Is higgs boson an elementary particle? If so why does it decays?












3












$begingroup$


Higgs boson is excitation of higgs field and is very massive and short lived, it also interact with the higgs field and thus is able to experience mass. My question is if according to standard model it is supposedly to be an elementary particle then why can it decays?










share|cite|edit









$endgroup$

















    3












    $begingroup$


    Higgs boson is excitation of higgs field and is very massive and short lived, it also interact with the higgs field and thus is able to experience mass. My question is if according to standard model it is supposedly to be an elementary particle then why can it decays?










    share|cite|edit









    $endgroup$















      3












      3








      3





      $begingroup$


      Higgs boson is excitation of higgs field and is very massive and short lived, it also interact with the higgs field and thus is able to experience mass. My question is if according to standard model it is supposedly to be an elementary particle then why can it decays?










      share|cite|edit









      $endgroup$




      Higgs boson is excitation of higgs field and is very massive and short lived, it also interact with the higgs field and thus is able to experience mass. My question is if according to standard model it is supposedly to be an elementary particle then why can it decays?







      standard-model higgs elementary-particles






      share|cite|edit













      share|cite|edit











      share|cite|edit




      share|cite|edit










      asked 1 hour ago









      user6760user6760

      2,53611738




      2,53611738






















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          3












          $begingroup$

          Most fundamental particles in the standard model decay: muons, tau leptons, the heavy quarks, W and Z bosons. There’s nothing problematic about that, nor about Higgs decays.



          Your question may come from a misconception about particle decay: that it’s somehow the particle ‘coming apart’ into preexisting constituents. It’s not like that. Decays are transformations into things that weren’t there before.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Hi I'm still not clear about this transformation, I just read it is probabilistic so higgs boson can in fact decay into many things including 2 photons so can the same 2 photons cannot transform back into higgs boson? I highly doubt so but dunno why?
            $endgroup$
            – user6760
            26 mins ago










          • $begingroup$
            Generally, particle physics reactions can go either way. Yes, if you had sufficiently energetic photons appropriately arranged, the SM says they could combine to form a Higgs particle.
            $endgroup$
            – Bob Jacobsen
            24 mins ago










          • $begingroup$
            "they could combine to form a Higgs particle" - This is incorrect. Let's take a simpler example, an annihilation of electron and positron into two photons. This happens nearly every time an electron meats a positron. Now, let's try turning this around. Please show a single evidence where two free photons in an otherwise empty space hit each other to produce an electron-positron pair. This never happens. Photons don't interact with each other, because photons interact only with electrically charged particles. (I will leave the two-photon physics and the Atlas experiment out of scope here.)
            $endgroup$
            – safesphere
            11 mins ago










          • $begingroup$
            + I think I got it
            $endgroup$
            – user6760
            11 mins ago










          • $begingroup$
            @safesphere the diagram for 2gamma to e+e- certainly exists and has a non-zero amplitude. I agree that phase factors make it small (that’s the “appropriately arranged” bit). But it was a major part of Big Bang thermalization before freeze-out, and its the mechanism for photon to e+e- pair production (via a photon from a nucleus)
            $endgroup$
            – Bob Jacobsen
            2 mins ago



















          3












          $begingroup$

          Another way to answer this question is that particles are not "elementary," not even in a given quantum field theory. Quantum field theories (like the Standard Model) are expressed in terms of fields, not particles. Particles are phenomena that the model predicts; some of them are stable, some are transient (they decay). The Standard Model is constructed using an elementary Higgs field, and it predicts a Higgs particle, which is unstable.



          Although the language "elementary particle" is very common and probably can't be revised at this point, it might be less confusing and more accurate to talk about the elementary fields used to express a model. Even that language isn't perfect, though, because some models can be expressed in more than one way, using seemingly-unrelated sets of fields. Quantum field theory is a rich subject with many surprises!






