# How do Higgs field provide mass to other particles? [closed]

I know this question has been posted so many times here but still I have some confusions about Higgs mechanism. I watched some videos relating to Higgs mechanism and they says the Higgs field provide mass to particles like Quarks and leptons out of which other particles get mass. So here my confusion is:

from where the particles without mass comes before the higgs field provide mass to it?

Also i saw in a comment from the previous post about the higgs mechanism "The Higgs mechanism gives mass to the spin-1/2 particles in the standard model by forming a condensate which allows particles with different charge to swap helicity. In quantum field theory, a fermionic spin-1/2 particle comes in two helicities, the spin along the direction of motion, and if the helicity doesn't change, that particle is massless. A massive spin-1/2 particle consists of two helicities swapping with each other, and the mass is the rate of helicity swapping. In order to produce a massive spin-1/2 particle, you need two particles of opposite helicity with the same charges, which can flip into each other without violating charge conservation."

So does the particles have spin property before getting mass from higgs field?

So here my question is all about how the particle is before interacting with higgs field?

## closed as unclear what you're asking by John Rennie, CuriousOne, ACuriousMind♦, Gert, user36790 Mar 15 '16 at 8:32

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

• I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of "before". "Before" here means the properties of the particles if they would not be interacting with the Higgs field. If you remove the Hiigs, all particles will ave the same properties (spin,charge, helicity,...) except they will all be massless. – Mikael Fremling Mar 14 '16 at 17:11
• Have a look at Matt Strassler's article on the Higgs mechanism. This is the simplest summary I've found that actually explains what is going on. – John Rennie Mar 14 '16 at 17:50
• Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/17944/2451 , physics.stackexchange.com/q/6450/2451 and links therein. – Qmechanic Mar 14 '16 at 17:53
• @MikaelFremling I don't know where have I misunderstood about the higgs but you told that when particles don't interact with higgs then they all have the same property and all are massless as well,right? So even if they are massless they do exist. But where do they come from? – Rima Mar 20 '16 at 12:09
• @Rima The fundamental problem with (theoretcialy) correctly describing massive particles is that it actually very hart to get it right. The reasons for this are deeply mathematical and beyond the scope for this comment. We do however understand how to describe massless particles theoretically. What the higgs particle does, is that it allows us to attach masses to the particles (theoretically) is a way that is consistent. It's actually very neat. However, in the real world all particles already have masses, so there is no point in time where they actuallty where massless. It's just a trick. – Mikael Fremling Mar 21 '16 at 9:47

How do Higgs field provide mass to other particles?

Actually it doesn't. See Professor Matt Strassler talking about that here: "But in any case, the Higgs field is not the universal giver of mass to elementary particles. The Higgs particle itself gets its mass, at least in part, from elsewhere. And it probably isn’t alone". It actually gets its mass from the kinetic energy that was supplied to the colliding protons.

I know this question has been posted so many times here but still I have some confusions about Higgs mechanism.

A lot of people do. And at the heart of that confusion is that the Higgs mechanism is at odds with Einstein's E=mc² wherein "the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content". Note Einstein saying this: "The kinetic energy of the body with respect to ($\xi,\eta,\zeta$) diminishes as a result of the emission of light, and the amount of diminution is independent of the properties of the body. Moreover, the difference K0 − K1, like the kinetic energy of the electron (§ 10), depends on the velocity". He refers to electron and body on the same line. IMHO it's absolutely inconceivable that the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content does not apply to the electron.

I watched some videos relating to Higgs mechanism and they says the Higgs field provide mass to particles like Quarks and leptons out of which other particles get mass.

Do you have a link to these videos? Do they match CERN physicist Gian Guidice said in A Zeptospace Odyssey? That's a book about the LHC. On page 174 Guidice says 98% of proton mass results from E=mc², whilst electromagnetic effects and the Higgs mechanism account for 1% each. This is why Matt Strassler said "these statements that you read in the press are white lies". Other examples are the cosmic treacle, and the cocktail party.

from where the particles without mass comes before the higgs field provide mass to it?

I'm sorry, but can you rephrase this? The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content. The E=hf photon isn't a body per se. Instead it's a wave that always travels at c, you can't slow it down, and it's never at rest. It doesn't have any rest mass, but it does have a non-zero "inertial mass" related to the properties of space, which is better thought of as a measure of energy. This is why Einstein said "radiation conveys inertia between the emitting and absorbing bodies". Anyway, when you trap the photon in a mirror-box it increases the inertia aka mass of that system. Because whilst it's whizzing round and round at c, it's effectively at rest, because its average position with respect to you doesn't change. Then when you open the box, that system is a radiating body that loses mass, again like Einstein said: "if a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c²." (He used L for energy instead of E).

IMHO http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.06478 by van der Mark and (not the Nobel) 't Hooft is worth a read. My take on it is that the electron is a bit like the photon in the box. Electron/positron annihilation is a bit like opening one box with the other, whereupon both are radiating bodies losing mass. All of it. And then there aren't any boxes left.

Also i saw in a comment from the previous post about the higgs mechanism "The Higgs mechanism gives mass to the spin-1/2 particles in the standard model by forming a condensate which allows particles with different charge to swap helicity. In quantum field theory, a fermionic spin-1/2 particle comes in two helicities, the spin along the direction of motion, and if the helicity doesn't change, that particle is massless. A massive spin-1/2 particle consists of two helicities swapping with each other, and the mass is the rate of helicity swapping. In order to produce a massive spin-1/2 particle, you need two particles of opposite helicity with the same charges, which can flip into each other without violating charge conservation".

Sorry, but that's handwaving garbage.

So does the particles have spin property before getting mass from higgs field?

No. The particle gets its mass from the energy-content. That's what Einstein said. That's what E=mc² is all about. And I for one am not going to start walking around in a T-shirt like this: