Where the Higgs field is proposed as providing mass to particles, has a mechanism been identified that sets the c limit?

Postpocelipse said:

Where the Higgs field is proposed as providing mass to particles, has a mechanism been identified that sets the c limit?

Interesting question, you mean like a corresponding field/particle as yet undiscovered

for example, for a massless particle such as the photon, would a Higgs field provide the c limit?

Cymek said:

Postpocelipse said:

Where the Higgs field is proposed as providing mass to particles, has a mechanism been identified that sets the c limit?

Interesting question, you mean like a corresponding field/particle as yet undiscovered

If mass works as proposed in Higgs theory it is plausible that c(and possibly photons themselves) is an expression of the Higgs mechanism. Spin, c and mass are fundamental properties that are likely linked. Are there further fundamental properties?

Postpocelipse said:

for example, for a massless particle such as the photon, would a Higgs field provide the c limit?

perhaps you should explain what the c limit.

Dropbear said:

Postpocelipse said:

for example, for a massless particle such as the photon, would a Higgs field provide the c limit?

perhaps you should explain what the c limit.

an explanation of how c is imposed is what I am asking for.

Dropbear said:

Postpocelipse said:

for example, for a massless particle such as the photon, would a Higgs field provide the c limit?

perhaps you should explain what the c limit.

I think he means, is there some physical mechanism that mediates the speed of light.

diddly-squat said:

Dropbear said:

Postpocelipse said:

for example, for a massless particle such as the photon, would a Higgs field provide the c limit?

perhaps you should explain what the c limit.

I think he means, is there some physical mechanism that mediates the speed of light.

As in why is the speed of light in a vacuum limited to 299 792 458 m / s, does some mechanism limit it to this speed

why would the higgs field strength limit the interaction speed between a moving magnetic field interacting with an electric field?

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

Dropbear said:

perhaps you should explain what the c limit.

I think he means, is there some physical mechanism that mediates the speed of light.

As in why is the speed of light in a vacuum limited to 299 792 458 m / s, does some mechanism limit it to this speed

Aye, it is known as the Scottie principle, ye cannae go against the laws of physics jim.

AwesomeO said:

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

I think he means, is there some physical mechanism that mediates the speed of light.

As in why is the speed of light in a vacuum limited to 299 792 458 m / s, does some mechanism limit it to this speed

Aye, it is known as the Scottie principle, ye cannae go against the laws of physics jim.

What though if the laws of physics are changeable to some degree locally using technology.

c is set by the permittivity and permeability of the free space.

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

Dropbear said:

perhaps you should explain what the c limit.

I think he means, is there some physical mechanism that mediates the speed of light.

As in why is the speed of light in a vacuum limited to 299 792 458 m / s, does some mechanism limit it to this speed

it’s not the actual speed of light that is important, it’s the fact the its constant that makes it special.

diddly-squat said:

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

I think he means, is there some physical mechanism that mediates the speed of light.

As in why is the speed of light in a vacuum limited to 299 792 458 m / s, does some mechanism limit it to this speed

it’s not the actual speed of light that is important, it’s the fact the its constant that makes it special.

So if we could increase the speed but its still constant it would be OK and not break the universe

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

Cymek said:

As in why is the speed of light in a vacuum limited to 299 792 458 m / s, does some mechanism limit it to this speed

it’s not the actual speed of light that is important, it’s the fact the its constant that makes it special.

So if we could increase the speed but its still constant it would be OK and not break the universe

it’s not quite that simple… for instance increasing the speed of light would increase the size of the visible universe

“c” is regarded as an arbitrary constant. It’s just part of the definition of “light”.

As in why is the speed of light in a vacuum limited to 299 792 458 m / s, does some mechanism limit it to this speed

see my post before.

What though if the laws of physics are changeable to some degree locally using technology.

then they wouldn’t be laws.

:-)

ChrispenEvan said:

As in why is the speed of light in a vacuum limited to 299 792 458 m / s, does some mechanism limit it to this speed

see my post before.

What though if the laws of physics are changeable to some degree locally using technology.

then they wouldn’t be laws.

:-)

Perhaps the universes programmer left the machine code behind and we can change the values

thing is you can’t just change one parameter. fundamental constants are interrelated.