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            are u saying the excitation of the field can disturb other fields too? So the reality is just fields interacting with one another.
            $endgroup$
            – user6760
            19 mins ago










          • $begingroup$
            @user6760 I'll shy away from using the word "reality" here (because different-looking descriptions can make equivalent predictions), but yes: The way quantum field theory describes things is as quantum fields interacting with each other. A particle is one manifestation of all those fields interacting with each other. The Higgs particle involves more than just the Higgs field.
            $endgroup$
            – Dan Yand
            16 mins ago












          • $begingroup$
            @user6760 A common approximation method in QFT involves starting with a different model that has only non-interacting fields, then adding a series of "corrections" to gradually scootch the results closer to what the real model with interacting fields would predict. That's what Feynman diagrams are about, and that's what the "virtual particle" langauge is about. In a model with non-interacting fields, there is a relatively direct correspondence between fields and particles; but that correspondence becomes less direct (to say the least) in models where the fields interact.
            $endgroup$
            – Dan Yand
            4 mins ago





















          0












          $begingroup$

          A particle is elementary when there aren't subcomponents that we can identify.



          This has nothing to do with the concept of decay, and you can easily convince yourself of this fact by observing that whereas a particle (elementary or not) may decay in many different ways, the number and type of its constituents is univocally determined.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "151"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f454292%2fis-higgs-boson-an-elementary-particle-if-so-why-does-it-decays%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes








            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            3












            $begingroup$

            Most fundamental particles in the standard model decay: muons, tau leptons, the heavy quarks, W and Z bosons. There’s nothing problematic about that, nor about Higgs decays.



            Your question may come from a misconception about particle decay: that it’s somehow the particle ‘coming apart’ into preexisting constituents. It’s not like that. Decays are transformations into things that weren’t there before.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              Hi I'm still not clear about this transformation, I just read it is probabilistic so higgs boson can in fact decay into many things including 2 photons so can the same 2 photons cannot transform back into higgs boson? I highly doubt so but dunno why?
              $endgroup$
              – user6760
              26 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              Generally, particle physics reactions can go either way. Yes, if you had sufficiently energetic photons appropriately arranged, the SM says they could combine to form a Higgs particle.
              $endgroup$
              – Bob Jacobsen
              24 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              "they could combine to form a Higgs particle" - This is incorrect. Let's take a simpler example, an annihilation of electron and positron into two photons. This happens nearly every time an electron meats a positron. Now, let's try turning this around. Please show a single evidence where two free photons in an otherwise empty space hit each other to produce an electron-positron pair. This never happens. Photons don't interact with each other, because photons interact only with electrically charged particles. (I will leave the two-photon physics and the Atlas experiment out of scope here.)
              $endgroup$
              – safesphere
              11 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              + I think I got it
              $endgroup$
              – user6760
              11 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              @safesphere the diagram for 2gamma to e+e- certainly exists and has a non-zero amplitude. I agree that phase factors make it small (that’s the “appropriately arranged” bit). But it was a major part of Big Bang thermalization before freeze-out, and its the mechanism for photon to e+e- pair production (via a photon from a nucleus)
              $endgroup$
              – Bob Jacobsen
              2 mins ago
















            3












            $begingroup$

            Most fundamental particles in the standard model decay: muons, tau leptons, the heavy quarks, W and Z bosons. There’s nothing problematic about that, nor about Higgs decays.



            Your question may come from a misconception about particle decay: that it’s somehow the particle ‘coming apart’ into preexisting constituents. It’s not like that. Decays are transformations into things that weren’t there before.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              Hi I'm still not clear about this transformation, I just read it is probabilistic so higgs boson can in fact decay into many things including 2 photons so can the same 2 photons cannot transform back into higgs boson? I highly doubt so but dunno why?
              $endgroup$
              – user6760
              26 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              Generally, particle physics reactions can go either way. Yes, if you had sufficiently energetic photons appropriately arranged, the SM says they could combine to form a Higgs particle.
              $endgroup$
              – Bob Jacobsen
              24 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              "they could combine to form a Higgs particle" - This is incorrect. Let's take a simpler example, an annihilation of electron and positron into two photons. This happens nearly every time an electron meats a positron. Now, let's try turning this around. Please show a single evidence where two free photons in an otherwise empty space hit each other to produce an electron-positron pair. This never happens. Photons don't interact with each other, because photons interact only with electrically charged particles. (I will leave the two-photon physics and the Atlas experiment out of scope here.)
              $endgroup$
              – safesphere
              11 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              + I think I got it
              $endgroup$
              – user6760
              11 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              @safesphere the diagram for 2gamma to e+e- certainly exists and has a non-zero amplitude. I agree that phase factors make it small (that’s the “appropriately arranged” bit). But it was a major part of Big Bang thermalization before freeze-out, and its the mechanism for photon to e+e- pair production (via a photon from a nucleus)
              $endgroup$
              – Bob Jacobsen
              2 mins ago














            3












            3








            3





            $begingroup$

            Most fundamental particles in the standard model decay: muons, tau leptons, the heavy quarks, W and Z bosons. There’s nothing problematic about that, nor about Higgs decays.



