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 does it decays?






standard-model higgs elementary-particles







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    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 does it decays?






    standard-model higgs elementary-particles







    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      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 does it decays?






      standard-model higgs elementary-particles







      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      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 does it decays?






      standard-model higgs elementary-particles




      standard-model higgs elementary-particles






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited 30 mins ago









      Qmechanic♦

      102k121831166




      102k121831166










      asked 3 hours ago









      user6760user6760

      2,53611738




      2,53611738






















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          6












          $begingroup$

          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
            2 hours 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
            2 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @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
            1 hour ago










          • $begingroup$
            @safesphere I don't understand why ATLAS should be left out of scope? Photon fusion does occur - (dde.web.cern.ch/dde/presentations/fp420_dec09/…) but if you want to say that photon fusion too rare; there's always the more common gluon fusion? nikhef.nl/pub/services/biblio/preprints/05-007.pdf Or is your problem more with the on-shell-ness of things?
            $endgroup$
            – Joshua Lin
            1 hour ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @safesphere as G.Smith points out, the amplitude of the diagram is exactly the same. The cross section (probability) and event rate can differ because of the actual ongoing & outgoing particles: it’s easier to make electrons than high energy photons in a small space.
            $endgroup$
            – Bob Jacobsen
            46 mins ago



















          5












          $begingroup$

          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
            2 hours 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
            2 hours 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
            1 hour ago












          • $begingroup$
            Yes it makes sense to me now the virtual particle that you have mentioned.
            $endgroup$
            – user6760
            1 hour 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









            6












            $begingroup$

            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
              2 hours 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
              2 hours ago






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @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
              1 hour ago










            • $begingroup$
              @safesphere I don't understand why ATLAS should be left out of scope? Photon fusion does occur - (dde.web.cern.ch/dde/presentations/fp420_dec09/…) but if you want to say that photon fusion too rare; there's always the more common gluon fusion? nikhef.nl/pub/services/biblio/preprints/05-007.pdf Or is your problem more with the on-shell-ness of things?
              $endgroup$
              – Joshua Lin
              1 hour ago






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @safesphere as G.Smith points out, the amplitude of the diagram is exactly the same. The cross section (probability) and event rate can differ because of the actual ongoing & outgoing particles: it’s easier to make electrons than high energy photons in a small space.
              $endgroup$
              – Bob Jacobsen
              46 mins ago
















            6












            $begingroup$

            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
              2 hours 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
              2 hours ago






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @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
              1 hour ago










            • $begingroup$
              @safesphere I don't understand why ATLAS should be left out of scope? Photon fusion does occur - (dde.web.cern.ch/dde/presentations/fp420_dec09/…) but if you want to say that photon fusion too rare; there's always the more common gluon fusion? nikhef.nl/pub/services/biblio/preprints/05-007.pdf Or is your problem more with the on-shell-ness of things?
              $endgroup$
              – Joshua Lin
              1 hour ago






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @safesphere as G.Smith points out, the amplitude of the diagram is exactly the same. The cross section (probability) and event rate can differ because of the actual ongoing & outgoing particles: it’s easier to make electrons than high energy photons in a small space.
              $endgroup$
              – Bob Jacobsen
              46 mins ago














            6












            6








            6





            $begingroup$

            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 3 hours ago









            Bob JacobsenBob Jacobsen

            4,436616




            4,436616












            • $begingroup$
              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
              2 hours 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
              2 hours ago






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @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
              1 hour ago










            • $begingroup$
              @safesphere I don't understand why ATLAS should be left out of scope? Photon fusion does occur - (dde.web.cern.ch/dde/presentations/fp420_dec09/…) but if you want to say that photon fusion too rare; there's always the more common gluon fusion? nikhef.nl/pub/services/biblio/preprints/05-007.pdf Or is your problem more with the on-shell-ness of things?
              $endgroup$
              – Joshua Lin
              1 hour ago






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @safesphere as G.Smith points out, the amplitude of the diagram is exactly the same. The cross section (probability) and event rate can differ because of the actual ongoing & outgoing particles: it’s easier to make electrons than high energy photons in a small space.
              $endgroup$
              – Bob Jacobsen
              46 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
              2 hours 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
              2 hours ago






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @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
              1 hour ago










            • $begingroup$
              @safesphere I don't understand why ATLAS should be left out of scope? Photon fusion does occur - (dde.web.cern.ch/dde/presentations/fp420_dec09/…) but if you want to say that photon fusion too rare; there's always the more common gluon fusion? nikhef.nl/pub/services/biblio/preprints/05-007.pdf Or is your problem more with the on-shell-ness of things?
              $endgroup$
              – Joshua Lin
              1 hour ago






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @safesphere as G.Smith points out, the amplitude of the diagram is exactly the same. The cross section (probability) and event rate can differ because of the actual ongoing & outgoing particles: it’s easier to make electrons than high energy photons in a small space.
              $endgroup$
              – Bob Jacobsen
              46 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
            2 hours 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
            2 hours 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
            2 hours 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
            2 hours ago




            1




            1




            $begingroup$
            @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
            1 hour 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
            1 hour ago












            $begingroup$
            @safesphere I don't understand why ATLAS should be left out of scope? Photon fusion does occur - (dde.web.cern.ch/dde/presentations/fp420_dec09/…) but if you want to say that photon fusion too rare; there's always the more common gluon fusion? nikhef.nl/pub/services/biblio/preprints/05-007.pdf Or is your problem more with the on-shell-ness of things?
            $endgroup$
            – Joshua Lin
            1 hour ago