>So if we could increase the speed but its still constant it would be OK and not break the universe

If c is changeable then it’s not constant :)

It’s a bit like asking “why is blue blue?”. Answer: ‘cos that’s what we mean by “blue”. Ditto, “why is the speed of light the speed of light?”

has a mechanism been identified that sets the c limit?

yes… a moving magnetic field produces an electric field which produces a magnetic field which produces an electric field etc .. this doesn’t happen instantaneously.

they probably agree with ChrispenEvan

Is the c limit the optimum limit for our universe to work properly or could a lower or higher limit work better. For example if c was twice the speed it would mean light from the sun reaches Earth twice as quick would that have any effect on us

I think C can be established mathematically divorced from measured data or observation.

c is important in the mass/energy equation, E=Mc², to the rate of fusion in the Sun would change. it might not even work.

different c would change the fine structure constant

In physics, the fine-structure constant, also known as Sommerfeld’s constant, commonly denoted α, is a fundamental physical constant, namely the coupling constant characterizing the strength of the electromagnetic interaction between elementary charged particles. Being a dimensionless quantity, it has the same numerical value in all systems of units. Arnold Sommerfeld introduced the fine-structure constant in 1916.

wiki.

ChrispenEvan said:

c is important in the mass/energy equation, E=Mc², to the rate of fusion in the Sun would change. it might not even work.

Yes that what ‘sI was wondering.
Hasn’t it being postulated that a multitude of failed universes could exist were some fundamental law is different and the universe failed to thrive, so it would seem our fundamental laws are just right so to speak.

yes cymek, called the fine tuned universe

with our thoughts, we make the world ..

Dropbear said:

with our thoughts, we make the world ..

Thank you Tathagata Buddha

diddly-squat said:

Dropbear said:

Postpocelipse said:

for example, for a massless particle such as the photon, would a Higgs field provide the c limit?

perhaps you should explain what the c limit.

I think he means, is there some physical mechanism that mediates the speed of light.

correct.

Postpocelipse said:

for example, for a massless particle such as the photon, would a Higgs field provide the c limit?

No. The photon doesn’t feel the Higgs field, which is why it’s massless. Note that Higgs-derived mass provides only a relatively small contribution to the total mass of normal matter, around 5%, IIRC. Most of the mass of a proton or neutron is in the binding energy of its quarks.

We call c the speed of light for historical reasons. Yes, it is the speed of light in a vacuum, but according to relativity any particle with zero rest mass must move at c, regardless of its other physical properties. That’s because (according to relativity) c is the natural speed limit for geometrical reasons, so if the physics says that something must move as fast as possible the geometry says that its speed must be c.

In space-time geometry, c is essentially the conversion factor relating distance through space to duration through time. A spatial interval of 299,792,458 metres has exactly the same magnitude as a temporal interval of 1 second.

In a 2D space-time diagram it’s conventional to use the horizontal axis for space and the vertical axis for time, paths in such a diagram are called worldlines. It’s usual in space-time diagrams to scale the axes so that 1 unit of space is the same size as 1 unit of time. An object at rest (in a given inertial frame) has a vertical wordline; the worldline of a photon is at 45° to the axes, and so all other geometrically sensible speeds correspond to worldlines with an “instantaneous” slope between the 45° photon line and the vertical time axis; such worldlines are called time-like. Spacetime intervals at 45° to the axes (i.e. potential paths for light rays) are called light-like.

Worldlines outside that range correspond to bodies with speeds greater than c, and are called space-like, but they are probably not physically meaningful. The mathematics of Special Relativity states that if a worldline is light-like in one inertial frame then it is light-like in all inertial frames. This is the core principal of relativity that c is invariant. Similarly, if a worldline is time-like in one inertial frame then it is time-like in all frames; and if a worldline is space-like in one inertial frame then it is space-like in all frames. So it’s not geometrically possible to create a reference frame that converts the path of a body with a space-like wordline into a “normal” time-like trajectory.

Sometimes in relativity another measure of motion, rapidity , is used in place of speed. Unlike speed, rapidity is additive, which is convenient at relativistic speeds. The rapidity of light is infinite. So if we conventionally used rapidity instead of speed nobody would bother asking why you can’t go faster than light. :)

PM 2Ring said:

Postpocelipse said:

for example, for a massless particle such as the photon, would a Higgs field provide the c limit?

No. The photon doesn’t feel the Higgs field, which is why it’s massless. Note that Higgs-derived mass provides only a relatively small contribution to the total mass of normal matter, around 5%, IIRC. Most of the mass of a proton or neutron is in the binding energy of its quarks.