            Your question may come from a misconception about particle decay: that it’s somehow the particle ‘coming apart’ into preexisting constituents. It’s not like that. Decays are transformations into things that weren’t there before.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            Most fundamental particles in the standard model decay: muons, tau leptons, the heavy quarks, W and Z bosons. There’s nothing problematic about that, nor about Higgs decays.



            Your question may come from a misconception about particle decay: that it’s somehow the particle ‘coming apart’ into preexisting constituents. It’s not like that. Decays are transformations into things that weren’t there before.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered 1 hour ago









            Bob JacobsenBob Jacobsen

            4,406616




            4,406616












            • $begingroup$
              Hi I'm still not clear about this transformation, I just read it is probabilistic so higgs boson can in fact decay into many things including 2 photons so can the same 2 photons cannot transform back into higgs boson? I highly doubt so but dunno why?
              $endgroup$
              – user6760
              26 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              Generally, particle physics reactions can go either way. Yes, if you had sufficiently energetic photons appropriately arranged, the SM says they could combine to form a Higgs particle.
              $endgroup$
              – Bob Jacobsen
              24 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              "they could combine to form a Higgs particle" - This is incorrect. Let's take a simpler example, an annihilation of electron and positron into two photons. This happens nearly every time an electron meats a positron. Now, let's try turning this around. Please show a single evidence where two free photons in an otherwise empty space hit each other to produce an electron-positron pair. This never happens. Photons don't interact with each other, because photons interact only with electrically charged particles. (I will leave the two-photon physics and the Atlas experiment out of scope here.)
              $endgroup$
              – safesphere
              11 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              + I think I got it
              $endgroup$
              – user6760
              11 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              @safesphere the diagram for 2gamma to e+e- certainly exists and has a non-zero amplitude. I agree that phase factors make it small (that’s the “appropriately arranged” bit). But it was a major part of Big Bang thermalization before freeze-out, and its the mechanism for photon to e+e- pair production (via a photon from a nucleus)
              $endgroup$
              – Bob Jacobsen
              2 mins ago


















            • $begingroup$
              Hi I'm still not clear about this transformation, I just read it is probabilistic so higgs boson can in fact decay into many things including 2 photons so can the same 2 photons cannot transform back into higgs boson? I highly doubt so but dunno why?
              $endgroup$
              – user6760
              26 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              Generally, particle physics reactions can go either way. Yes, if you had sufficiently energetic photons appropriately arranged, the SM says they could combine to form a Higgs particle.
              $endgroup$
              – Bob Jacobsen
              24 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              "they could combine to form a Higgs particle" - This is incorrect. Let's take a simpler example, an annihilation of electron and positron into two photons. This happens nearly every time an electron meats a positron. Now, let's try turning this around. Please show a single evidence where two free photons in an otherwise empty space hit each other to produce an electron-positron pair. This never happens. Photons don't interact with each other, because photons interact only with electrically charged particles. (I will leave the two-photon physics and the Atlas experiment out of scope here.)
              $endgroup$
              – safesphere
              11 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              + I think I got it
              $endgroup$
              – user6760
              11 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              @safesphere the diagram for 2gamma to e+e- certainly exists and has a non-zero amplitude. I agree that phase factors make it small (that’s the “appropriately arranged” bit). But it was a major part of Big Bang thermalization before freeze-out, and its the mechanism for photon to e+e- pair production (via a photon from a nucleus)
              $endgroup$
              – Bob Jacobsen
              2 mins ago
















            $begingroup$
            Hi I'm still not clear about this transformation, I just read it is probabilistic so higgs boson can in fact decay into many things including 2 photons so can the same 2 photons cannot transform back into higgs boson? I highly doubt so but dunno why?
            $endgroup$
            – user6760
            26 mins ago




