1
$\begingroup$

Physicists say the Higgs Field is like syrup and slows particles down from the speed of light. Wouldn’t it be easier and more correct to say there are no particles, just fields, and the strength of the coupling of the electron, photon, quark etc. fields with the Higgs field determines their speed. This variation in speed has the same effect as inertial mass and due to the equivalence principle is the same as gravitational mass?

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It depends on the audience. Good luck explaining Yukawa couplings to the popular science audience. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 5, 2022 at 10:38

1 Answer 1

0
$\begingroup$

For people with a limited background in physics, the distinction between fields and particles isn't an easy thing to grasp. Even some of my colleagues (I'm a physics teacher) have a hard time, having never studied QFT.

When I try to explain this to a non-specialist audience with enough time, I do start with explaining the difference between the field and the particle with the following, heavily simplified vision:

  • There's one field for each type of particle.
  • Those fields are constantly present everywhere (like the Force, if there are Star Wars fans in the audience!)
  • Sometimes those fields vibrate in space-time, which generates particles.
  • The Higgs field is what other particles interact with to get mass, and since it's everywhere all the time, no particle can escape it.
  • The Higgs particle is very difficult to produce, which explains why we had a hard time doing it. And without this particle, we had no direct proof that the field even exists, so the whole Higgs thing was just an assumption until about ten years ago.

That's not the sort of explanation that you can unleash on any audience, so sometimes it's easier to just say "the Higgs" and sweep all this dust under the rug.

As for your last question, I have no idea. As far as I know, there's no known well-established connection between QFT and general relativity, so I never saw anything that links mass acquired by the Higgs mechanism to gravitational mass.

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks your clear summary. Is there anything wrong in saying the Higgs mechanism appears to give particles inertia rather than mass directly?. $\endgroup$
    – Stevex
    Commented Jul 5, 2022 at 11:42
  • $\begingroup$ Honestly, I'm not sure this is relevant in the context of QFT. I've never seen the term "inertia" used there, and if I saw it I'd understand it as completely identical to mass. $\endgroup$
    – Miyase
    Commented Jul 5, 2022 at 11:54
  • $\begingroup$ Rather than using "syrup", why not just say fields interact (couple) with different strengths. This would also explain dark matter. Normal matter couples with both electromagnetic and Higgs fields. Dark matter only couples with the Higgs field. Also, is there anything wrong in saying the Higgs mechanism appears to give particles inertia rather than mass directly? $\endgroup$
    – Stevex
    Commented Jul 5, 2022 at 12:00
  • $\begingroup$ How do you define mass in the context of a theory that has no gravitational interaction? I'm not sure the distinction between mass and intertia is relevent here. In QFT, mass is defined as a pole in the free propagator of a field, and it happens to coincide with the usual mass (after renormalization). $\endgroup$
    – Miyase
    Commented Jul 5, 2022 at 12:02
  • $\begingroup$ Has this discussion been closed by the administrators? $\endgroup$
    – Stevex
    Commented Jul 5, 2022 at 14:10

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.