We call c the speed of light for historical reasons. Yes, it is the speed of light in a vacuum, but according to relativity any particle with zero rest mass must move at c, regardless of its other physical properties. That’s because (according to relativity) c is the natural speed limit for geometrical reasons, so if the physics says that something must move as fast as possible the geometry says that its speed must be c.

In space-time geometry, c is essentially the conversion factor relating distance through space to duration through time. A spatial interval of 299,792,458 metres has exactly the same magnitude as a temporal interval of 1 second.

In a 2D space-time diagram it’s conventional to use the horizontal axis for space and the vertical axis for time, paths in such a diagram are called worldlines. It’s usual in space-time diagrams to scale the axes so that 1 unit of space is the same size as 1 unit of time. An object at rest (in a given inertial frame) has a vertical wordline; the worldline of a photon is at 45° to the axes, and so all other geometrically sensible speeds correspond to worldlines with an “instantaneous” slope between the 45° photon line and the vertical time axis; such worldlines are called time-like. Spacetime intervals at 45° to the axes (i.e. potential paths for light rays) are called light-like.

Worldlines outside that range correspond to bodies with speeds greater than c, and are called space-like, but they are probably not physically meaningful. The mathematics of Special Relativity states that if a worldline is light-like in one inertial frame then it is light-like in all inertial frames. This is the core principal of relativity that c is invariant. Similarly, if a worldline is time-like in one inertial frame then it is time-like in all frames; and if a worldline is space-like in one inertial frame then it is space-like in all frames. So it’s not geometrically possible to create a reference frame that converts the path of a body with a space-like wordline into a “normal” time-like trajectory.

Sometimes in relativity another measure of motion, rapidity , is used in place of speed. Unlike speed, rapidity is additive, which is convenient at relativistic speeds. The rapidity of light is infinite. So if we conventionally used rapidity instead of speed nobody would bother asking why you can’t go faster than light. :)

Excellent.

Note that Higgs-derived mass provides only a relatively small contribution to the total mass of normal matter, around 5%, IIRC. Most of the mass of a proton or neutron is in the binding energy of its quarks.

this point was lost on some on the old forum. thinking was if we could manipulate the higgs then we could have relativistic space travel

ChrispenEvan said:

Note that Higgs-derived mass provides only a relatively small contribution to the total mass of normal matter, around 5%, IIRC. Most of the mass of a proton or neutron is in the binding energy of its quarks.

this point was lost on some on the old forum. thinking was if we could manipulate the higgs then we could have relativistic space travel

If we could manipulate it would could be do ?

For mine, it is hard to formulate a meaningful answer to the question. c is more than just a speed limit: it represents the fundamental relationship between time and space. Meaningful questions can be asked about the relationship between other times and spaces WITH RESPECT TO c.

things would have 5% less mass. save a bit on fuel. thing is changing the higgs would be like taking the charge off an electron. not something that can be done as it is a fundamental property of an electron.

PM 2Ring said:

Postpocelipse said:

In a 2D space-time diagram it’s conventional to use the horizontal axis for space and the vertical axis for time, paths in such a diagram are called worldlines. It’s usual in space-time diagrams to scale the axes so that 1 unit of space is the same size as 1 unit of time. An object at rest (in a given inertial frame) has a vertical wordline; the worldline of a photon is at 45° to the axes, and so all other geometrically sensible speeds correspond to worldlines with an “instantaneous” slope between the 45° photon line and the vertical time axis; such worldlines are called time-like. Spacetime intervals at 45° to the axes (i.e. potential paths for light rays) are called light-like.

Worldlines outside that range correspond to bodies with speeds greater than c, and are called space-like, but they are probably not physically meaningful. The mathematics of Special Relativity states that if a worldline is light-like in one inertial frame then it is light-like in all inertial frames. This is the core principal of relativity that c is invariant. Similarly, if a worldline is time-like in one inertial frame then it is time-like in all frames; and if a worldline is space-like in one inertial frame then it is space-like in all frames. So it’s not geometrically possible to create a reference frame that converts the path of a body with a space-like wordline into a “normal” time-like trajectory.

Sometimes in relativity another measure of motion, rapidity , is used in place of speed. Unlike speed, rapidity is additive, which is convenient at relativistic speeds. The rapidity of light is infinite. So if we conventionally used rapidity instead of speed nobody would bother asking why you can’t go faster than light. :)

Hi PM. Your answer has conveniently led me back to the questions I posed re: double-slit experiment. In particular this revolves around what is more substantial, the particle or the path. ie: in my estimation it is a path that provides FoR, not the subject particle. AFAICT that provides much of the substance behind the holographic universe theory(ie: particles provide for change in a path oriented perception).