            $begingroup$
            Hi I'm still not clear about this transformation, I just read it is probabilistic so higgs boson can in fact decay into many things including 2 photons so can the same 2 photons cannot transform back into higgs boson? I highly doubt so but dunno why?
            $endgroup$
            – user6760
            26 mins ago












            $begingroup$
            Generally, particle physics reactions can go either way. Yes, if you had sufficiently energetic photons appropriately arranged, the SM says they could combine to form a Higgs particle.
            $endgroup$
            – Bob Jacobsen
            24 mins ago




            $begingroup$
            Generally, particle physics reactions can go either way. Yes, if you had sufficiently energetic photons appropriately arranged, the SM says they could combine to form a Higgs particle.
            $endgroup$
            – Bob Jacobsen
            24 mins ago












            $begingroup$
            "they could combine to form a Higgs particle" - This is incorrect. Let's take a simpler example, an annihilation of electron and positron into two photons. This happens nearly every time an electron meats a positron. Now, let's try turning this around. Please show a single evidence where two free photons in an otherwise empty space hit each other to produce an electron-positron pair. This never happens. Photons don't interact with each other, because photons interact only with electrically charged particles. (I will leave the two-photon physics and the Atlas experiment out of scope here.)
            $endgroup$
            – safesphere
            11 mins ago




            $begingroup$
            "they could combine to form a Higgs particle" - This is incorrect. Let's take a simpler example, an annihilation of electron and positron into two photons. This happens nearly every time an electron meats a positron. Now, let's try turning this around. Please show a single evidence where two free photons in an otherwise empty space hit each other to produce an electron-positron pair. This never happens. Photons don't interact with each other, because photons interact only with electrically charged particles. (I will leave the two-photon physics and the Atlas experiment out of scope here.)
            $endgroup$
            – safesphere
            11 mins ago












            $begingroup$
            + I think I got it
            $endgroup$
            – user6760
            11 mins ago




            $begingroup$
            + I think I got it
            $endgroup$
            – user6760
            11 mins ago












            $begingroup$
            @safesphere the diagram for 2gamma to e+e- certainly exists and has a non-zero amplitude. I agree that phase factors make it small (that’s the “appropriately arranged” bit). But it was a major part of Big Bang thermalization before freeze-out, and its the mechanism for photon to e+e- pair production (via a photon from a nucleus)
            $endgroup$
            – Bob Jacobsen
            2 mins ago




            $begingroup$
            @safesphere the diagram for 2gamma to e+e- certainly exists and has a non-zero amplitude. I agree that phase factors make it small (that’s the “appropriately arranged” bit). But it was a major part of Big Bang thermalization before freeze-out, and its the mechanism for photon to e+e- pair production (via a photon from a nucleus)
            $endgroup$
            – Bob Jacobsen
            2 mins ago











            3












            $begingroup$

            Another way to answer this question is that particles are not "elementary," not even in a given quantum field theory. Quantum field theories (like the Standard Model) are expressed in terms of fields, not particles. Particles are phenomena that the model predicts; some of them are stable, some are transient (they decay). The Standard Model is constructed using an elementary Higgs field, and it predicts a Higgs particle, which is unstable.



            Although the language "elementary particle" is very common and probably can't be revised at this point, it might be less confusing and more accurate to talk about the elementary fields used to express a model. Even that language isn't perfect, though, because some models can be expressed in more than one way, using seemingly-unrelated sets of fields. Quantum field theory is a rich subject with many surprises!






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              are u saying the excitation of the field can disturb other fields too? So the reality is just fields interacting with one another.
              $endgroup$
              – user6760
              19 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              @user6760 I'll shy away from using the word "reality" here (because different-looking descriptions can make equivalent predictions), but yes: The way quantum field theory describes things is as quantum fields interacting with each other. A particle is one manifestation of all those fields interacting with each other. The Higgs particle involves more than just the Higgs field.
              $endgroup$
              – Dan Yand
              16 mins ago












            • $begingroup$
              @user6760 A common approximation method in QFT involves starting with a different model that has only non-interacting fields, then adding a series of "corrections" to gradually scootch the results closer to what the real model with interacting fields would predict. That's what Feynman diagrams are about, and that's what the "virtual particle" langauge is about. In a model with non-interacting fields, there is a relatively direct correspondence between fields and particles; but that correspondence becomes less direct (to say the least) in models where the fields interact.
              $endgroup$
              – Dan Yand
              4 mins ago


















            3












            $begingroup$

            Another way to answer this question is that particles are not "elementary," not even in a given quantum field theory. Quantum field theories (like the Standard Model) are expressed in terms of fields, not particles. Particles are phenomena that the model predicts; some of them are stable, some are transient (they decay). The Standard Model is constructed using an elementary Higgs field, and it predicts a Higgs particle, which is unstable.



