Since the putative discovery of the Higgs boson this past summer, I have heard and read multiple attempts at explaining what exactly this discovery means. They usually go along the lines of “The Higgs mechanism gives mass to particles by acting like molasses in which particles move around …” More sophisticated accounts will then attempt to explain that the Higgs boson is an excitation in the Higgs field. However, most of the explanations I have encountered assume that most people already know what mass actually is and why particles need to be endowed with it. Given that my seventh grade science teacher didn’t really understand what mass was, I have a feeling that most nonphysicists don’t really have a full appreciation of mass.

To start out, there are actually two kinds of mass. There is inertial mass, which is the resistance to acceleration and is mass that goes into Newton’s second law of and then there is gravitational mass which is like the “charge” of gravity. The more gravitational mass you have the stronger the gravitational force. Although they didn’t need to be, these two masses happen to be the same. The equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass is one of the deepest facts of the universe and is the reason that all objects fall at the same rate. Galileo’s apocryphal Leaning Tower of Pisa experiment was a proof that the two masses are the same. You can see this by noting that the gravitational force is given by

where is the universal gravitational constant, is the mass of object 1 (e.g. earth), is the mass of the second object, and is the distance between the objects. Thus if we try to compute the acceleration of object 2 in the presence of object 1 we get the equation

and the ‘s cancel out. Thus the gravitational acceleration on earth is always the same and given that movements on the surface of the earth is small compared to , which is measured to the center of the earth, then we get the usual gravitational acceleration m/s/s. My seventh grade teacher mistakenly believed that two objects fall at the same rate because the earth’s mass was so much bigger than the object’s mass.

The fact that gravitational mass is equal to inertial mass was a great mystery until Einstein showed why in the theory of general relativity. What Einstein observed was that if you were in an elevator, you wouldn’t know if you were in outer space being accelerated by a rocket, or sitting on the surface of the earth or conversely you wouldn’t know the difference between falling in a gravitational field or sitting in outer space. Hence, the two must be equivalent. However, given that you are not a point object, in actuality you could actually know the difference because on the earth you would notice that the downward acceleration is not exactly vertical but points towards the center of the earth unlike on a rocket. This is technically called tidal forces and working out these tidal forces under various conditions forms the basis of Einstein’s general relativity equations. I once remember reading a letter to the editor in the magazine Popular Science claiming that Einstein was wrong because we could detect tidal forces in the elevator experiment. This was a perfect example of how having a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Now back to the Higgs boson and what it means for endowing particles with (intertial) mass. I will save the details of the Higgs mechanism for a future post and simply sketch out what it means for a quantum particle to have mass. Everyone knows Einstein’s famous equation from special relativity: . What this means is that the rest mass of a particle has (is) energy. The more complete form of the equation is where is the momentum of the particle. A massless particle, like a photon, has no rest mass and its energy is given by its momentum. In quantum mechanics, particles are actually waves, and all waves are described by a wave equation. The Schrodinger equation is the wave equation for a nonrelativistic particle. For a wave, the energy is given by the frequency of the wave and the momentum is given by the wave number (i.e. inverse wave length). We can thus write the relativistic energy equation as

This is called the dispersion relation. We can always reconstruct a wave equation from a dispersion relation by inverse Fourier transforming and assigning and (for one spatial dimension) for a wave function . This then gives us the wave equation

This is called the Klein-Gordon equation and doesn’t actually pertain to the particles you know and love. Schrodinger actually derived this equation first but abandoned it because probability was not conserved. It makes a come back in quantum field theory for what are called scalar particles. So we see that if , the wave would travel with speed . However, for nonzero mass, the group velocity of the wave would depend on wavelength as well as always being less than . A wave packet would spread out and disperse. This is what the physicists mean when they say the Higgs mechanism is like molasses and slows particles down. It adds a term proportional to to the wave equation and adds dispersion. Now, this is still a gross simplification as the standard model of particle physics is a theory for quantum fields and not particles like I have described here. Instead of a wave function, the pertinent mathematical object is the Lagrangian of the quantum field. The wave equation is the equation of motion (Euler-Lagrange equation) for this Lagrangian obtained by extremizing the action. The mass comes in as the addition of a term to the Lagrangian that is proportional to the field squared, which yields a term proportional to the field in the equation of motion. In the standard model, the intermediate vector bosons of the weak force start out with zero mass like the photon. They acquire mass by coupling to a Higgs field, which adds the quadratic term to the Lagrangian. The mechanism is actually the same as what happens in the Meissner effect of superconductivity where the electromagnetic field “acquires a mass”. I will try to make all of this clear in a future post.