My interest has become focused on the fact that in a single photon scenario the interference pattern develops over time. I have some suspicion that the interference pattern indicates phasing of one photon with others and the single photon scenario may indicate that phasing may occur through separated time frames. If this is accurate then it indicates a block-like nature to time(AFAICT).

“My interest has become focused on the fact that in a single photon scenario the interference pattern develops over time”

err what?

if you fire single photons/particles through the slits one at a time you still get an interference pattern developing over time.

dv said:

For mine, it is hard to formulate a meaningful answer to the question. c is more than just a speed limit: it represents the fundamental relationship between time and space. Meaningful questions can be asked about the relationship between other times and spaces WITH RESPECT TO c.

Permeability/permittivity provided substance.

ChrispenEvan said:

if you fire single photons/particles through the slits one at a time you still get an interference pattern developing over time.

Which may provide a conundrum but I am still at a loss to find a definitive paradox in the double slit experiment.

dv said:

For mine, it is hard to formulate a meaningful answer to the question. c is more than just a speed limit: it represents the fundamental relationship between time and space. Meaningful questions can be asked about the relationship between other times and spaces WITH RESPECT TO c.

…… for example?

Postpocelipse said:

ChrispenEvan said:

if you fire single photons/particles through the slits one at a time you still get an interference pattern developing over time.

Which may provide a conundrum but I am still at a loss to find a definitive paradox in the double slit experiment.

The paradoxes that arise from the double split experiment come from considering things as particles or waves…

Dropbear said:

Postpocelipse said:

ChrispenEvan said:

if you fire single photons/particles through the slits one at a time you still get an interference pattern developing over time.

Which may provide a conundrum but I am still at a loss to find a definitive paradox in the double slit experiment.

The paradoxes that arise from the double split experiment come from considering things as particles or waves…

and there is no paradox there once the contributing elements are accounted for. So, paradox-like I guess…..

ChrispenEvan said:

c is set by the permittivity and permeability of the free space.

Sort of.

I think of c as being more fundamental than permittivity and permeability because c is a geometric property of the relationship between space and time, whereas permittivity and permeability are “mere” physical properties of the electromagnetic field.

So in an alternate universe permittivity and permeability might have different values to what they have here, but they would still be constrained to obey
c² μ₀ ε₀ = 1,
assuming that in the alternate universe light propagates according to the inverse square law.

And if c is different in the alternate universe (whatever that means: how do you compare measurements between universes that are in principal totally isolated from one another?), it will still be the conversion factor between spatial intervals and temporal intervals in that universe.

PM 2Ring said:

ChrispenEvan said:

c is set by the permittivity and permeability of the free space.

Sort of.

I think of c as being more fundamental than permittivity and permeability because c is a geometric property of the relationship between space and time, whereas permittivity and permeability are “mere” physical properties of the electromagnetic field.

So in an alternate universe permittivity and permeability might have different values to what they have here, but they would still be constrained to obey
c² μ₀ ε₀ = 1,
assuming that in the alternate universe light propagates according to the inverse square law.

And if c is different in the alternate universe (whatever that means: how do you compare measurements between universes that are in principal totally isolated from one another?), it will still be the conversion factor between spatial intervals and temporal intervals in that universe.

Yes. People get misled by the units we use to measure it and imagine that there ought to be degrees of freedom involved that wouldn’t affect everything else.

Postpocelipse said:

Hi PM. Your answer has conveniently led me back to the questions I posed re: double-slit experiment. In particular this revolves around what is more substantial, the particle or the path. ie: in my estimation it is a path that provides FoR, not the subject particle. AFAICT that provides much of the substance behind the holographic universe theory(ie: particles provide for change in a path oriented perception).

My interest has become focused on the fact that in a single photon scenario the interference pattern develops over time. I have some suspicion that the interference pattern indicates phasing of one photon with others and the single photon scenario may indicate that phasing may occur through separated time frames. If this is accurate then it indicates a block-like nature to time(AFAICT).

I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at re: the relative significance of a particle vs its path. I guess the path structure is more fundamental, since (as others have noted earlier in the thread) you can do the double-slit experiment with any sufficiently small particle, be it boson or fermion.