            Although the language "elementary particle" is very common and probably can't be revised at this point, it might be less confusing and more accurate to talk about the elementary fields used to express a model. Even that language isn't perfect, though, because some models can be expressed in more than one way, using seemingly-unrelated sets of fields. Quantum field theory is a rich subject with many surprises!






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              are u saying the excitation of the field can disturb other fields too? So the reality is just fields interacting with one another.
              $endgroup$
              – user6760
              19 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              @user6760 I'll shy away from using the word "reality" here (because different-looking descriptions can make equivalent predictions), but yes: The way quantum field theory describes things is as quantum fields interacting with each other. A particle is one manifestation of all those fields interacting with each other. The Higgs particle involves more than just the Higgs field.
              $endgroup$
              – Dan Yand
              16 mins ago












            • $begingroup$
              @user6760 A common approximation method in QFT involves starting with a different model that has only non-interacting fields, then adding a series of "corrections" to gradually scootch the results closer to what the real model with interacting fields would predict. That's what Feynman diagrams are about, and that's what the "virtual particle" langauge is about. In a model with non-interacting fields, there is a relatively direct correspondence between fields and particles; but that correspondence becomes less direct (to say the least) in models where the fields interact.
              $endgroup$
              – Dan Yand
              4 mins ago
















            3












            3








            3





            $begingroup$

            Another way to answer this question is that particles are not "elementary," not even in a given quantum field theory. Quantum field theories (like the Standard Model) are expressed in terms of fields, not particles. Particles are phenomena that the model predicts; some of them are stable, some are transient (they decay). The Standard Model is constructed using an elementary Higgs field, and it predicts a Higgs particle, which is unstable.



            Although the language "elementary particle" is very common and probably can't be revised at this point, it might be less confusing and more accurate to talk about the elementary fields used to express a model. Even that language isn't perfect, though, because some models can be expressed in more than one way, using seemingly-unrelated sets of fields. Quantum field theory is a rich subject with many surprises!






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            Another way to answer this question is that particles are not "elementary," not even in a given quantum field theory. Quantum field theories (like the Standard Model) are expressed in terms of fields, not particles. Particles are phenomena that the model predicts; some of them are stable, some are transient (they decay). The Standard Model is constructed using an elementary Higgs field, and it predicts a Higgs particle, which is unstable.



            Although the language "elementary particle" is very common and probably can't be revised at this point, it might be less confusing and more accurate to talk about the elementary fields used to express a model. Even that language isn't perfect, though, because some models can be expressed in more than one way, using seemingly-unrelated sets of fields. Quantum field theory is a rich subject with many surprises!







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered 57 mins ago









            Dan YandDan Yand

            8,31211234




            8,31211234












            • $begingroup$
              are u saying the excitation of the field can disturb other fields too? So the reality is just fields interacting with one another.
              $endgroup$
              – user6760
              19 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              @user6760 I'll shy away from using the word "reality" here (because different-looking descriptions can make equivalent predictions), but yes: The way quantum field theory describes things is as quantum fields interacting with each other. A particle is one manifestation of all those fields interacting with each other. The Higgs particle involves more than just the Higgs field.
              $endgroup$
              – Dan Yand
              16 mins ago












            • $begingroup$
              @user6760 A common approximation method in QFT involves starting with a different model that has only non-interacting fields, then adding a series of "corrections" to gradually scootch the results closer to what the real model with interacting fields would predict. That's what Feynman diagrams are about, and that's what the "virtual particle" langauge is about. In a model with non-interacting fields, there is a relatively direct correspondence between fields and particles; but that correspondence becomes less direct (to say the least) in models where the fields interact.
              $endgroup$
              – Dan Yand
              4 mins ago




