very interesting post. i didn’t know the relativistic energy equation was called a dispersive relation—though its probably in feynman’s book qed.

one can also look at http://www.arxiv.org/quant-ph/0403012 http://www.arxiv.org/quant-ph/0503195 and http://www.arxiv.org/1109.1892

LikeLike

ps the links should be http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0403012 http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0503195 http://www.arxiv.org/abs/1109.1892

LikeLike

ps2 actually http://www.arxiv.org/abs/0503198

LikeLike

famous last worlds (song by 9353 on my blog)—-www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0503198

the new york times columnist ‘uncle’ tom freedman (or fried man) wrote ‘the world is fat’ (or maybe flat) but i haven’t gone through the details of deriving this mass from basic principles. If the world is flat what’s on the outside? The fiscal cliff at the end of the universe? (The measure of the boundary of a boundary is zero—J H Wheeler (did a few things on geometrodynamics (Physical Review 1959 if i recall and had a paper on Dirac’s footnote with Feynman)—I saw him say that at U Md.

I even wrote a review for the Wash Post, since the ‘Pope’ was here at the same time and I wanted to point out not everyone goes to that same Pope—but they shut me down.

. I did hear Frances Collins (head of NIH) on C-SPAM today ; i think it was on ‘sequestration’. (They also had a talk on ‘eugenics’ by ridel (sic) of Montana State U and some rabid lunatic ex-banker on why we should sell all the public schools and let the market do what it does best). Then i went to my go-go show—familiar faces band— and faced a difficult situation but got out ok.

LikeLike

@Ishi Dispersion relation is the general term for all wave equations.

LikeLike

I would like to observe this case over singularity and what does black holes does. I would like to define ‘mass’ as ‘pile’ of matter. When some matter hits the b.h. then we loose all matter properties and wend up with antimatter as it ‘the conditions’ for ALL singularity systems. As our galaxy is just another Big machine driven by single mid positioned b.h. and it’s singularity of him. So that is also prerequisite for all others distinction singularities as we are and all matter in this whole universe is with all galaxies.So then what are black holes? I assume they are just as my view of matter it is. B.h. are just a ‘pile’ of antimatter nothing more nothing less. What happens when Super massive Sun explodes. There we can meet conditions for singularity starts to grow. There is the catch. The existence of two opposite things in this universe we call singularity. Every matter that we know in our universe from smallest particles up on scale from nano and our real scale world is ‘singularity’ in deepest meaning.So. Mass that we perceive is actually attracting antimatter that can be seen in black holes, which also claims that it may have no mass.

LikeLike

somehow i thought dispersion relations were involved in optics; but i just looked at wikipedia . dispersion is also used in classical diffusion, and one can connect them via cramer-rao (or fisher information), which can get you to heisenberg uncertainty.

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/9410056 does some of the analogies—even goes from a langevin equation to an action/lagrangian/hamiltonian formalism.

LikeLike

Any frequency-wave number relationship is a dispersion relation.

LikeLike

h(bar)v=w(lambda)

didn’t de broglie or bohm come up with this?

LikeLike

i think i missed a minus sign

LikeLike

Well I guess it was de Broglie who suggested that matter could be described by waves and associated energy to frequency and momentum to wavenumber but these relationships came from Planck and Einstein before him for blackbody radiation and the photoelectric effect.

LikeLike

just looked at wikipedia on de broglie—yeah the ‘de broglie relation’ comes from a generalization of einstein (lambda=h/p).

it’s wild looking at his list of collaborators—vigier, kafatos (of GMU) and maybe even myron evans.

his last contributions relating thermodynamics to mechanics and various least action principles seems to quite current, or similar to things i look at—-statistics=determinism (ornstein and weiss bull am ma soc 1979 or so).

some of this may be seen as ‘wack’ (but i even heard schrodinger wanted to get rid of the ‘quantum jumps’ and einstein wanted locality (not epr), disliked the primordial atom (lemaitre) and the cosmological constant (as did zwicky), and regretted the bomb.

LikeLike