '14 at 19:53
  • $\begingroup$ Conceptually, there is no such thing as "the electron field". There is one field which can (conveniently) be broken down into different components for different simplified physical situations. All particles in the standard model originate from the same object, which, in a low energy approximation, has a few long lived components like photons and the light leptons. It's only because of their lifetime, which happens to be "long" on our scale, that we can separate these particles easily in experiments. The latter is not true for quarks, any longer, which are confined to appear in pairs/triples. $\endgroup$ – CuriousOne Sep 7 '14 at 20:53
  • $\begingroup$ @Frederic The use of the work matrix is unfortunate. But here's a link youtube.com/watch?v=hL2BLAOVbDA $\endgroup$ – yalis Sep 11 '14 at 19:40
  • $\begingroup$ @CuriousOne Not sure where this is coming from. Within the context of QFT that certainly does not seem to be the case: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory $\endgroup$ – yalis Sep 11 '14 at 19:43
  • $\begingroup$ @yalis: I didn't write the wikipedia page and I can't take any responsibility for what has been written there. It is generally acknowledged, that the standard model is a low energy approximation of "something" that we simply don't understand, yet. That's physically perfectly admissible, since all of physics is about finding approximations. However, once we start discussing philosophical matters of "reality", then we better distinguish approximations (like the electron and photon "fields" mentioned in the wikipedia article) from reality, or the concepts break at the level of quarks, already. $\endgroup$ – CuriousOne Sep 11 '14 at 23:54

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.