            • $begingroup$
              are u saying the excitation of the field can disturb other fields too? So the reality is just fields interacting with one another.
              $endgroup$
              – user6760
              19 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              @user6760 I'll shy away from using the word "reality" here (because different-looking descriptions can make equivalent predictions), but yes: The way quantum field theory describes things is as quantum fields interacting with each other. A particle is one manifestation of all those fields interacting with each other. The Higgs particle involves more than just the Higgs field.
              $endgroup$
              – Dan Yand
              16 mins ago












            • $begingroup$
              @user6760 A common approximation method in QFT involves starting with a different model that has only non-interacting fields, then adding a series of "corrections" to gradually scootch the results closer to what the real model with interacting fields would predict. That's what Feynman diagrams are about, and that's what the "virtual particle" langauge is about. In a model with non-interacting fields, there is a relatively direct correspondence between fields and particles; but that correspondence becomes less direct (to say the least) in models where the fields interact.
              $endgroup$
              – Dan Yand
              4 mins ago


















            $begingroup$
            are u saying the excitation of the field can disturb other fields too? So the reality is just fields interacting with one another.
            $endgroup$
            – user6760
            19 mins ago




            $begingroup$
            are u saying the excitation of the field can disturb other fields too? So the reality is just fields interacting with one another.
            $endgroup$
            – user6760
            19 mins ago












            $begingroup$
            @user6760 I'll shy away from using the word "reality" here (because different-looking descriptions can make equivalent predictions), but yes: The way quantum field theory describes things is as quantum fields interacting with each other. A particle is one manifestation of all those fields interacting with each other. The Higgs particle involves more than just the Higgs field.
            $endgroup$
            – Dan Yand
            16 mins ago






            $begingroup$
            @user6760 I'll shy away from using the word "reality" here (because different-looking descriptions can make equivalent predictions), but yes: The way quantum field theory describes things is as quantum fields interacting with each other. A particle is one manifestation of all those fields interacting with each other. The Higgs particle involves more than just the Higgs field.
            $endgroup$
            – Dan Yand
            16 mins ago














            $begingroup$
            @user6760 A common approximation method in QFT involves starting with a different model that has only non-interacting fields, then adding a series of "corrections" to gradually scootch the results closer to what the real model with interacting fields would predict. That's what Feynman diagrams are about, and that's what the "virtual particle" langauge is about. In a model with non-interacting fields, there is a relatively direct correspondence between fields and particles; but that correspondence becomes less direct (to say the least) in models where the fields interact.
            $endgroup$
            – Dan Yand
            4 mins ago






            $begingroup$
            @user6760 A common approximation method in QFT involves starting with a different model that has only non-interacting fields, then adding a series of "corrections" to gradually scootch the results closer to what the real model with interacting fields would predict. That's what Feynman diagrams are about, and that's what the "virtual particle" langauge is about. In a model with non-interacting fields, there is a relatively direct correspondence between fields and particles; but that correspondence becomes less direct (to say the least) in models where the fields interact.
            $endgroup$
            – Dan Yand
            4 mins ago













            0












            $begingroup$

            A particle is elementary when there aren't subcomponents that we can identify.



            This has nothing to do with the concept of decay, and you can easily convince yourself of this fact by observing that whereas a particle (elementary or not) may decay in many different ways, the number and type of its constituents is univocally determined.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$


















              0












              $begingroup$

              A particle is elementary when there aren't subcomponents that we can identify.



              This has nothing to do with the concept of decay, and you can easily convince yourself of this fact by observing that whereas a particle (elementary or not) may decay in many different ways, the number and type of its constituents is univocally determined.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$
















                0












                0








                0





                $begingroup$

                A particle is elementary when there aren't subcomponents that we can identify.



                This has nothing to do with the concept of decay, and you can easily convince yourself of this fact by observing that whereas a particle (elementary or not) may decay in many different ways, the number and type of its constituents is univocally determined.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$



                A particle is elementary when there aren't subcomponents that we can identify.



                This has nothing to do with the concept of decay, and you can easily convince yourself of this fact by observing that whereas a particle (elementary or not) may decay in many different ways, the number and type of its constituents is univocally determined.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered 30 mins ago









                Francesco BernardiniFrancesco Bernardini

                4345




                4345






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f454292%2fis-higgs-boson-an-elementary-particle-if-so-why-does-it-decays%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Knooppunt Holsloot

                    Altaar (religie)

                    Gregoriusmis