Originally posted by twhitehead Except we are not in need of any new physics if SR and LT fully explain the relativistic mass increase.
Well, except that one might ask why relativity theory is what it is. It must tie in with quantum mechanics in some way, but the last time I checked physicists don't know how. If the Higgs field imparts mass, and mass increases in direct proportion to velocity (at least from the point of view of an observer "at rest" with respect to a particle with nonzero rest mass), then surely there is a connection of some kind.
As it stands, modern physics is a crazy-quilt of unrelated patches: a theory for small things, a theory for large things, and so on. Future progress will consist as much of finding the connections between known phenomena as discovering new phenomena.
Originally posted by Soothfast If the Higgs field imparts mass, and mass increases in direct proportion to velocity (at least from the point of view of an observer "at rest" with respect to a particle with nonzero rest mass), then surely there is a connection of some kind.
But we are told by KazetNagorra that the mass increase is purely a result of the reference frame. So any given particle has a different relative mass depending on who is observing it. Its apparent mass is an observational quirk, not a property of the particle.
Think of it like momentum. The faster you go, the more momentum you have. But if someone is going at the same speed your relative momentum is zero. So momentum clearly can be created by some underlying field.
Originally posted by Soothfast Well, except that one might ask why relativity theory is what it is. It must tie in with quantum mechanics in some way, but the last time I checked physicists don't know how. If the Higgs field imparts mass, and mass increases in direct proportion to velocity (at least from the point of view of an observer "at rest" with respect to a particle with nonzer ...[text shortened]... consist as much of finding the connections between known phenomena as discovering new phenomena.
Special relativity and quantum mechanics have been unified already, for about 50 years or so. There is no issue here. The main challenge in modern physics today is unifying gravity (i.e. general relativity) with the rest (dark matter might play a role here).
The point with the Higgs is that it explains why particles have rest mass. Explaining why relativistic mass depends on the reference frame is not something you need the Higgs for - it follows trivially from the principles of special relativity.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Special relativity and quantum mechanics have been unified already, for about 50 years or so. There is no issue here. The main challenge in modern physics today is unifying gravity (i.e. general relativity) with the rest (dark matter might play a role here).
The point with the Higgs is that it explains why particles have rest mass. Explaining why rel ...[text shortened]... mething you need the Higgs for - it follows trivially from the principles of special relativity.
Well, when are you physicists gonna get hot and figure out which way is up when it comes to gravity, eh!?
I took a relativity course when I was too young. Got special relativity okay, but was snowed in by general relativity.
Originally posted by Soothfast Well, when are you physicists gonna get hot and figure out which way is up when it comes to gravity, eh!?
I took a relativity course when I was too young. Got special relativity okay, but was snowed in by general relativity.
The main problem when coming up with a microscopic theory of gravity is that it is hard to verify empirically - you generally don't notice gravity on microscopic lengthscales.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra The main problem when coming up with a microscopic theory of gravity is that it is hard to verify empirically - you generally don't notice gravity on microscopic lengthscales.
Here is some work down to measure gravity at distances from 100 microns to 1 mm:
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog15/node12.html
They are looking for signs of changes in Newtonian gravity to see if there are tightly curled up extra dimensions floating around. Presumably gravity would stop following the old inverse square law at some point if there was an interference with a higher dimensional line.
Actually, you've got an interesting point. Photons do not interact with the Higgs boson, and therefore always travel at c. I like where your head is at.
Higgs Boson and going close to c, related?
21 Oct '13 22:55
Back to Top