            $begingroup$
            @safesphere I don't understand why ATLAS should be left out of scope? Photon fusion does occur - (dde.web.cern.ch/dde/presentations/fp420_dec09/…) but if you want to say that photon fusion too rare; there's always the more common gluon fusion? nikhef.nl/pub/services/biblio/preprints/05-007.pdf Or is your problem more with the on-shell-ness of things?
            $endgroup$
            – Joshua Lin
            1 hour ago




            1




            1




            $begingroup$
            @safesphere as G.Smith points out, the amplitude of the diagram is exactly the same. The cross section (probability) and event rate can differ because of the actual ongoing & outgoing particles: it’s easier to make electrons than high energy photons in a small space.
            $endgroup$
            – Bob Jacobsen
            46 mins ago




            $begingroup$
            @safesphere as G.Smith points out, the amplitude of the diagram is exactly the same. The cross section (probability) and event rate can differ because of the actual ongoing & outgoing particles: it’s easier to make electrons than high energy photons in a small space.
            $endgroup$
            – Bob Jacobsen
            46 mins ago











            5












            $begingroup$

            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
              2 hours 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
              2 hours 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
              1 hour ago












            • $begingroup$
              Yes it makes sense to me now the virtual particle that you have mentioned.
              $endgroup$
              – user6760
              1 hour ago
















            5












            $begingroup$

            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
              2 hours 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
              2 hours 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
              1 hour ago












            • $begingroup$
              Yes it makes sense to me now the virtual particle that you have mentioned.
              $endgroup$
              – user6760
              1 hour ago














            5












            5








            5





            $begingroup$

            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 2 hours ago









            Dan YandDan Yand

            8,34211234




            8,34211234












            • $begingroup$
              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
              2 hours 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
              2 hours 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
              1 hour ago












            • $begingroup$
              Yes it makes sense to me now the virtual particle that you have mentioned.
              $endgroup$
              – user6760
              1 hour 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
              2 hours 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
              2 hours 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
              1 hour ago












            • $begingroup$
              Yes it makes sense to me now the virtual particle that you have mentioned.
              $endgroup$
              – user6760
              1 hour 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
            2 hours 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
            2 hours 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
            2 hours 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
            2 hours 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
            1 hour 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
            1 hour ago














            $begingroup$
            Yes it makes sense to me now the virtual particle that you have mentioned.
            $endgroup$
            – user6760
            1 hour ago




            $begingroup$
            Yes it makes sense to me now the virtual particle that you have mentioned.
            $endgroup$
            – user6760
            1 hour 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 2 hours 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

                    Eastern Orthodox Church

                    Image
                    Not to be confused with Oriental Orthodoxy, Eastern Christianity, or Eastern Catholic Churches. "Eastern Orthodoxy", "Orthodox Church", "Orthodox Catholic Church", and "Orthodox Christian Church" redirect here. For other uses, see Orthodox (disambiguation). This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably . The readable prose size is 132 kilobytes. Please consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding or removing subheadings. ( January 2018 ) Part of a series on the Eastern Orthodox Church Mosaic of Christ Pantocrator, Hagia Sophia Overview Structure Theology (History of theology) Liturgy Church history Holy Mysteries View of salvation View of Mary View of icons Background Crucifixion / Resurrection / Ascension of Jesus Christianity Christian Church Apostolic succession Four Marks of the Church Orthodoxy Organization Autocephaly Patriarchate ...
                    Read more

                    Zagreb

                    Image
                    This article is about the Croatian capital city. For other uses, see Zagreb (disambiguation). City in City of Zagreb, Croatia Zagreb City Grad Zagreb City of Zagreb Clockwise, from top: St. Mark's Square, Croatian State Archives, Zagreb Tram, Art Pavilion, Cibona & HOTO towers and Croatian National Theatre. Flag Coat of arms Zagreb Location of Zagreb in Croatia Show map of Croatia Zagreb Zagreb (Europe) Show map of Europe Coordinates: 45°49′N 15°59′E  /  45.817°N 15.983°E  / 45.817; 15.983 Coordinates: 45°49′N 15°59′E  /  45.817°N 15.983°E  / 45.817; 15.983 Country   Croatia County City of Zagreb RC diocese 1094 Free royal city 1242 Unified 1850 Subdivisions 17 city districts 218 local committees (70 settlements) Government  • Type Mayor-Council  • Mayor Milan Bandić (BM 365)  • City Assembly 51 members BM 365, ZL, NS-R (14) SDP, GLAS, HNS, HSS, NH-PS (13) ...
                    Read more

                    Understanding the information contained in the Deep Space Network XML data?

                    Image
                    up vote 1 down vote favorite NASA's Deep Space Network activity can be viewed conveniently at https://eyes.nasa.gov/dsn/dsn.html but if you would like data in a more raw XML form, it can be accessed as described in this answer Below is a small Python script that reads the XML into a list of dictionaries, and saves it to disk as a JSON. The dictionaries are organized at the higher level by dish, then by spacecraft per dish. Question: What are the most-likely meanings of all the data field contained in the Deep Space Network XML data? This is the example url from the other answer, used in the script below: https://eyes.nasa.gov/dsn/data/1365107113.xml def dictify(r,root=True): # https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2148119/how-to-convert-an-xml-string-to-a-dictionary-in-python/30923963#30923963 if root: ret...
                    Read more