1. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    31 Jul '18 07:31
    Some describe the Higgs particle as the 'God particle', thus giving it divine properties. "Without it, universe wouldn't be there, it's part of the Creation!"

    My question is: What would the Universe be like without the Higgs particle?

    Would everything be mass-less? Would the Universe be nothing more than a haze of particles without any meaning. Would life be impossible, not as we know it but in any kind imaginable or unimaginable?

    I would rather give the photon the role of being more important particle than the Higgs one. Perhaps even *the* most important particle of them all. I usually give this argument to the God-particle people as a counter example. But this is quite futile because they don't know much about that either.

    Another question is: What would the universe be like without the photon?

    I would think that any chemistry is impossible, that no molecule could be formed. Everything would be dark, of course, but would the Universe still be there? Is life in any form possible, not as we know it but in any kind imaginable or unimaginable?

    And yet another question: Is there any particle, according to the Standard Model, that is completely useless? If it didn't exist, at all, we just wouldn't miss it.

    I don't think these questions have any correct answers. It's meant as a base of friendly discussion. Nothing more.
  2. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78550
    31 Jul '18 08:55
    Originally posted by @fabianfnas
    Some describe the Higgs particle as the 'God particle', thus giving it divine properties. "Without it, universe wouldn't be there, it's part of the Creation!"

    My question is: What would the Universe be like without the Higgs particle?

    Would everything be mass-less? Would the Universe be nothing more than a haze of particles without any meaning. Wo ...[text shortened]... e questions have any correct answers. It's meant as a base of friendly discussion. Nothing more.
    Most of the mass of hadrons is due to the axial anomaly, so protons and neutrons would still be massive (I think). The symmetry group of the weak force would not be broken, so mixing between SU(2) states would occur. I think you wouldn't be able to distinguish between neutrinos and electrons, although I need to look this up as for that they would need to both be charged. The photon and Z bosons we see are a mixing of the underlying neutral current and a "different" photon, so I think the charges can come out different without a symmetry breaking mechanism. This would seem to mean there effectively wouldn't be any neutrons, they would be charged and identical to protons. I'm not sure about this last bit, I'd have to check it.

    Without photons there would be no electromagnetic force. I'm not even sure if stars would form. I think that if the higher generations of particles (muons etc.) suddenly ceased to exist then nothing would change very much, but if they were not present in the very early universe then very early evolution of the universe would be different.
  3. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52617
    31 Jul '18 14:08
    Originally posted by @deepthought
    Most of the mass of hadrons is due to the axial anomaly, so protons and neutrons would still be massive (I think). The symmetry group of the weak force would not be broken, so mixing between SU(2) states would occur. I think you wouldn't be able to distinguish between neutrinos and electrons, although I need to look this up as for that they would need ...[text shortened]... present in the very early universe then very early evolution of the universe would be different.
    So the universe would be just a big ball of unchanging fuzz.
  4. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78550
    31 Jul '18 15:42
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    So the universe would be just a big ball of unchanging fuzz.
    Without the Higgs? I think atoms would still be possible. Chemistry of a sort would work. It occurs to me that electrons and neutrinos might form a bound state and pick up mass that way.
  5. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52617
    31 Jul '18 15:55
    Originally posted by @deepthought
    Without the Higgs? I think atoms would still be possible. Chemistry of a sort would work. It occurs to me that electrons and neutrinos might form a bound state and pick up mass that way.
    In our universe the electron is about 1/1000th the mass of a proton and the neutrino almost nothing. Are you saying if they somehow were to be in a bound state the mass of the pair would be significantly greater than what the two parts equal separately?
  6. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78550
    31 Jul '18 17:00
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    In our universe the electron is about 1/1000th the mass of a proton and the neutrino almost nothing. Are you saying if they somehow were to be in a bound state the mass of the pair would be significantly greater than what the two parts equal separately?
    The weak force's symmetry wouldn't be broken, so its action would be like the strong force, with confinement and an axial anomaly. So the electron and neutrino would form this bound pair with a much higher mass, probably more like the mass of pions. The catch is that this object would have integer spin, so chemistry wouldn't exist.

    In the real world the quark masses are around 3MeV, not that much heavier than electrons. Protons weigh so much because of the axial anomaly.
  7. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    15 Aug '18 13:54
    Thank you for all thoughts! 🙂

    So we need the Higg's particle if we want our universe as we have it. Yes, I agree.

    Is there any of the elementary particles, according to the Standard Model, that we *don't* need? Or do we need every one of them to make the universe work as we are used to? Like : Would we really miss the strange quark if it wasn't there...?
  8. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52617
    15 Aug '18 20:39
    Originally posted by @fabianfnas
    Thank you for all thoughts! 🙂

    So we need the Higg's particle if we want our universe as we have it. Yes, I agree.

    Is there any of the elementary particles, according to the Standard Model, that we *don't* need? Or do we need every one of them to make the universe work as we are used to? Like : Would we really miss the strange quark if it wasn't there...?
    Not sure about that one! Hey Fab, where have you been? No games yet I see. We miss your vibrant posts.
  9. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    16 Aug '18 09:19
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    Not sure about that one! Hey Fab, where have you been? No games yet I see. We miss your vibrant posts.
    Hi Sonhouse!
    No more games for me. Once chessoholic, always chessoholic. Sorry.
    Posts will come. vibrant or not. And, yes, I miss you all too! 😉

    I like the 'what if' kind of questions. This thread is about what if the Standard Model gives us more than we need. Perhaps all particles are needed somewhere, perhaps in the dark matter. Perhaps some of them are there with no reason whatsoever. Who knows. This is what this thread is about.
  10. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52617
    17 Aug '18 18:232 edits
    Originally posted by @fabianfnas
    Hi Sonhouse!
    No more games for me. Once chessoholic, always chessoholic. Sorry.
    Posts will come. vibrant or not. And, yes, I miss you all too! 😉

    I like the 'what if' kind of questions. This thread is about what if the Standard Model gives us more than we need. Perhaps all particles are needed somewhere, perhaps in the dark matter. Perhaps some of them are there with no reason whatsoever. Who knows. This is what this thread is about.
    Here is something to think about: possible evidence of what existed before the big bang, imprints on the cosmic background radiation showing possible patterns indicating what was here before the big bang:

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gravity-waves-cmb-b-mode-polarization/

    https://www.sciencealert.com/penrose-b-mode-hawking-points-sign-previous-universe-in-conformal-cyclic-cosmology

    BTW, did you ever play over the board chess, tournaments and such? If so, what was your peak rating, FIDE, whatever.
Back to Top