The double-slit experiment (and related experiments) tells us that we have to let go of the classical notion that a given particle always must have a well-determined path through space. To make useful predictions in such experiments we need to calculate probabilities that take into account the set of all possible paths that the particle could take. See Path integral formulation

PM 2Ring said:

I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at re: the relative significance of a particle vs its path. I guess the path structure is more fundamental, since (as others have noted earlier in the thread) you can do the double-slit experiment with any sufficiently small particle, be it boson or fermion.

The double-slit experiment (and related experiments) tells us that we have to let go of the classical notion that a given particle always must have a well-determined path through space. To make useful predictions in such experiments we need to calculate probabilities that take into account the set of all possible paths that the particle could take. See Path integral formulation

In effect it would appear that a particles task is to activate(access) a path with the nature of the path providing parameters for the result. In the case of phased radiation it appears it is the particle paths that are in phase rather than the individual photons.

Postpocelipse said:

In effect it would appear that a particles task is to activate(access) a path with the nature of the path providing parameters for the result.

A particle is just the quantized activation of the underlying quantum field. It’s not that a particle activates a particular path (or more accurately, an infinite set of paths) – the particle is the activation itself.

Postpocelipse said:

In the case of phased radiation it appears it is the particle paths that are in phase rather than the individual photons.

I don’t know what phased radiation is. Do you mean coherent radiation?

PM 2Ring said:

Postpocelipse said:

In effect it would appear that a particles task is to activate(access) a path with the nature of the path providing parameters for the result.

A particle is just the quantized activation of the underlying quantum field. It’s not that a particle activates a particular path (or more accurately, an infinite set of paths) – the particle is the activation itself.

Thank you. That is closer to what I was intending.

Postpocelipse said:

In the case of phased radiation it appears it is the particle paths that are in phase rather than the individual photons.

I don’t know what phased radiation is. Do you mean coherent radiation?

Coherent radiation as in lasers? Yes. Also as in EM field proliferation. I am investigating whether or not the double-slit interference pattern is derived from an accumulation of coherent paths, I think……

Postpocelipse said:

I am investigating whether or not the double-slit interference pattern is derived from an accumulation of coherent paths,

ie: is it possible that a photon travels only as a particle but a saturation of identical paths develops the interference pattern possibly due to a photon not being able to distinguish whether it is travelling one path or many?

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

I am investigating whether or not the double-slit interference pattern is derived from an accumulation of coherent paths,

ie: is it possible that a photon travels only as a particle but a saturation of identical paths develops the interference pattern possibly due to a photon not being able to distinguish whether it is travelling one path or many?

And. Because it’s Friday:
A Higgs Boson walks into a church.
The priest ask what he is doing there & the Boson replies. “You can’t have mass without me”.

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

I am investigating whether or not the double-slit interference pattern is derived from an accumulation of coherent paths,

ie: is it possible that a photon travels only as a particle but a saturation of identical paths develops the interference pattern possibly due to a photon not being able to distinguish whether it is travelling one path or many?

It seems likely that a path is distinguishable from the particle that accesses it. ie: a wave is a relationship between paths that is separate from the particles involved…..

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

I am investigating whether or not the double-slit interference pattern is derived from an accumulation of coherent paths,

ie: is it possible that a photon travels only as a particle but a saturation of identical paths develops the interference pattern possibly due to a photon not being able to distinguish whether it is travelling one path or many?

It seems likely that a path is distinguishable from the particle that accesses it. ie: a wave is a relationship between paths that is separate from the particles involved…..

It makes more sense that barely substantial paths can be entangled rather than particles themselves.

or is it that the path is the more substantial global quantity of a photon(or particle) while the particle itself is simply a locally differentiated variable?

> Where the Higgs field is proposed as providing mass to particles, has a mechanism been identified that sets the c limit?

It’s fair enough to claim that the photon, as a carrier of electromagnetism, sets the speed of light.

Remember that light and the speed of light pops straight out of Maxwell’s equations for electricity, magnetism and the interaction between the two. In electromagnetism, c is the square root of 1/(e_0 mu_0) there e_0 is the “absolute dielectric permittivity of classical vacuum” and mu_0 is the “magnetic permeability in a classical vacuum”. This is the mechanism that sets the value of c. mu_0 can be measured from the force per unit length between two thin straight parallel wires. e_0 can be measured from the force between two electrons a fixed distance apart.